User talk:SashiRolls/Archives/2016/December

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 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  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 "


 * 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)

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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistent disruptive editing. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC) As per the WP:AE page: ''While a consensus is not required to act, I think there is a consensus for strong action here. Per the evidence, I am blocking SashiRolls for 6 months as a conventional block (non-AE) for Wikihounding and disruptive editing. His behavior has spanned more than AE areas and is in fact worse outside of AE areas. This block may be appealed at WP:AN or WP:AE, since it was issued at WP:AE. If there is further issue on the talk page or during the duration of the block, other sanctions will take place, including removing talk page access or increasing the block to an indefinite period of time, as determined by any admin. Disruption after the block has expired will likely result in a block for an indefinite period of time. In essence, this is a last chance for SashiRolls to be a member of the community, once the block has expired.''

Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thankfully, the gang that convicted me for making a polite suggestion in response to a published RFC is not all there is to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that gang has far too much power.  There was no merit whatsoever to this case / show trial.  Feel free to explore the evidence if you want to be shocked. (My own statement is the clearest, obviously, given the information that will be presented in the following paragraphs...  SashiRolls (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)  (edited:   SashiRolls (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * News: Two days after making this very strange decision, Dennis Brown requested the deletion of his user page. As User:Anna Frodesiak has said, this case appears to be very complicated, indeed.  I would submit that it is complicated not because of any actions I have engaged in, but largely because of the actions of my various accusers, in particular User:Sagecandor who has since my ban groundlessly accused me of sockpuppetry (here, which claim was rejected without further ado (possibly after an unpublished negative result) by User:Bbb23 who had previously blocked me two weeks for a harmless edit based on information I myself provided by email to the Arbitration Committee. While there are a number of good editors with whom I have collaborated harmoniously who I would like to ping here to inform them of this very unusual case, I will refrain from doing so in order to keep them from getting mud splattered on them.  Instead, I will ping only people with whom I have had extremely limited contact or no contact at all in order to ask who I should now ask to have this clearly unjust sanction lifted and to encourage thorough investigation of the editor whose contributions to Wikipedia this morning have all been concentrated on vulgarity(see 22 December 2016 0700-0830: Butt-head, Stupidity, Douchebag (film), Asshole, Dick, Rudeness, Don't be a Dick (album), Idiot, Nitwit, Hypocrisy, Civility, Buzz Off, You Suck: A Love Story, Shithead (card game), Fuck You (Lily Allen song) .  It had been my opinion since the beginning that User:Sagecandor was not in fact what s/he appeared to be, but rather someone seeking to expose Wikipedia problems:  now I am less sure of that fact, since their behavior is just so far beyond the pale of what might be considered "normal".
 * Request: How do I proceed to restore my good name and editing privileges after this festival of mud-slinging?  User:MastCell?  User:NuclearWarfare? — SashiRolls (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You make an unblock request as explained in the block message, above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Could you explain how you saw this request seven minutes after it was made?  Are blocked users talk pages automatically added to administrators' watchlists, or is mine a special case?  (You and I have never interacted before to the best of my knowledge and I did not mention you above.)  In order to appeal I will need to be unblocked, but as I've said I'll only have the extended time necessary to defend myself fully against these trumped up charges from 27 December.)  Also, do you believe Dennis Brown's decision to leave Wikipedia 48 hours after making this decision is a coincidence or is there a causal link?  SashiRolls (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Boing! said Zebedee, but I watchlisted your Talk page after your last AE appearance to keep an eye out for questions or unblock requests. I do wish to emphasize that while Dennis Brown opined and performed the block, there was a consensus among four uninvolved admins (myself included) that you should receive a lengthy block. Please do not attempt to characterize the block as a unilateral decision by Dennis. I also wish to warn you that using your Talk page as a platform to criticize and attack other editors is going to get your Talk page access revoked, at which time you will have to request an unblock through email channels only. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I frequently add to my watchlist pages of users who appear at AN, ANI or AE, simply because I might be able to help them in any subsequent discussion at their talk page - no need to thank me, you're welcome. And as I say, if you wish to appeal your block, you should follow the instructions in the block message - or have I misunderstood when you say "In order to appeal [the block] I will need to be unblocked"? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Contrast: In contrast, the pages I worked on in the day or two prior to my block included:  Robert Charles Riots, New Orleans riot, Dakota Access Pipeline, Dakota Access Pipeline protests, 2004 Haitian coup d'état, Haitian parliamentary election (2015-2016), Association of Industries of Haiti, PropOrNot, Fake news website (eliminated bogus text unrelated to subject), as well as significant contributions to the talkpages on 2 embattled pages in an effort to move forward to finding consensus:Talk, Talk. , would you please be willing to look into this before it explodes further and damages Wikipedia's reputation?  —SashiRolls (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This is extremely frustrating. In the notification above it says I can appeal here. The person who placed that notification has resigned. said I could request being unblocked by following the instructions in that message 36 hours ago. At AE it was clearly stated that I had violated no DS by responding to an RfC and that it wasn't an Arbcom issue. This is absolutely opaque and incoherent. Can you, please, at least point me to where this block is logged so that I can see more clearly what has been done because of the case User:Sagecandor brought against me? SashiRolls (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The block is logged here. It points to this arbitration discussion. You are certainly very welcome to make another unblock request. It may be declined, but a second unblock request won't be held against you, particularly as I'm leaving this comment. My strong understanding is that admins such as myself aren't permitted to override arbitration action which is why I directed you to WP:ARBCOM. I strongly believe ARBCOM is the right step for you to take, but as with all admins, I'm just a volunteer and may be mistaken. --Yamla (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dennis made it very clear on this page that this was not an arbitration block. The log no doubt points to the AE discussion simply for context. I believe this block may be appealed normally. I personally have no comment on the merits of the block or whether the user should be unblocked. This is just a procedural statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your responses.  I understand you are a volunteer and don't necessarily want to get involved in allowing me to appeal a block brought about by a (new) editor who falsely accused me of being a "Russian propaganda account" at NPOV/N.


