User talk:SashiRolls

up to date. Jan 2016. Then, I made the mistake of editing a Green party VP candidate's page. ^^

interactions with neutrality

This edit of yours is not acceptable. It is a form of personal attack, specifically "casting aspersions." See also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:Civility. Please refrain from making these kinds of (baseless) comments. Neutrality^talk 01:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you're looking at that page, as indeed there have been some poor citation practices (cutting sentences apart for example). Much work was needed to render that page somewhat neutral. SashiRolls (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you like me to delete the comment?SashiRolls (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be ideal. Thank you. Neutrality^talk 03:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. The joke was clearly not a personal attack because nobody was targeted. The comment that there was an edit flurry after the nomination, suggesting that it was the Green Party who was editing his page, just struck me as wrong given the clear anti-Green bias on the page. At that time I was not aware who the main actors were. Now I am aware who the main actors are. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Referring to other editors as "Clinton spinners" is a personal attack even if you don't identify particular editors by name. That kind of language is not called for. (Neither, for that matter, is referring to other editors as nefarious "main actors" in some kind of conspiracy. Neutrality^talk 21:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's nice to meet you, sir. My apologies. I appreciate now that you may have been touchy on the subject, I didn't realize you had been made nationally famous for your work on Kaine's page just before he announced.

"The Wikipedia page of Virginia Senator Tim Kaine [...] has seen 62 edits on Friday alone. There have been almost 90 edits over the past week. Many of them originate from a user called Neutrality, a longtime Wikipedia editor who has made more than 110,000 edits to the encyclopedia. " (emphasis added) SashiRolls (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note: I am not accusing you of being a Clinton spinner any more now than I was before. It's just an amusing coincidence that I thought was worth mentioning since you criticized me on my talk page for a harmless joke.

Previous accounts

Have you edited Wikipedia previously edited Wikipedia under other usernames?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

no, I have not. I edit anonymously, i.e. not for credit, unless it is necessary to login in cases of conflict. I am not particularly interested in having a discussion with you unless it starts with an apology for your personal attack here. SashiRolls (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice

SashiRolls, if your goal is to improve the Wikipedia articles on subjects you care about, some of your behavior recently may have been counterproductive. I understand how frustration can make it difficult, but avoiding incivility is really essential. Especially if other editors are not acting in good faith, it is important for you to communicate civilly and demonstrate good faith more generally so that others can tell the difference between your behavior and theirs. Otherwise, third-party observers are going to be inclined to oppose you even when you may be correct about the substance.

Consider this excerpt from the NPOV policy: "When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, 'How can this dispute be fairly characterized?' This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides. Consensus is not always possible, but it should be your goal."

If you fundamentally disagree with that tenet of Wikipedia, it may be best to let go and save yourself the frustration. But I do believe in it. Wikipedia is one of very few places left in the world where people with diametrically opposed viewpoints attempt to discuss controversial issues with each other and forge a consensus. It's messy and imperfect, but it's pretty much the best thing we've got.

Assuming good faith and striving for civility and consensus does NOT mean letting people walk all over you. But when you feel mistreated, rather than trying to "fight back" with snarky comments and strategic editing, it's more effective to appeal to higher authority in the proper way using the Dispute Resolution process. Read the WP:DISPUTE policy carefully. It will help you to remain calm by reminding you both that there are processes available to help you and that your own conduct will be scrutinized when you do ultimately appeal to others for help. 71.13.175.226 (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your anonymous advice. I will do my best to continue my project of making the page as fair as possible. I have never been involved in a political page before and felt, after seeing multiple editors fail; I am moving forward in the only way I can, by trying to be fair to both sides. But it is ridiculous to have "would lose to a gorilla" and "bad mother" quotes on a Wikipedia page about a person. There is also a significant "stalling" campaign that is being led to make it as difficult as possible to undo the damage to the page since June. Understand, that by the very fact that I don't know you, I can assume good faith and answer, or assume it's part of a stalling campaign and spend my time elsewhere. Snark is admittedly not as effective as the clacking tongue (langue de bois... e.g. "this has already been discussed and decided".) Please feel free to work on the page rather than talking about working on the page! Happy editing. SashiRolls (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Also for info I did appeal to a superadministrator NeilN for guidance several (four) days ago, and am following the dispute process, which, in fact I have read. I did not expect the talk page to balloon as it did; that was clever strategy from Snoog. Though there may be none of this going on, having read this article and seen the strong bias of both the Baraka page and the Stein page, I have decided to act to prevent any potential "hacking" that I can, whether it be professional or amateur: Bloomberg: "How to Hack an Election" SashiRolls (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, some of your comments on NeilN's talk page were part of my motivation for offering you this advice. Accusations like this come across as "wild" because VictoriaGrayson was not using "standard rollback," which makes a difference in the guidelines. Also, ownership is a complex issue and the record (as far as I have seen) doesn't seem to show you following the recommended course of action in response to suspicion of ownership. Again, I understand your frustration, given the amount of time and effort you have obviously put into this. But if you can find the presence of mind to engage in a more disciplined way, it will both save you time and stress and also be more effective in improving Wikipedia.

