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)

Hi. If anyone should read this, I am just documenting some irregularities in my 48-hour rush case at AE (as opposed to the weeks accorded to most people who are brought there).

"The enforcing administrator must provide a notice on the sanctioned editor’s talk page specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued as well as the appeal process."

As can be seen above, I was not informed of the misconduct for which the sanction was issued, nor was I informed how to appeal (and as such appear to have wasted an appeal). I did not violate 3RR, and am not sure exactly what I was banned for: at the time I assumed it was for attempting to undo damage done to a BLP page by politically-motivated editors. Looking back, I see that because I had a troup of editors acting against me, I marginally lost my cool though I remained polite with all who were attacking me. SashiRolls (talk) 13:09, 3 December 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)

It was a factual statement to indicate that I am observing the terms of the gag rule he applied to me. I gather I cannot breathe the name of the candidate who made me aware of the inappropriate editing behavior on Wikipedia during the elections, so I'm afraid I can't say any more. SashiRolls (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If you would like me to redact it, just say so. SashiRolls (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know what you gathered or not. You can breathe whatever you like. If you're talking about the Jill Stein topic ban--well, that's great, and yet I wonder why you brought it up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Counterpunch_.26_The_Daily_Beast. Perhaps this is cathartic for you, but "gag rule" is of course wholly inappropriate, as was pointed out by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, and the only thing it does for us admins is confirm that there mush indeed have been some seriously disruptive behavior. You were advised, above, of the opportunities you have for appealing the block. That is what you can do. What you can not do is continue to complain about the admin or the topic ban, esp. not in terms of "censorship" or "gag rule". NuclearWarfare was just doing their job and if you think they did a poor job, appeal it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the only way to successfully appeal such action is to admit that I was terribly wrong and to apologize profusely for working to undo the hack job on the JS page during the month of August. Since you, a member of ArbCom, say that I can breathe whatever I like and that there is no gag rule, I will count on the truth of that statement and say this: Recently, the editor widely identified as responsible for the hack of the page engaged in copyright violation to introduce negative information into the BLP page (Jill Stein) sourced only to the Daily Beast (four users, including Tryptofish and Neutrality, suggested the text should be included in the page in an RfC, despite the clear copyright violation). When I had to invoke WP:IAR to protect Wikipedia from WP:COPYVIO (Talk:Jill_Stein#Plagiarism), the user didn't even apologize for it, but rewrote the sentence "A,B" as "B,A" in order to try to get around the rules. There is no ambiguity; this was not an innocent mistake. Now I have to go do my day job, Drmies, thank you for suggesting that I appeal, but please understand that I am not paid to edit Wikipedia and that I have a day job -- as you do: if I remember correctly we do similar things for a living -- which I should be devoting more time to, rather than trying to fight for net neutrality. SashiRolls (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• You willfully misunderstand. I did not tell you to appeal. No one says you have to admit you were terribly wrong etc. There is no "gag rule", but there is a topic ban, which is not a gag rule, and if you discuss Jill Stein or anything related to her one more time I will block you on the spot. You can call that a gag rule if you like, but if you do, you open yourself up to a block as well for reasons I have explained above. If those reasons are somehow not clear to you, then you should play it safe by no longer talking about this matter at all. If your "fight for net neutrality" and a crusade against a perceived copyvio means editing disruptively, against consensus, then you'll have to take that fight elsewhere: this place may not be for you. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Furthermore, that comment was a serious demonstration of non-comprehension of what actually happened at the Jill Stein page, which can be easily seen at the Talk:Jill Stein. (I am commenting because I was referred to negatively here, and I am pinging Neutrality as a courtesy.) Such a characterization, along with the very fact that SashiRolls was clearly watching the page despite the topic ban, does not bode well for what will happen when the topic ban expires. Nor does referring to the other editor as having "hacked" the page, and most certainly nor does responding to that editor by doing this: [6], [7], and [8] (thus [9]). I'm saying all of that more for the administrators watching here, than for SashiRolls. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• SashiRolls: I've basically tried to avoid interacting with you, given your past conduct, but you continue to draw my name into your constantly grievance-laden posts. The fact that you bear these incredible grudges and follow editors around is extremely off-putting. Let me give an example. Just two days ago here you go to a page that you never had interest in before (Reconquista), in order to follow around an editor you dislike (@Snooganssnoogans:) and remove his extremely well-sourced copy (which is cited to a 2016 study in the peer-reviewed Journal of Economic Growth). You claim that the reason for your revert was "grammar errors" - but of course you could have simply fixed any grammar error that existed and moved on. You also claimed that you "couldn't verify the text" behind a paywall - even though a simple check of policy (WP:PAYWALL, part of Wikipedia:Verifiability) would have shown you that your lack of access of academic databases is not a valid reason for removal. In a second edit, you claim that the article is not "a good source or a useful addition" — which makes no sense whatsoever (it's a peer-reviewed source, recent, directly on point to the article subject). The edits basically appear part of a strategy to harass Snooganssnoogans and drive him off the project. This is part and parcel of your M.O.: constantly accuse or intimate that other editors of being wrong, "paid shills," etc., in an attempt to antagonize them. This kind of content is exactly why you got topic-banned.