 * I understand that you are primarily involved in checkuser oversight. I saw that you looked into that editor's recent SPI request, though I have also noticed that nobody has ever followed up on the many requests that that editor divulge their own multiple account histories.


 * I apologize for letting myself be distracted from your responses by the intervening talk page stalker whose comments I'm deleting as unhelpful.  SashiRolls (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You are allowed to make a standard unblock request for this block. Since you asked for diffs above, I will tell you that this one was particularly compelling in my deciding to support a block for you. However, your overall track record as a disruptive editor was taken into account. I am also going to warn you one last time in the event you didn't see my previous message: If you make any other attacks on other editors via this page (and that includes insinuations of abusing multiple accounts), you will lose your Talk page access and be limited to appealing your block via email. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Seriously User:Laser_brain? Sagecandor posted at NPOV/N that I *was* a Russian propaganda user on the 2nd of December (diff) with no penalty or comment and I am being banned for 6 months for asking him (as evidenced by the above diff you provided): " Is there not a bit of "today" politics motivating this nomination, Sagecandor?" after following a Request for Comment to the page.  (NB:  I do not have nor have I ever had Sagecandor in my watchlist, this is why I was not aware of the fact that he made the personal attack at NPOV/N.)  Clearly Sagecandor made a serious personal attack.  I asked him a question about his GA candidate.  This is not even remotely similar!  Could you please explain why you are so sensitive about my question and so insensitive to serious character assassination?  I'm thoroughly perplexed by this double standard which reflects very badly on Wikipedia.  (Please note:  I am certainly not the only person SC has accused of making personal attacks for questionning his edits:  multiple editors have questioned his edits in stronger terms than I have ...) I don't understand why I keep being threatened for pointing this out? SashiRolls (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, seriously. Showing up at a talk page for an article and questioning the motives of the editor who is working on it is disgusting behavior. It's meant to have a chilling effect on the targeted editor and it's a form of bullying. And politics is in area where you've already gotten in trouble for being disruptive. You excel at finger-pointing and deflecting criticism of your behavior on other people, but the AE thread was about you, and your block is about you. So stick to discussing your own behavior. There are appropriate venues for requesting a sockpuppet investigation if you believe someone has abused multiple accounts. Haranguing someone and making insinuations without evidence won't be tolerated, especially while your blocked. If you believe Sagecandor's behavior warrants a sanction, post up to the appropriate board when and if you're unblocked. Hopefully this is clear enough. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I was misinformed by the following essay WP:BOOMERANG then:

There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases, a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves . In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report.