As for your hacking comments, that's an interesting article you link to, but it is only tangentially related to these specific Wikipedia disputes. Again, such comments are not an effective way to address suspicions of COI. Instead, they are actually counterproductive because they make you look reckless in the eyes of those with the (difficult) responsibility of making the judgment calls on such things. 71.13.175.226 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I see who you are now and I've read your comments on the page. I thank you for your suggestions, which are solid! My problem is that, not having any sort of special rollback software, I don't know how it works, for me "roll back" in that particular case, was to revert a whole series of edits. I'm also not really that interested in trying to prove COI. I don't want to cause anyone any harm, I just want the continuous reversion of fair edits to stop. SashiRolls (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

talk Thank you for likewise posting your questions to the other users' pages as well. I appreciate it, they are good questions. Don't worry, I'm perfectly willing to be overruled, or change my position, after a fair discussion (as has been the case on the Ajamu Baraka page on occasion...) SashiRolls (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

you're doing great

don't give up. and thank you. 174.17.227.62 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

sorry I was curt on the page; I don't want things to become more inflamed, because that won't help anyone make progress. I just want the situation fixed, so that we're not always fighting about a gorilla, and can get on to the more subtle problems... for which I recognize I may not be entirely helpful, though I am trying my best to be neutral. You did make me laugh. a lot. (incidentally ^^) SashiRolls (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, SashiRolls. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jill Stein.The discussion is about the topic Jill Stein. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.175.226 (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, anon. thanks very much for your help and advice. I agree my formulation was poor in the RfC. No contest. Do take a break if you need to. I will try to too, but intend to keep an eye on the developments for a while (and may soon take further dispute resolution steps, if nobody else does first). SashiRolls (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jill Stein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Pinkney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

fixed SashiRolls (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding of consensus

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Consensus generally means that when material is challenged — particularly by multiple editors who have each stated policy-based reasons for the challenge — you do not restore the content without first discussing the issue. "Consensus" does not mean that your position is the default. Neutrality^talk 13:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your tendency to revert those who do not have an anti-Stein, anti-Baraka perspective is shocking. From the page you cited: "Consider reverting only when necessary. Reversion should be a last choice in editing: the first choice in editing should always be to improve an article by refinement, not to revert changes by other editors." I do not think you can pretend to be neutral in this discussion given your revert history. SashiRolls (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not responsive to what I said. It's regrettable that you continue to impugn and disparage those who disagree with you by merely accusing them of being "anti-Stein."Onjce again: Consensus generally means that when material is challenged — particularly by multiple editors who have each stated policy-based reasons for the challenge — you do not restore the content without first discussing the issue. Neutrality^talk 13:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I did. I posted a comment on the "Nazi" section to the talk page explaining my reasons very clearly for adding the content. No reasoned response was given other than a comment about the number of votes received at IMDB for the documentary in question. No comment has been made whatsoever concerning the citation from Hedges. The dilatory tactics continue... SashiRolls (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not accurate: multiple editors directly pointed out to you how this content (like other content you've tried to add) strays from the article subject. As to Hedges, a pending RfC also dealing with another Hedges quote (!) clearly demonstrates that a firm consensus disfavors conclusion. To ignore others' comments and accuse them of being "dilatory" is not proper conduct. Neutrality^talk 13:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What I have said is completely accurate. I would request (again) that you seek consensus on the talk page and cease hassling me on my talk page. thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

GMOs at Jill Stein

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. 