I'm tagging @Tryptofish: and @Drmies: for the sake of completeness. Neutrality^talk 22:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi gang. No, insofar as I could not verify the reference for Snoog's first ever participation in the article "Reconquista" I politely asked the editor to fix it him/herself given my total lack of confidence in this editor. Trypto provides a "diff" but does not provide the context for the "diff": instead of correcting two subject-verb agreement errors in a single sentence, I politely asked Snoog to do so. Only after being thoroughly insulted and seeing that Snoog cared so little about WP that s/he was not going to change the errors s/he introduced on his/her own did I act to correct the error.

Regarding your voting for inclusion of a copyright violation (and clearly not a "perceived" copyright violation), I think this speaks for itself. Trypto & neutrality, please, when you have "clean hands" then you can criticize. As it is, I'm afraid you do not. Insofar as just above your comments, I am asked not to speak about anything, I would ask you both to drop the stick and make no further contributions to my talk page since you see I am not at liberty to defend myself. You made a mistake; mistakes are human. You act as if you don't see your mistake, that is more troubling. SashiRolls (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, @Neutrality:, those who actually click on the link in your text: "In a second edit, you claim that the article is not "a good source or a useful addition" will see that what you aver is not at all what I said: "[I] corrected your S-V agreement error, but make no claim this [is] a good source or a useful addition to the project." (since I could not myself verify the citation). No reply is necessary or desired. SashiRolls (talk) 01:55, 8 November 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 that 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.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 16:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Haiti

You are invited to join WikiProject Haiti, an outreach effort which aims to support development of Haiti related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. If you'd like to join, please sign up here. L'union fait la force! Thanks!

Hi SashiRolls, due to your interests in some Haiti-related articles, thought I'd extend to you an invite to a completely revamped WikiProject Haiti. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Singapore

Hi SashiRolls, incorrupt means incorruptible, as in clean government. I note you came in as she is showing defiance in restoring the tags. I'm probably wrong, but just wondering if you are showing some support for her? Wrigleygum (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

incorrupt /ɪnkəˈrʌpt/ adjective rare (especially of a human body) not having undergone decomposition. I'm not expressing support or opposition, just fixing problems with MOS:OVERLINK as I said in the edit summary. Somewhat amused to find Wrigleygum as a very active editor on the Singapore page given the illegality of such stuff in S'pore. ^^ (any further comment should be on the article's talk page, please) SashiRolls (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I bring some in. Your edits are fine so far and not an issue with me, nor am I in a hurry with CMD's edits as I'm just discussing with him on a cordial approach when I do. Will discuss on SG talk. Wrigleygum (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Wrigleygum: I just got threatened with ANI by @Jytdog: for allegedly trying to engage in WP:PROMO on the Singapore page. I wonder if that strikes you as correct? I'm kind of in shock, he deleted his threat, but didn't retract it, nor did he recognize that his claim was entirely without merit. I'm not sure what I'm meant to conclude. Feel free to provide diffs, Jytdog, of any PROMO you think I've been engaged in. SashiRolls (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I retract/retracted it; you have not been editing promotionally at Singapore that I have seen. Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SashiRolls. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I selected such user name because it was meant to say "good bye" [to WP]. But I am still here. Shit happens. My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Всего хорошего, и спасибо за (трыпто)рыбу! ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