A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny.

If you are involved in a dispute with someone, try to discuss matters with the other person via their talk page.

(This was not done. In fact, within 60 minutes of the post you find disgusting, (but which Sagecandor recognized had merit since he did trim the "See Also" section as suggested), SC had compiled over a dozen diffs and negotiated the AE template... almost as if he had been waiting for such an occasion.)  Not that surprising really, given that the account was created as soon as Snooganssnoogans was unblocked after his 48 hour block diff for calling me a "sociopath" when in fact I was simply defending the Tulsi Gabbard page from inappropriate edits (modifying language that sourced to a dead link) after catching that same user engaged in a copyright violation on Jill Stein. Surely just a coincidence, right? And no, I am not accusing Sagecandor of being the same person as Snooganssnoogans. It is interesting that Sagecandor's first interaction on Wikipedia was to revert that user after editing "sage", "candor", "expert" and "fake". This is part of the article I'm writing on Wikipedia culture already. I hope the ending of the article will make Wikipedia look better than it currently does, User:Laser_brain. As I said when interviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm a fan of Wikipedia, not an enemy. SashiRolls (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in WP:BOOMERANG does it state that when a boomerang happens, the editor being complained about automatically gets off scott free. I'm not sure why you seem to think this, but the fact is: No amount of bad behavior on the part of others justifies the behavior you were blocked for. I haven't looked into the case and I don't intend to, but the way WP works, each editor is responsible for their own behavior, and sanctions against them are an independent, unique course of action intended to correct their behavior, and theirs alone. There is an old saying, "When one man calls you a dog, ignore him. But when three men call you a dog, check yourself for fleas." that I think applies here. A large number of people have accused you of engaging in certain behavior. Rather than trying to justify that behavior, it would behoove you to simply accept that it is not permitted here, and make a demonstrable effort to stop engaging in it. I will tell you myself that I behave very differently here than I do in the youtube comment section, for example. Because I know that behaviors which are permitted there are not permitted here. I advise you take a similar tact. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course I do not expect to get off "scot-free" just because an editor wrongly accused me of being a "Russian propaganda user" without even informing me of his covert attack. Logically, this character assassination should have been "punished" as soon as it happened with a preventive block, which would have eliminated the problem in the first place.  But, as it was not I understand that my question ("Is there not a bit of "today" politics motivating this nomination, Sagecandor?") could be seen as questioning that editor's motives.  Of course, let's be very clear... had there been no character assassination prior, this question would have been much less "strongly" worded.  I'm surprised to see you piling on here after seeing you recognize the value of my mention of the value of "whois" checks at RSN here. Currently, as you are aware, one editor has gotten off "scot-free" (to use your words) for smearing an editor as a "Russian propaganda user", and another has received nearly the maximum possible sentence for a much milder question. SashiRolls (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * SashiRolls, I did not enter into the relevant conversations at ANI/AE; but did observe them. I observed them because I had found interacting with you uncomfortable in the past and avoided you because, IMHO, you showed disdain for RS and seemed to think that you knew “the truth” and didn’t feel a need for advice. This tends to interfere, rather dramatically, with the collaboration necessary for a project such as this. The reason that I didn’t bother adding my hay penny to the admin boards is that I thought it clear, based on your past behavior, that you would inevitably sink your own cause, making any input from a minor editor redundant. You may be highly educated, in the formal sense; but you appear to be missing something here that should be staring you in the face. You have been repeatedly warned not to attack other editors while under a block. And yet, your response is to double-down on those attacks and attack WP itself. You even suggested that an admin "resigned" due to his actions sans a wit of evidence. Even if you were 100% correct in those statements – how can you not understand the warnings? In most any appeal, you are the subject. If you wish to be a productive member of the community, listen to what people are telling you. They aren’t your enemies and provide salient advice. If you continue, you will likely be banned from your own talk. If you go to Arbcom with the same attitude, you will likely be indef blocked. Again, just my opinion as a minor editor. You are welcome to ban me from this page. Objective3000 (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Saying that I "show disdain for RS" is a personal attack. It is also false (as demonstrated by the above link to my participation in the reliable sources noticeboard which User:MjolnirPants agreed with wholeheartedly (diff).   I would also ask you to put yourself in my shoes:  a long-time administrator resigns less than 36 hours after blocking me:  is it unusual that I might (mistakenly or correctly) pose the question as I did:  "[D]o you believe Dennis Brown's decision to leave Wikipedia 48 hours after making this decision is a coincidence or is there a causal link?".  Your claim above is a distortion of what I asked.  Your claim to be avoiding me is also deceptive, as anyone familiar with your actions on the Hillary Clinton campaign page can attest, I have been avoiding you rather than the opposite. (My last interaction with you was on the 6th of December when you testified at AE against User:Hidden Tempo as an uninvolved editor despite the fact that you were involved without any doubt. You have continued to participate on the Hillary Clinton campaign page whereas I have not  Cf. history . Your piling on here has led me to see that since that time you have posted a celebratory comment on your own talk page concerning this block.)   SashiRolls (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: I would request that only people who have looked into the question carefully comment here, as people coming by to take potshots while saying they won't bother looking into the merits of the case are unhelpful, especially since I cannot even archive this page due to the editing block imposed by an administrator who has since resigned. SashiRolls (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have been warned about personal attacks, and yet you took two more shots at Dennis Brown. I have therefore revoked your Talk page access. You may use WP:UTRS for appeals. As for other editors who wish to comment on SashiRolls's behavior, I suggest you stay away from this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite it being not recommended by policy, I've (IAR) reblocked with no change to leave a note clarifying the arbitration status of this block (or lack of), to avoid future appeals being declined and deferred to ArbCom without examinaiton, as has happened to 17219 above and to a previous block appeal on this talk page as well. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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 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 and  as noted by   and  . 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)