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

I am putting this notice here as a required formality, not as any sort of accusation. I am doing this because of these edits that you made: [1], which created alternative language than that which is required as a result of the Community RfC about GMOs. Please familiarize yourself with the terms of the Discretionary Sanctions, because they are subject to strict enforcement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Tryptofish, I do not believe that my edit above is not in contradiction with the proposition at Community RfC about GMOs. I am not sure why you deleted reference to European positions on GMO, as it is clearly approved by the accepted proposition at the RfC. Propose adding the full adopted proposition verbatim, signaling it as such. Please note that it is not at all clear that these discretionary sanctions apply to the Jill Stein page, insofar as that page is not in the list, and as a result I will not seek sanctions against you for reverting content contained in the approved proposition. SashiRolls (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I already said this at the article talk page, but please understand that I am not trying to be your enemy. The notice above is informational, not a threat. Also, please note that you are now up to 3 reverts at that page, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Thank you. - MrX 12:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jill Stein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to RT

Political positions of Jill Stein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nuclear energy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Jill Stein.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. This is disruptive and such behavior needs to not be repeated. VQuakr (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As you probably know, I'd corrected the edit by changing all 16 to a more descriptive name. Another editor chose a different name, before you commented. I assumed the robot would fix the orphaned references as it has every time someone has reverted one of my edits because it did not fit their views on the page. But your point is well taken. Don't count on robots to do a job you can do with a search and replace. SashiRolls (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

Please see WP:AE#SashiRolls. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

First response: I have a life and a job you know, and that job is not to edit Wikipedia. I don't know what you're doing here. Are you attacking me, or pointing through me at the original edit by Snoogannsnoogans where the 16 WaPo edits were chopped up, as described here and here? You came to the Jill Stein thread on the 20th of August, with very pointed goals (vaccines, GMOs and pesticides interventions in the article) and lots of warnings about AE in the talk thread. Your edits are sometimes very very strange Tryptofish. I like to assume good faith but this is pretty clearly trolling diff. This is not supposed to be a page about gossip. I will edit this as I have time to and add more diffs. SashiRolls (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Second response: filed. I don't appreciate you using me in your wars against Arbcom. This is you, right? --> wikipediocracy.com on Tryptofish

September 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TimothyJosephWood 10:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I have thoroughly explained your (recent) role in the snoog war (if there is an offensive against JS being led by snoog on her bio page, as I have long suspected) on the talk page, presenting you with argument concerning the content you wish to censor, including relevant citations concerning how experienced editors work around disagreement. On your talk page this morning it said you were a neo-liberal. Admit you may not, therefore, be the most "knowledgeable source" as Wikipedia says about Jill Stein. As I said there, I am open to debate, and find dodging debate highly suspicious behavior.

references Talk:Jill_Stein#WP:DUE + Talk:Jill_Stein#from_WP:Edit_warring + diff of menacing thousand-year comment, which I chose to remove from my talk page. 14:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic Ban from Jill Stein

As per the Arbitration Enforcement discussion that you are aware of, I am issuing a topic ban from the article Jill Stein and related pages on the English Wikipedia. This sanction will last until March 3, 2017. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions for details relating to the sanction and instructions on how to appeal if you wish. 19:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Amazing that such an important message should be unsigned, NuclearWarfare. Almost is if something much bigger than my own little person was afoot. Well, OK. Have it your way, then. I'll wait for further explanation. I'm satisfied with the progress I've made by putting myself on the front lines. I will probably appeal, though perhaps not immediately. Viva Wikipedia, and thank you for the message. SashiRolls (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a fairly common error in signatures. Note that in your signature in the section above, it also omitted the sign but included the time stamp. TimothyJosephWood 11:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Active AfD

As I leave off editing the pages surrounding Jill Stein on the English Wikipedia, I would like to note that there is still an open "AfD" (that is to say: a call to delete an article) here. Neutrality initiated a call to delete the Political positions of Jill Stein page, and so far seven of eleven editors have agreed, including Tryptofish, Timothyjosephwood, MrX, E.M.Gregory, (who have all been so kind as to leave me comments above) and Snooganssnoogans (who has not). Independent, third parties who have never been involved on the page Jill Stein have voted 2-0 in favor of keeping the article so far.

