User talk:SashiRolls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Unblock request[edit]

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

SashiRolls (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

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

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

Unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

SashiRolls (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

An Arb has suggested that I follow the template for appealing that can be found at the en.wp guide to appealing blocks as closely as possible. So here we go:
  • State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration.
I do not believe I should still be blocked for WP:NOTHERE. My record of contributions at fr.wp [1], en.wikiversity [2], meta [3], and even simple.wp [4] show that I've been able to improve WMF "knowledge" products while trying to contribute or just learn from meta-reflections and how-tos in more effective places. I have even contributed to en.wp occasionally through people who thought my proposed text was a reasonable improvement and added it in their own name. I have not violated any en.wp rules during the period of my block. Concerning the rest of the accusations in the block record, I will be frank. I do not believe I should have ever been blocked for "harassment and intimidation". That is simply smear.
  • Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block).
After over a year of being blocked I have still had no further explanation from @GoldenRing: concerning the "harassment and intimidation" claims (no reply to any email in fact, so I stopped trying long ago). If he still stands by his block, I would be happy to hear why.
  • Give evidence.
Let's stick to the basics of the affair I was blocked over:
  1. I commented at AN/I when Crossswords drew my attention to an incident they had filed (§).
  2. I followed a bot notification to an RfC on a page in American politics called "And you are lynching Negroes" which caught my attention. As a result, I was blocked by Dennis Brown on Sagecandor's request (§) for 6 months for "wiki-hounding". Dennis Brown has since defended his block as being "community-based", although I suspect they've realized the error of that (very small) "community" by now, since they've been a regular WO reader in the two years since.
  3. After being blocked I learned a fair bit about the history of the en.wp editing environment by reading the critical fora and continued to observe the political sphere. It was no secret that Sagecandor had begun writing a lot of book reports in the weeks before my return, and when I noticed them adding to the en.wp Bibliography of Donald Trump, I thought it wise to try to inform the readers what was going on. I was blocked indefinitely on Sagecandor's request (§) as a result of documenting this on the talk page.
  4. It has been suggested to me that a better approach would have been to start an SPI as was done when they returned to en.wp in 2018, after at least a half-dozen people had worked to compile the evidence adduced in that SPI. (§)
  5. I have remained interested in Wikipedia and its problems. I wrote an article and compiled a lot of data concerning Wikipedian sourcing § while blocked.
  6. In October 2018, the Arbitration Committee removed the second layer of block they had placed on me to solve the problem of the smear about "harrassment and intimidation" being broadcast to anyone who clicked on my user-name.
Again, if Goldenring (§) would like to defend the use of the words harassment & intimidation, I would listen to whatever they had to say, but I think the facts show otherwise. I remember reading in the guidelines not to leave out the background. Essential reading is Cirt's established MO of asking for action against so-called wikihounds on trumped-up charges. (§)
I would be touched if Goldenring would unblock me personally with an edit summary retracting his caricature of straightforward observation as "harassment and intimidation".
Thank you for taking the time to read this request for administrative review of the two blocks that Cirt requested be placed on my account.
— 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