All right. I think your AE comments are highly inflammatory and directed against a contributor who was not really a party in some of these AE requests. That can earn you a ban from AE or one-sided interaction ban with contributor you are commenting about. However, if admins are tired (as they actually are), they might give you a topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Need cites after direct quotes

Need cites after direct quotes, please don't remove those.

Also, perhaps it might be best for you to respect my cleanup efforts while they are ongoing.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have already reverted my edit for that reason. I added the cleanup tag and got to work, I guess you want to take over. Go ahead, like I said, I'll fix it when you're done.SashiRolls (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope you'll eliminate some of the vapid quotes, but that does seem to be what you're doing, so more power to you. SashiRolls (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, removing quotes. Thank you for the compliment. Hope you are keeping warm this season. Sagecandor (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

List_of_Greek_and_Latin_roots_in_English

I've reverted your removal of gamergate there because in that case it refers to the ant species, not the harassment-related hashtag. I checked to see if it was vandalism and it was added by a reputable user as part of this diff [10] and copied over when that page was broken up. I came across it in the ongoing discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Seren_Dept 07:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Very cool! Thanks for fixing my mistake. SashiRolls (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Fake news website, you may be blocked from editing. Sagecandor (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits are [11] and [12] as noted by Calton [13] and Neutrality [14]. Please take some time to read WP:SYNTH and No Original Research. Sagecandor (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I'm neutralized. I won't participate in your discussion for a few days. Keep pruning, I did make some suggestions on the talk page for how you could improve the content of that article by paraphrasing 5 or 6 somewhat flaccid quotes. There are more where that came from.

I agree incidentally with several of the people writing on the talk page that the question on that page is not of politics but of media studies, which fits well with the lawyer and former Fox anchor Greta van Susteren writing in the L.A. Times of all places. What she writes about the "fake news" concerning the innocent online video and Benghazi is interesting, because it contrasts with what we know from the assassination of some satirists: Charlie Hebdo was indeed reacting to, and amplifying the video that she refers to in the cover that enraged much of the fundamentalist world. If you don't know the cover I'm referring to, I'm sure you can find RS about it with these keywords: Jean-Luc Godard, Le Mepris, Charlie Hebdo.

It's true that it has been argued in RS that Benghazi in 2012 had nothing whatsoever to do with such hurt feelings, but rather with a strategic action, but you probably know that. So I'll just wait for that article to digest, and see what others think. If y'all don't think we should talk about the gradations between fake news, satire, clickbait, and spin outlets, that there is a thing such as "fake news" that is narrowly associated with one particularly russki type propaganda, well OK, then. Be well, kind sage & company, and know that many languages don't capitalize nationalities or the first person subject pronoun. :) SashiRolls (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

References

The article is about fake news sites: you want to concoct some original research, go find a media-studies journal for your work. If -- as seems much more likely -- this is yet another attempt at grinding your "Clintons are evil" axe, be warned that continuing this is likely to get you a visit to the WP:AE page. --Calton | Talk 23:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please take your anger elsewhere. I certainly do not believe that the "Clintons are evil." as you put it. I would appreciate that you refrain from commenting on my talk page. Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the link...

where Bishonen wrote "it has its own gallows on the jobsite"? Thank you. KamelTebaast 03:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