 * 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.  Kamel Tebaast  03:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In the "cons" section.   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.  Kamel Tebaast  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  Kamel Tebaast  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)

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)

discretionary sanctions
Re. 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.  , 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: . They're full of information and links. Bishonen &#124; 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)

Case with Sagecandor
There is currently a discussion at 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)

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)

consensus
Re:. 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 &#124; 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 &mdash; seemingly to complain about my motivation for improving the article.

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

Perhaps it would be best to try to avoid each other &mdash; 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)
 * I would appreciate it if you took a break and stopped "keeping an eye on you from afar", and then showing up to comment using the tactic ad hominem, repeatedly. This is WP:HOUNDING. Sagecandor (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm a cat, calling me a hound is insulting, sage. I keep an eye on the neighborhood and notice when kittens climb the curtains across the street. ^^  SashiRolls (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement notification
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for case about you. Sagecandor (talk) 00:56, 19 December 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)


 * Why do you tell "thank you for [user] Tryptofish!"? Yes, we had a disagreement with him some time ago, but that was simply a disagreement about something. Nothing special. That could be any other user. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistent disruptive editing. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC) As per the WP:AE page: ''While a consensus is not required to act, I think there is a consensus for strong action here. Per the evidence, I am blocking SashiRolls for 6 months as a conventional block (non-AE) for Wikihounding and disruptive editing. His behavior has spanned more than AE areas and is in fact worse outside of AE areas. This block may be appealed at WP:AN or WP:AE, since it was issued at WP:AE. If there is further issue on the talk page or during the duration of the block, other sanctions will take place, including removing talk page access or increasing the block to an indefinite period of time, as determined by any admin. Disruption after the block has expired will likely result in a block for an indefinite period of time. In essence, this is a last chance for SashiRolls to be a member of the community, once the block has expired.''

Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thankfully, the gang that convicted me for making a polite suggestion in response to a published RFC is not all there is to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that gang has far too much power.  There was no merit whatsoever to this case / show trial.  Feel free to explore the evidence if you want to be shocked. (My own statement is the clearest, obviously, given the information that will be presented in the following paragraphs...  SashiRolls (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)  (edited:   SashiRolls (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * News: Two days after making this very strange decision, Dennis Brown requested the deletion of his user page. As User:Anna Frodesiak has said, this case appears to be very complicated, indeed.  I would submit that it is complicated not because of any actions I have engaged in, but largely because of the actions of my various accusers, in particular User:Sagecandor who has since my ban groundlessly accused me of sockpuppetry (here, which claim was rejected without further ado (possibly after an unpublished negative result) by User:Bbb23 who had previously blocked me two weeks for a harmless edit based on information I myself provided by email to the Arbitration Committee. While there are a number of good editors with whom I have collaborated harmoniously who I would like to ping here to inform them of this very unusual case, I will refrain from doing so in order to keep them from getting mud splattered on them.  Instead, I will ping only people with whom I have had extremely limited contact or no contact at all in order to ask who I should now ask to have this clearly unjust sanction lifted and to encourage thorough investigation of the editor whose contributions to Wikipedia this morning have all been concentrated on vulgarity(see 22 December 2016 0700-0830: Butt-head, Stupidity, Douchebag (film), Asshole, Dick, Rudeness, Don't be a Dick (album), Idiot, Nitwit, Hypocrisy, Civility, Buzz Off, You Suck: A Love Story, Shithead (card game), Fuck You (Lily Allen song) .  It had been my opinion since the beginning that User:Sagecandor was not in fact what s/he appeared to be, but rather someone seeking to expose Wikipedia problems:  now I am less sure of that fact, since their behavior is just so far beyond the pale of what might be considered "normal".
 * Request: How do I proceed to restore my good name and editing privileges after this festival of mud-slinging?  User:MastCell?  User:NuclearWarfare? — SashiRolls (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You make an unblock request as explained in the block message, above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Could you explain how you saw this request seven minutes after it was made?  Are blocked users talk pages automatically added to administrators' watchlists, or is mine a special case?  (You and I have never interacted before to the best of my knowledge and I did not mention you above.)  In order to appeal I will need to be unblocked, but as I've said I'll only have the extended time necessary to defend myself fully against these trumped up charges from 27 December.)  Also, do you believe Dennis Brown's decision to leave Wikipedia 48 hours after making this decision is a coincidence or is there a causal link?  SashiRolls (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Boing! said Zebedee, but I watchlisted your Talk page after your last AE appearance to keep an eye out for questions or unblock requests. I do wish to emphasize that while Dennis Brown opined and performed the block, there was a consensus among four uninvolved admins (myself included) that you should receive a lengthy block. Please do not attempt to characterize the block as a unilateral decision by Dennis. I also wish to warn you that using your Talk page as a platform to criticize and attack other editors is going to get your Talk page access revoked, at which time you will have to request an unblock through email channels only. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I frequently add to my watchlist pages of users who appear at AN, ANI or AE, simply because I might be able to help them in any subsequent discussion at their talk page - no need to thank me, you're welcome. And as I say, if you wish to appeal your block, you should follow the instructions in the block message - or have I misunderstood when you say "In order to appeal [the block] I will need to be unblocked"? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Contrast: In contrast, the pages I worked on in the day or two prior to my block included:  Robert Charles Riots, New Orleans riot, Dakota Access Pipeline, Dakota Access Pipeline protests, 2004 Haitian coup d'état, Haitian parliamentary election (2015-2016), Association of Industries of Haiti, PropOrNot, Fake news website (eliminated bogus text unrelated to subject), as well as significant contributions to the talkpages on 2 embattled pages in an effort to move forward to finding consensus:Talk, Talk. , would you please be willing to look into this before it explodes further and damages Wikipedia's reputation?  —SashiRolls (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This is extremely frustrating. In the notification above it says I can appeal here. The person who placed that notification has resigned. said I could request being unblocked by following the instructions in that message 36 hours ago. At AE it was clearly stated that I had violated no DS by responding to an RfC and that it wasn't an Arbcom issue. This is absolutely opaque and incoherent. Can you, please, at least point me to where this block is logged so that I can see more clearly what has been done because of the case User:Sagecandor brought against me? SashiRolls (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The block is logged here. It points to this arbitration discussion. You are certainly very welcome to make another unblock request. It may be declined, but a second unblock request won't be held against you, particularly as I'm leaving this comment. My strong understanding is that admins such as myself aren't permitted to override arbitration action which is why I directed you to WP:ARBCOM. I strongly believe ARBCOM is the right step for you to take, but as with all admins, I'm just a volunteer and may be mistaken. --Yamla (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dennis made it very clear on this page that this was not an arbitration block. The log no doubt points to the AE discussion simply for context. I believe this block may be appealed normally. I personally have no comment on the merits of the block or whether the user should be unblocked. This is just a procedural statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your responses.  I understand you are a volunteer and don't necessarily want to get involved in allowing me to appeal a block brought about by a (new) editor who falsely accused me of being a "Russian propaganda account" at NPOV/N.