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

  • I'm willing to copy this to AN as the original blocking admin is currently inactive and the blocklog specifies appeal to the community/it just came off an arb block. If you're fine with that, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
If that's the normal protocol, I have no objection. Thanks. SashiRolls (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Copied to AN. On hold until it closes. If another admin closes it, they're free to unblock/decline without consulting me even though my name is in the template. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Unsurprisingly, some old "friends" have shown up to say things like: "I'm gonna have to go with decline just because I don't see any acknowledgement of the behavior that led to the block". It is interesting to note that after I've spent several hours compiling all the necessary links for people to study the case fairly, one fellow who was just today reprimanded concerning chronic incivility can't even be bothered to write out all of his words properly in order to try to sway the crowd, and another copies a link that I'd already provided, trying to give it more importance than the very clear evidence that Sagecandor/Cirt has, for years, chased after people with false claims of wikihounding and harassment (§). As a point of fact, I did in fact acknowledge that the behavior that led to my block was: a former sysop violating their topic ban by socking and clamoring for those who realized it to be blocked. I'm not sure that anything further needs to be added. Meanwhile no evidence of harrassment or of intimidation has been provided by either of the "first responders". — 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, something does need to be added. I have no possibility of replying to the involved non-admins (Calton, Mpants, & Johnuniq) getting re-involved at the Administrator's Noticeboard. As such, I would request, @TonyBallioni:, that you copy the following to AN, allowing me to respond just once to four people:
I would like to explain the logic to Johnuniq: Sagecandor was a sock of Cirt. Cirt's appeal of their topic ban prohibiting them from editing about politicians and political culture was declined 13-1 the last time it was appealed to ArbCom [5]. Cirt , therefore, had no right to be socking to avoid scrutiny given that there were active sanctions against their account, which they were violating. By extension, they did not have the standing to prosecute anyone for noticing their highly abnormal editing patterns which -- as it turns out, again -- violated active sanctions.
As for assurances / pact of non-aggression: I have no intention of tracking down any more socking sysops, nor do I intend to lay down evidence of any further wrong-doings by anyone in the inner cabal, not to worry. I'm just giving en.wp a chance to fix an embarrassing mistake it has had made for it by an absentee sysop/clerk.
So far, this thread includes no DIFFs showing any harassment or intimidation of Sagecandor whatsoever and plenty of DIFFs showing Sagecandor/Cirt falsely crying "wiki-hounding/harassment/intimidation" (the link provided above leads to dozens of examples of it). I look forward to this request being studied in depth by an uninvolved administrator here at the Administrator's Noticeboard, because I would really like someone to reply with evidence rather than just per Haps -- who provided no DIFFS -- or from half-forgotten memories of a case they never understood had been brought by a scrutiny-evading sock with quite a reputation... (i.e. quite a way to be welcomed to Wikipedia). By the way, Calton, MPants & Johnuniq, nice to see you again. ^^ — 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate you giving me this opportunity to respond to the comments made and to clarify the logic of my appeal and to clarify that I have no intention of rupturing anything (promise). Sorry I had to get you involved again, I didn't expect the discussion at AN to be dominated by folks who have never passed an RfA. SashiRolls (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
(copied over) GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Your anagrams are just so much cooler than mine! Thanks. Also, reading what you just wrote about the Twitter harassment you've endured does irritate me, and not just for the selfish reason that I'm being thrown into the same boat as people who actually *do* harass. SashiRolls (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
If I ever get blocked, the admins can look out for users named "Aria Feral Growl", "Rage Flail Arrow", "Earwig Fall Roar", and "A Feral Air Growl". GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, GW for copying this. I was asleep. Sashi, feel free to ping me in the future if you need anything copied. If I’m online, I’ll do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @TonyBallioni:. Sleep is good. I've had some too, though less than perhaps I should have since I'm finally appealing and that is a little exciting, though it really shouldn't be. :) At some point, I think it would be good to reassure Ivan Vector (who doesn't know me) that I am neither a crusader nor a creep. Would you be willing to copy this over to respond to his comments?─────────────────────────
I would like to reassure Ivan Vector that I have no intention of going on any crusades and bear no grudges against anyone. Contrary to what you said, I do not think I have some mission to "save" Wikipedia or that it would even be possible for one person to do such a thing. I'm not a hasten-the-day agent trying to get myself embedded in plain sight into Wikipedia. I've already told ArbCom that I have learned that the high-conflict political pages are probably best avoided entirely (not only for the peace of the project, but for my own peace of mind). There are just too many people with too many divergent viewpoints to act efficiently in that area. Some people I respect would probably consider this laziness, but such is life. I've had more than enough of wiki-drama.
On the other hand, I do have an avid interest in learning, and en.wp is a place from which I've learned a lot, on many levels. It is a tool I've used regularly for over a decade -- entirely unnoticed for about 10 years (§: the first account I lost my password to) -- prior to recent events in US politics. Not really having had the time or the competence/expertise to edit well during that period (which was much more permissive of OR than en.wp is today), it was only in 2016 that I dipped into the conflictual areas and began rigorously learning the citation templates. I sometimes have been known to just lurk in the background and help people who like to move more quickly by helping them format references properly. I generally am most interested in the reference sections of articles (since that's where all the facts come from) and like to give scholars / journalists credit by including their names in the citation templates. It's important to give credit where it is due.
I can also help the project by copy-editing (in two languages) and note that there is a lot of fr -> en.wp translation work that I could dig into. In terms of writing: I have been working on improving my synthetic skills, because I have an annoying tendency of trying to pack too much into a sentence. As a general rule, I like to think of the reader. I have not created 1000s of articles, just one in fact (in both French and English), as well as an unpretentious English phonology page at wikiversity. I am here offering to help improve en.wp in a minor way. I look forward to continuing to learn in that process.
For reference here are some of my last content edits to en.wp, written in the hours before being indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE [6]. Some other long-standing contributions can be found in this section. I appreciated the research I found on that page. I find it fascinating that Choctaw, Mobilian Jargon, Yoruba, and the Bostonian press were all probably involved in the spread of the new word OK, and had no idea of that before I started looking through the assembled documents in that en.wp entry (some of which had been deleted, others not). So, OK. I'll try not to soapbox, but I did want to acknowledge that I'd heard your concerns, I.V., and to respond to them. I am neither a crusader trying to convert "infidels", nor a creep. SashiRolls (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