In the "cons" section. [15] SashiRolls (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I read this in that section: "Hidden Tempo only changed his AE text under the gallows..." I did not see where it said it has its own gallows on the jobsite. Thanks. KamelTebaast 04:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not citing her with the rigor demanded of article space, I suppose. I'm going to leave Bishonen alone, she seems nice enough, she's got a cool kid dragon and I do agree with her that AE is sort of a gallows (or more accurately a place where people throw rocks). Having received one in the eye there once or twice, my plan is to steer clear and learn something elsewhere. But yes AE is "on the jobsite" when Wikipedia becomes more like an unpaid job having to respond to criticism of an edit you made in a totally unrelated appeals court case (this in the context of someone throwing themselves on their sword, again, to defend another the same (somewhat) provocative, but defensible (I hope) edit I made and getting themselves blocked). Bishonen and Maslowsneeds responses' may have been the wisest, they didn't even bother to respond and the noise faded away. SashiRolls (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Just thought it was such a great quote that I wanted to see the original source. Now you get credit! Thanks KamelTebaast 22:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've read your case and must admit I probably wouldn't edit WP on the way into surgery, but on the other hand, if it was minor surgery I surely wouldn't expect to find myself on AE when I woke up for having pushed the undo button. It was polite that you were given time to recover before being required to defend yourself. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Case with Sagecandor

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I would appreciate if you would would also take a look if you have problems with this user, go to the notice board link to see the case.--Crossswords (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this note. I've posted a statement. By the way, that's a fun third s in "Cross words". You tricked me :P SashiRolls (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The archived version of this discussion is here. SashiRolls (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for comment

Hey SashiRolls, thanks for your comment on Jimbo's Talk. I feel like it's not much to ask statements to be attributed in Wikipedia articles - that it may actually be policy? - but trying to ask for this anywhere in the ever growing mountain of US-Russia article world is like trying to catch water with a sieve. -Darouet (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair use images on Wikipedia

Please read WP:FAIRUSE.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of a CC BY image of Putin for this Putinphobic page, while including a logo without authorization from PropOrNot is entirely inappropriate. SashiRolls (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Request from Sagecandor

You seem unable to communicate without simultaneously using ad hominem.

Therefore, I respectfully request you not to post to my user talk page again.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully asked as E.M. Gregory did above (concerning my own account) if you had edited wikipedia before as another user. This is not ad hominem, but a request for information. Here is the deleted question: diff. No reply is necessary or desired (unless made on your page and in reply to the question asked). SashiRolls (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Reminder about DS on American politics

You were notified of DS above. Yet you made this comment, were warned about it twice, (here and here), yet you dismissed that here, and the comment still stands, unredacted.

This is the kind of thing that becomes part of an AE and leads to TBANs. Please don't write things like that and if you make the mistake of doing so - and especially if it is called out - please redact it. If you don't know how to redact, see WP:REDACT. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I forgot I had left some text in two paragraphs (instead of just one) in the previous edit, and went back immediately to make my meaning clear. That's total "gotcha" diff screenshooting to show that first word salad. You guys are all bringing out your POV forks. It's a fact. Why? There's no PA, just a desire to understand your POV. Unfortunately, you only say "obvious POV fork" or "blatant POV fork" without argument, then post talk page warnings. I don't get that gaming diffs mentality, Jytdog, really I don't. I'm not sensitive, can't be in these pages, but seriously, ... what do you want me to do? add a strike through the words currently on the page? Please focus on content if you wish to contribute, not on leaving users threatening messages for noting 4 consecutive "fork" comment, the last two of which have no argument. Please, you and User:Volunteer Marek should submit your logic to debate. SashiRolls (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It is an obvious POV fork. This is obvious to experienced, uninvolved editors. I am sorry you don't understand. Here is why -- - a) there was no reason for the split; it is not like any of the articles about the honduran elections were too long such that this topic this needed its own article to de-clutter something else; b) the title of the article is obviously parallel to the Russia/US elections article; c) it was created by someone who was making edits opposing claims of russian involvement in US elections. It was also what we call WP:POINTY. Again this is all obvious to uninvolved, experienced editors.

And you are heading directly for a TBAN from american politics. You can hear that or not. You have still not struck the personal attack you made at the deletion discussion and your dismissive remark is still there. Not promising for you. So be it; it is your WP career to guide how you wish. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

For redacting ok will do it. Just saw an egregious example of this on Talk:Sciences Po, and will retract my images about forks and spoons. There should be a foreign influence in elections section in every national election, probably. And a category permitting the extraction of that information. But that's the semantic naming question... SashiRolls (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions

Re [16]. You know very well that you're not supposed to restore content which has been challanged by reversion. So please self-revert.