The call for deletion of Jill Stein's political positions page is, again, here, whether you are for or against JS having a political positions page like the other three major candidates, you too can participate in making Wikipedia a better place (but perhaps not for long). SashiRolls (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced post

Hello,

I have reverted your post here to the talk page of our biographical article about Jimmy Wales. If you're looking to bring something to the attention of Jimbo, you should post on his user talk page, User talk:Jimbo Wales. Hope this helps. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. :) SashiRolls (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016 : inappropriate punitive blocks / gag rules

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have blocked you, in part, for abusively socking with a named account. Equally if not more important, you have been editing extensively without logging in. Those edits have been to articles and Talk pages in which you participated under your named account. It is unclear what you mean by your statement on your userpage that you log in "only when it is necessary to fight for neutrality". However, what is clear is that you edit without logging in to avoid scrutiny, which is prohibited by policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, Hello. I wanted to respond to your claims. First, I have never abusively edited with a named or with an anonymous account. I have made one edit with a named account that I created named Br'er Frog. I will also note that I myself gave the evidence to ArbCom by email (Callanecc responded to a previous mail in response) which permitted my single edit with Br'er Frog to be discovered in the full knowledge that this could happen. That single productive edit is here. There is nothing abusive about this edit whatsoever. So, you may wonder why I chose not to do it under my own pseudonym, SashiRolls, since I was not banned from editing anything except pages related to the page I am not allowed to talk about even on my talk page due to a gag rule. At the time of this ban, I had obviously noticed a certain number of editors who had been following me around preventing me from doing productive editing (the frustration with this behavior led to my ban). Later, this behavior has continued on the page Haiti-United States relation (See further, the stonewalling here, where even a request for comment was (abusively) refused (diff) after two users disrupted productive editing for ideological reasons.

Having read more about the Wiki-legality of multiple accounts since this accusation of abuse, I have learned that -- as I thought at the time -- there is nothing wrong with editing under a second account. What I did not know was that Wikipedia requires for you to declare the connection between the accounts, which of course allows those seeking to prevent edits they are ideologically opposed to to keep an eye on every edit you make. Sadly, this facilitates the work of anyone potentially being paid to prevent critical editing. As such I have decided to "do my time" with honor, and declare that yes Br'er Frog was created in order to edit off the radar of any "Correct the Record" folks who may have decided to watch my account, to prevent me from adding any verifiable and reliably sourced edits which do not fit with their views. This account, the only one I have created, was used to make one change to the Washington Post page (to include reliably sourced verifiable information about their political bias during the Democratic primaries, which has not been challenged (though the unwarranted weasel word "purportedly" was added to the sentence, an act which I did not fight). EDIT: Also, it is worth noting that within hours of posting this one of those following my talk page felt the need to remove reliable sourced info (which I did not add) from the Washington Post page. diff... Should any "correct the record" (sic) types like to correct this inappropriate deletion, Fortune [2], CNN Money [3], and The Guardian [4] can be added to the already reliable source (The Intercept) that was added by the original editor, of course.

I intend, therefore, to do my two weeks time (I have refrained from editing Wikipedia anonymously during this period. Though I have run across some vandalism worth repairing on the Greek and Latin Roots page [5] (gamergate being included in the list of words containing the etymon -erg), I have chosen to respect the sentence imposed on me by Wikipedia rather than help you out.)

Once again, the whistleblower has been punished and those gaming by refusing "requests for comment" and deleting reliably sourced material without doing a simple google search for concurring sources have gotten off scot-free.

Though I definitely do not share the "conspiracy theory" focus found at Wikispooks, I do wholeheartedly concur with their description of Wikipedia here. I have ordered a copy of the book Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia, written by a Wikipedia steward, in an attempt to see if he believes there is any hope for positive change. Again, I will "do my time" knowing that I have done no damage to Wikipedia. If there are any anonymous edits that anyone wishes to put forth as being mine and as being destructive in any way, please post diffs to them after the outdent so I can defend myself. Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

References

.

.

Field cricket Gryllus pennsylvanicus

. ( hear the crickets? ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
SashiRolls (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

?

SashiRolls, what is the point of that little stab at User:NuclearWarfare on WP:AN? Drmies (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)