 * I understand that you are primarily involved in checkuser oversight. I saw that you looked into that editor's recent SPI request, though I have also noticed that nobody has ever followed up on the many requests that that editor divulge their own multiple account histories.


 * I apologize for letting myself be distracted from your responses by the intervening talk page stalker whose comments I'm deleting as unhelpful.  SashiRolls (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You are allowed to make a standard unblock request for this block. Since you asked for diffs above, I will tell you that this one was particularly compelling in my deciding to support a block for you. However, your overall track record as a disruptive editor was taken into account. I am also going to warn you one last time in the event you didn't see my previous message: If you make any other attacks on other editors via this page (and that includes insinuations of abusing multiple accounts), you will lose your Talk page access and be limited to appealing your block via email. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Seriously User:Laser_brain? Sagecandor posted at NPOV/N that I *was* a Russian propaganda user on the 2nd of December (diff) with no penalty or comment and I am being banned for 6 months for asking him (as evidenced by the above diff you provided): " Is there not a bit of "today" politics motivating this nomination, Sagecandor?" after following a Request for Comment to the page.  (NB:  I do not have nor have I ever had Sagecandor in my watchlist, this is why I was not aware of the fact that he made the personal attack at NPOV/N.)  Clearly Sagecandor made a serious personal attack.  I asked him a question about his GA candidate.  This is not even remotely similar!  Could you please explain why you are so sensitive about my question and so insensitive to serious character assassination?  I'm thoroughly perplexed by this double standard which reflects very badly on Wikipedia.  (Please note:  I am certainly not the only person SC has accused of making personal attacks for questionning his edits:  multiple editors have questioned his edits in stronger terms than I have ...) I don't understand why I keep being threatened for pointing this out? SashiRolls (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, seriously. Showing up at a talk page for an article and questioning the motives of the editor who is working on it is disgusting behavior. It's meant to have a chilling effect on the targeted editor and it's a form of bullying. And politics is in area where you've already gotten in trouble for being disruptive. You excel at finger-pointing and deflecting criticism of your behavior on other people, but the AE thread was about you, and your block is about you. So stick to discussing your own behavior. There are appropriate venues for requesting a sockpuppet investigation if you believe someone has abused multiple accounts. Haranguing someone and making insinuations without evidence won't be tolerated, especially while your blocked. If you believe Sagecandor's behavior warrants a sanction, post up to the appropriate board when and if you're unblocked. Hopefully this is clear enough. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I was misinformed by the following essay WP:BOOMERANG then:

There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases, a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves . In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report.

A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny.

If you are involved in a dispute with someone, try to discuss matters with the other person via their talk page.