Also, really, the source is unnecessary, since there are several others and doesn't add anything. In fact it's a bit off topic.

And also also, you are also aware that the burden of consensus is on YOU if you wish to include this source. So your job to go to talk and convince others, not mine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see a DS template on that talk page.  ??? I looked. I agree with OP that your removal of a reliable source was unnecessary. @Bishonen:, Is this page under DS? SashiRolls (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. The page is of course under the general American politics discretionary sanctions, but not under page-level sanctions, so you're mistaken, Volunteer Marek. For a page to be under page-level sanctions, which often involve 1RR and the obtain-consensus-before-reinstating-challenged-edits rule, an admin needs to a) place a note about it on the talkpage, and b) log it here. Compare the discussion in these two recent sections on my talkpage: [17][18]. They're full of information and links. Bishonen | talk 15:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC).

Alright. Well, that still doesn't change the fact that the reference is unnecessary since there are already others present, that it is essentially off topic, and that the burden for inclusion is on those who wish to include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, very much to both of you. I'll open up a talk section if you like V_M and ping OP. The problem with these talk pages is that in the short run they are time-consuming, and in the long run they look bad for those seeking to delete without reason (WP being a panoptical space). I looked through the 500+ references in that article, there are a lot worse (campaign promo material, which is probably marginally ok since it's her pol position's page, several articles titled "None" (fact-checks I gather), and general center-left-weightedness)). Do you really want for me to put you on record as being opposed to adding that article, or would you prefer to do that yourself? SashiRolls (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just remove the unnecessary source and start a talk page discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely prohibited from commenting in AE requests to which you are not a party.

You have been sanctioned per this AE discussion.

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. T. Canens (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

consensus

Re: [19] . You know very well that it is up to you to get consensus to include this material and make these changes. Based on talk page discussion, such consensus does not exist. Please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You are reverting two people's edits that very much do seem to have consensus on the talk page. Don't know if you've read it lately. Stop warring. SashiRolls (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No, none of these edits have consensus, as disagreements on talk clearly illustrate. They also violate Wikipedia editorial policy. Really, please self revert and discuss on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk on the talk page, you have not participated in the active debates. SashiRolls (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course I have, don't make stuff up which isn't true. And one more time, get consensus before making controversial changes and for the time being, self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I also would like to ask User:Bishonen to add discretionary sanctions to this page as well, since that seems to be the only thing which is stopping you, Sashi, from edit warring and battlegroundin' across this topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, no, I will not add page-level discretionary sanctions to a page to stop one user from disrupting it (as you say they've been doing; I haven't had time to look for myself). Page sanctions such as 1RR are serious business and always carry a risk of gaming, compare User:MrX's comment here on my page. PropOrNot is of course under the general post-1932 discretionary sanctions, which SashiRolls has been warned about; I think that ought to be enough. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC).

You're missing out on some personal attacks and VM trying to goad me into discussion of things I'm not allowed to, concerning The Daily Beast. Perhaps he'll bring it to AE, and I will be soaked in pickled ginger. :) SashiRolls (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I was peacefully working on Singapore and the New Orleans Riot (1866) until I saw that there was another move afoot to delete reliably sourced material (but based on a misunderstanding of the sources already present in the article I think). Cf. recent talk page additions (sashi who forgot to sign, before Bishonen stopped by)

Curious

Curious how and why you are showing up at Talk:And you are lynching Negroes, having never edited there before — seemingly to complain about my motivation for improving the article.

I certainly hope it doesn't have anything to do with your recent sanction [20] by Timotheus Canens, as an attempt to screw with me.

Perhaps it would be best to try to avoid each other — and avoid engaging in personal attacks in the form of ad hominem. Sagecandor (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

via RfC. The See Also section there is mighty snarky. ^^ Yes, I am keeping an eye on you from afar, you work with such dazzling speed! :) —SashiRolls (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)