@MjolnirPants:: you seem to be signifying rather adamantly that I need to respond to you, so I will. Still, I don't think there's any context of violent disagreement here to lead you into such strong language use. I would ask you to consider listening to the community's repeated requests that you tone your "absolute freedom to curse" line down. This is probably a lost battle, but at least permit me not to join in your fun.
It would also help me to know what it is exactly that you want me to identify as blameworthy in my contribution history. Would I be correct in assuming you would like me to mention that I noted some information about how much a particular donor/contractor was paid during the election? That is a matter of public record. Juxtaposing that story with the AE railroad line I'd just been pushed into by Mr. Cirt and saying the two stories might "even be loosely related based on political affiliation and strategy" (§)?
Perhaps, looking backwards rather than forwards, it would have been wiser not to suggest such things to the Signpost. At the time, I didn't know that Bishonen's dragons eat that paper as soon as it comes. Housepets with such fire in their bellies probably would just be belching and cursing and otherwise making a nuisance of themselves should unexpected strangers pop in.
Back then, I tried to be graceful under pressure and carefully state that the two stories were only very loosely related, but I fear that by juxtaposing them, I annoyed a lot of people anyway. In order to vow never to do that again, I have had to repeat the facts above by stating that I once did that. Very backwards-looking, don't you think, MPants? I hope this answers your question sufficiently and I wish you luck in moving on, for you part, with renewed vigor in your continued efforts towards toning down your language. You might consider taking a break from commenting on noticeboards if it is stressing you out. I know I intend to take a good long break from them. SashiRolls (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Sorry, I was doing some CU stuff and then got distracted by something at home. Yeah, I think letting MPants respond here likely makes the most sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Really, the problem you would have needed to address was your tendency to over-personalize discussions and go on the attack against other user who disagree with you. I mean, you basically alleged that everyone who opposed you at the AE case held a grudge against you, and that's just obviously not true. And had you responded to admitting to that and promising to work on it, I'd have responded by posting a diff to me striking my oppose !vote.
  • MPants is quite adamant that he wants attention I never even hinted that you needed to respond to me directly.
  • do you think it should be copied over there to satisfy his demands? I never made such a demand.
  • you seem to be signifying rather adamantly that I need to respond to you See the top response.
  • Still, I don't think there's any context of violent disagreement here to lead you into such strong language use. My use of the word "shit" was not even remotely parsable as anything resembling aggression towards you. Hell, the context in which I used it was to say "if Sashi does this, I'll support their unblock" which you might recognize as the opposite of "violent disagreement".
  • I would ask you to consider listening to the community's repeated requests that you tone your "absolute freedom to curse" line down. You have not only grossly (and, given the context, almost certainly intentionally) misrepresented my stance, you have also very badly misread the community's stance.
  • This is probably a lost battle, but at least permit me not to join in your fun. I think it's funny that an indeffed user is trying to offer me advice on how to avoid sanctions. Ironic, even. It's certainly condescending in a particular way.
  • I wish you luck in moving on, for you part, with renewed vigor in your continued efforts towards toning down your language. I can see literally no point in you saying this. It's just incredibly stupid. You could have responded to me with civility and gotten a civil response back, but instead, you chose to personalize and to go on the attack.
But that's not how you responded. Instead, you responded with a number of (poorly) veiled attacks against me, the last of which serves no purpose except to try and offend me (lol good luck). So yeah, I'm gonna go change my !vote from "oppose" to "strong oppose" and link to this diff as explanation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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


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

Thanks to everyone for their encouraging feedback. I will endeavor not to sleuth around, be defensive, turn into an annoying moralist, or even get overly involved in wiki-chat-chat at all. I'll probably take some time in obscure corners to re-acclimate myself to the environment if unblocked. I'm not in any rush to promise a mountain of contributions and deliver a molehill, though. I've been in a lot of "rooms" with different rules of late and so will need to readjust, as mentioned above and on my talk page; so I'll simply try to avoid engaging in some areas. I just thought that I would try to get the block undone now & request that it be recognized in the edit summary that Cirt's use of sockpuppets was a very important part of my block history. That will help me be more at peace with what happened. I'm sure of it. Thanks for all the constructive criticism and support. The support from those I've interacted with since being blocked is particularly appreciated, because I do believe you know me a bit better than those who have not. — 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@SashiRolls: I totally get that your moral druthers make you want to ask for outcomes which confirm that you were not wrong about this or that, but asking that admins make declarations to that effect in "edit summaries" (you actually are talking about the log, but no matter) when requesting that they use their tools is going to be looked at as problematic. I'll ask you, if the admin doesn't note the inciting incident at all, does it really matter? To be clear, the likelihood here is that any closing admin is going to make a statement at AN. Presuming this results in an unblock, it will almost certainly contain some criticism of your actions and stern warnings. It may not mention the inciting incident at all. If that's a non-starter for you, and you're going to get upset about that, you're going to end up blocked again very quickly. The question I have for you is, does that matter enough to get blocked again? If not, consider just not making that sort of demand. jps (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Woe. How long will this WP:ROPE period in the stocks extend, @TonyBallioni:? I saw you had to see a guy about a BADSITE. Custodial work isn't glamorous, but I imagine you're doing your best to keep up. You were pretty quick and efficient. I'm probably one of the few who actually saw it. I guess I need to reply at AN...─────────────────────────