(This was not done. In fact, within 60 minutes of the post you find disgusting, (but which Sagecandor recognized had merit since he did trim the "See Also" section as suggested), SC had compiled over a dozen diffs and negotiated the AE template... almost as if he had been waiting for such an occasion.)  Not that surprising really, given that the account was created as soon as Snooganssnoogans was unblocked after his 48 hour block diff for calling me a "sociopath" when in fact I was simply defending the Tulsi Gabbard page from inappropriate edits (modifying language that sourced to a dead link) after catching that same user engaged in a copyright violation on Jill Stein. Surely just a coincidence, right? And no, I am not accusing Sagecandor of being the same person as Snooganssnoogans. It is interesting that Sagecandor's first interaction on Wikipedia was to revert that user after editing "sage", "candor", "expert" and "fake". This is part of the article I'm writing on Wikipedia culture already. I hope the ending of the article will make Wikipedia look better than it currently does, User:Laser_brain. As I said when interviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm a fan of Wikipedia, not an enemy. SashiRolls (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in WP:BOOMERANG does it state that when a boomerang happens, the editor being complained about automatically gets off scott free. I'm not sure why you seem to think this, but the fact is: No amount of bad behavior on the part of others justifies the behavior you were blocked for. I haven't looked into the case and I don't intend to, but the way WP works, each editor is responsible for their own behavior, and sanctions against them are an independent, unique course of action intended to correct their behavior, and theirs alone. There is an old saying, "When one man calls you a dog, ignore him. But when three men call you a dog, check yourself for fleas." that I think applies here. A large number of people have accused you of engaging in certain behavior. Rather than trying to justify that behavior, it would behoove you to simply accept that it is not permitted here, and make a demonstrable effort to stop engaging in it. I will tell you myself that I behave very differently here than I do in the youtube comment section, for example. Because I know that behaviors which are permitted there are not permitted here. I advise you take a similar tact. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course I do not expect to get off "scot-free" just because an editor wrongly accused me of being a "Russian propaganda user" without even informing me of his covert attack. Logically, this character assassination should have been "punished" as soon as it happened with a preventive block, which would have eliminated the problem in the first place.  But, as it was not I understand that my question ("Is there not a bit of "today" politics motivating this nomination, Sagecandor?") could be seen as questioning that editor's motives.  Of course, let's be very clear... had there been no character assassination prior, this question would have been much less "strongly" worded.  I'm surprised to see you piling on here after seeing you recognize the value of my mention of the value of "whois" checks at RSN here. Currently, as you are aware, one editor has gotten off "scot-free" (to use your words) for smearing an editor as a "Russian propaganda user", and another has received nearly the maximum possible sentence for a much milder question. SashiRolls (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * SashiRolls, I did not enter into the relevant conversations at ANI/AE; but did observe them. I observed them because I had found interacting with you uncomfortable in the past and avoided you because, IMHO, you showed disdain for RS and seemed to think that you knew “the truth” and didn’t feel a need for advice. This tends to interfere, rather dramatically, with the collaboration necessary for a project such as this. The reason that I didn’t bother adding my hay penny to the admin boards is that I thought it clear, based on your past behavior, that you would inevitably sink your own cause, making any input from a minor editor redundant. You may be highly educated, in the formal sense; but you appear to be missing something here that should be staring you in the face. You have been repeatedly warned not to attack other editors while under a block. And yet, your response is to double-down on those attacks and attack WP itself. You even suggested that an admin "resigned" due to his actions sans a wit of evidence. Even if you were 100% correct in those statements – how can you not understand the warnings? In most any appeal, you are the subject. If you wish to be a productive member of the community, listen to what people are telling you. They aren’t your enemies and provide salient advice. If you continue, you will likely be banned from your own talk. If you go to Arbcom with the same attitude, you will likely be indef blocked. Again, just my opinion as a minor editor. You are welcome to ban me from this page. Objective3000 (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Saying that I "show disdain for RS" is a personal attack. It is also false (as demonstrated by the above link to my participation in the reliable sources noticeboard which User:MjolnirPants agreed with wholeheartedly (diff).   I would also ask you to put yourself in my shoes:  a long-time administrator resigns less than 36 hours after blocking me:  is it unusual that I might (mistakenly or correctly) pose the question as I did:  "[D]o you believe Dennis Brown's decision to leave Wikipedia 48 hours after making this decision is a coincidence or is there a causal link?".  Your claim above is a distortion of what I asked.  Your claim to be avoiding me is also deceptive, as anyone familiar with your actions on the Hillary Clinton campaign page can attest, I have been avoiding you rather than the opposite. (My last interaction with you was on the 6th of December when you testified at AE against User:Hidden Tempo as an uninvolved editor despite the fact that you were involved without any doubt. You have continued to participate on the Hillary Clinton campaign page whereas I have not  Cf. history . Your piling on here has led me to see that since that time you have posted a celebratory comment on your own talk page concerning this block.)   SashiRolls (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: I would request that only people who have looked into the question carefully comment here, as people coming by to take potshots while saying they won't bother looking into the merits of the case are unhelpful, especially since I cannot even archive this page due to the editing block imposed by an administrator who has since resigned. SashiRolls (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have been warned about personal attacks, and yet you took two more shots at Dennis Brown. I have therefore revoked your Talk page access. You may use WP:UTRS for appeals. As for other editors who wish to comment on SashiRolls's behavior, I suggest you stay away from this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite it being not recommended by policy, I've (IAR) reblocked with no change to leave a note clarifying the arbitration status of this block (or lack of), to avoid future appeals being declined and deferred to ArbCom without examinaiton, as has happened to 17219 above and to a previous block appeal on this talk page as well. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)