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

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

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

  • @TonyBallioni: In light of the comment just above, please take a look at my reaction to it here: [7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: I realize that you may have no desire to talk about this, and if that is the case, feel free to ignore this comment completely, but I'm very confused by your response to SashiRolls's comment. From what I have gathered, this person suffers from being an amateur with regards to Wikipedia culture, and I think he thought (incorrectly, on the road to hell) that he was repairing bridges in replying to you. I don't think he realizes that the culture here is to drag the feet when it comes to unblocking/unbanning, and it feels interminable when you're waiting for a decision. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has a culture of shooting first and asking questions later when it comes to kicking people out. In any case, I'm either missing some subtext here or you really object to people searching for information about you online. If the latter is the case, I take his admission to be a naive blunder. (Spending time with other blocked/banned people will make you, unfortunately, gravitate a bit towards the Daniel Brandt style of internet sleuthing which is sorta the opposite of Wikipedia culture, but this is too high-level an analysis to really delve into.) Yeah, SashiRolls needs to learn to shut up. This and the blowup with MjolnirPants are good object lessons. But I also don't know how else he's supposed to learn this. I gather that you think he actually DOES know and is playing games, but I respectfully disagree. jps (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
jps, I had to read your comment multiple times before I was sure that I was not, in turn, misunderstanding you, but my opinion is unchanged. You think incorrectly that I object to people searching my username. Not at all, and that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. But if you look at my first comment at AN, not the one in the diff above, but the one just a few lines above it, you will see what I was actually talking about, and why the comment directed at me most certainly is not one of mending bridges. Please feel free to follow up at my user talk, if you do not understand what I am saying here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sashi, sorry for the late reply: the thread will be closed by an administrator when they feel a consensus has emerged or that no consensus is likely to emerge after enough time has elapsed. Re: the suppression, we don't allow linking to other online profiles unless someone makes an explicit link to an identity on another website themselves. I removed it because you hadn't made an explicit link, and you are entitled to the same protections as any other user on this website. You are of course free to link to any account elsewhere that is yours, and others would also be free to do so at that point on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Out of respect for your holiday and family visit, I will refrain from a give and take, and instead ponder all that you have written in recent days. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for closing the thread at AN and unblocking me @RL0919:. Hearty thanks to those who saw the issue clearly and acted accordingly. SashiRolls (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    Welcome back, and best of luck with your return to editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning[edit]

Very unwise.

Stop icon

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

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

Response to jytdog[edit]

Jytdog has restored the reference he deleted as agreed, is encouraged to clean up the stray bluelinks they added to the Syphilis entry in a hasty copy-paste, is reminded that the community's patience with them is wearing thin, and is asked to refrain from commenting on my talk page or following me around to any further articles. SashiRolls (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Before you make claims about "following", you should look to see if a person has edited the page before. We can discuss content at the relevant talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
or not. Such are my vows. I don't think I'll wrestle with you over syphilis, jytdog... like you say, that would be unfun. SashiRolls (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
So you have decided to continue. Instead of answering the question I asked you here you opened a new section, talking about something that is not the issue.
You are heading directly back toward an indefinite block. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Please state your view of the issue clearly. My view of the issue is that you have removed the Brandt reference from the article entirely, as I said. If that is not the issue please restore it to the article (you are certainly free to write the prose as you wish, as anyone is allowed to modify your prose). I would also ask that you remove the redundant blue-links you introduced in the article with your copy/paste as I had done. An article labeled GA should not be treated in this manner. You should at least do due diligence clean-up while waiting for others to comment on the wisdom of your move. SashiRolls (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
On top of misrepresenting the edits you made, pointing out spelling mistakes as you did here is just sand-in-gears jerk behavior, that gets in the way of getting collaborative work done. You appear to be determined to burn quickly through the WP:ROPE you were given when you were unblocked. Whatever, they are your editing privileges to lose again. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Arby questions[edit]

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

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