SashiRolls requests a hearing

[Icewhiz]

El C took over the power vaccuum left when NeilN disappeared.

Is he better or worse or the same as NeilN? Was there any visible/public reason for NeilN's disappearance?

No, NeilN was in good standing - and stopped abruptly (with a brief comeback) a while before El_C coming back. They don't quite fill the same niche - NeilN was mostly at ANEW (and branched out from there). El_C works all the boards (ANI, AE, AN, and ANEW) + specific articles (e.g. jumping into Iranian articles, but lots of other stuff).

EL_C also clearly has an agenda - and if NeilN has an agenda - I haven't been able to discern it (he seemed evenhanded to me - but I might have been missing something).

NeilN probably left due to personal reasons (busy, sick, family, death, etc.).

[Bezdomni]

I personally didn't follow NeilN.

As for the Snoox and their "collaborations", their interaction timeline from 1 Dec 2019 to present is poignant, as is this PDF of their closest associations (a very limited excerpt of their total "collaborations").

...and yet another civility "reminder" for Calton (T-C-L).

[Volunteer Marek]

It's doubtful, that the original ElC one day had a turn in his life, and returned to full-time (+overtime) admin police chief role. It is more likely, that the account was transferred to another person with close ties to these admins, maybe an admin, who had to stop using a previous account. Was there any admin desysop / fall from grace not long before March?
The 7*12+ hours weekly activity also might be a sign, that more people operate this account now. Either that, or a no-lifer, like the British defaming guy, who was tracked down by a some media guy... will add link later.
One thing is for sure: this account is not used to make the encyclopedia better, but with an agenda, for personal gains (monetary implied).

Well - whomever is running El C's account these days - he is probably a (possibly former) Israeli or Hebrew speaker - or at least pretending fairly well to be one (e.g. by someone else feeding him tidbits, or using minor knowledge).

E.g. linking to a Hebrew video with no sub-titles (released shortly before) on October 8 2019:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =920175358

However, on hewiki, he hasn't displayed Hebrew skills since 2008:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7 ... D7%AA/El_C

If this is an account switch, I wouldn't discount Malik Shabazz (T-C-L) out of the running - POV fits perfectly, as does the departure date (more or less - final straw a bit after - but the final straw was in the offing prior). Malik probably could pull this off. But that would be a POV crusade - not paid.

JFC, you are just incapable of not lying. El_C as Malik Shabazz? Are you fucking serious? YOU got Malik Shabazz blocked and drove him out of Wikipedia with your slimy tactics, so you know there's pretty much no way this can be true. How did you do it? Oh. That's right, you sent a secret email to Sandstein accusing Malik of violating his topic ban ... with edits Malik made BEFORE his topic ban was in place. Your typical sleaziness. Sandstein was dumb enough to buy it, Malik called him names, it escalated, eventually Malik called you a "cancer on Wikipedia" and then ... El_fucking_C, the guy you are now claiming is actually Malik BLOCKED Malik

Don't you actually ever get tired of making up ridiculous bullshit?

[Icewhiz]

JFC, you are just incapable of not lying. El_C as Malik Shabazz? Are you fucking serious? YOU got Malik Shabazz blocked and drove him out of Wikipedia with your slimy tactics, so you know there's pretty much no way this can be true. How did you do it? Oh. That's right, you sent a secret email to Sandstein accusing Malik of violating his topic ban ... with edits Malik made BEFORE his topic ban was in place. Your typical sleaziness. Sandstein was dumb enough to buy it, Malik called him names, it escalated, eventually Malik called you a "cancer on Wikipedia" and then ... El_fucking_C, the guy you are now claiming is actually Malik BLOCKED Malik

Don't you actually ever get tired of making up ridiculous bullshit?

I had nothing to do with Mailk's TBAN. He was topic banned due to this comment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =841323188

You people are hypocrites who have no shame ... Seriously, did your parents drop you on your heads as infants?

Which was not directed at me. I did report some TBAN violations later on (after one initial e-mail - which Sandstein took public (letting Malik off with a warning) - all of them publicly either at AE or at Sandstein's talk) - most of which were correct - though there were so many that I might have screwed up in one diff.

I am far from certain there was a switcheroo involved with El_C at all. El_C just might be El_C - hard to tell anything about an account returning from the cold after 10 years.

If there was a switcheroo - I'd say Malik is a possible suspect. As for El_C briefly blocking Malik - well - El_C let him off very lightly (given the prior block log and severity of the attack - really one of the worse possibly tropes one could bandy about) - he actually did him a favor in blocking himself (and not letting someone else impose a possibly much longer block). Furthermore, if there was a switcheroo (of which I am uncertain - Osborne brought up the possibility) - using a sockpuppet admin to block one's self is great cover - so a block-interaction is actually supporting evidence, not a refutation.

Likewise, using one's admin account to briefly block a sockpuppet of one's self is not shabby, see for instance:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=10943

Edgar181 (T-C-L) briefly blocked Edgeweyes (T-C-L) - a sock of himself.

[Midsize Jake]

If there was a switcheroo - I'd say Malik is a possible suspect. As for El_C briefly blocking Malik - well - El_C let him off very lightly (given the prior block log and severity of the attack - really one of the worse possibly tropes one could bandy about) - he actually did him a favor in blocking himself (and not letting someone else impose a possibly much longer block). Furthermore, if there was a switcheroo (of which I am uncertain - Osborne brought up the possibility) - using a sockpuppet admin to block one's self is great cover - so a block-interaction is actually supporting evidence, not a refutation.

I'm pretty sure this is not something Mr. Shabazz would do. I'm not saying there aren't people on Wikipedia who might conceivably dream up such a scheme, but... not Mr. Shabazz. Also, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, as they say.

[Zoloft]

If I ever sleepwalk over to the console and ban anyone, it'll be Icewhiz. You heard it here first.

[Osborne]

If I ever sleepwalk over to the console and ban anyone, it'll be Icewhiz. You heard it here first.

Lol. He's not "disturbing" anymore, though.

[Bezdomni]

I do wonder why IW derailed this thread with what would have to be one the most improbable socking stories ever. Mr. Shabazz's exploits were before my time (though he was the first admin I met on en.wp). He's always seemed bright and to the point in what I've read of him.

To add insult to injury, I've gone and got myself blocked by editing James J. Lambden's sandbox. It's odd how that happened. I noticed Bullrangifer had hatched several pompous and scrappy little paragraphs on the TP. Since my name pops up when you roll over the talk page (watchlist), I went over to see what I was being accused of now. It annoyed me being characterized (still) as pro-Trump and that Sagecandor didn't have a line through their prosecutin' pseudo, so I changed it.

MrX kinda went into full disruptive gorilla mode and the team showed up right on cue. MrX nominates the long-lingering alt-AE filing bin for deletion at MFD. A Greek historian says why they think MrX might not be the most neutral source on whether a grid should be kept that names both the defendant AND the prosecutor (MrX being a serial barn-star prosecutor). Then, no less than... SPECIFICO... hops out of the welcome in wiki wagon to threaten the Greek historian. This is before Obj3000, WMSR, Slywriter & Bull pile on. How many hours of productive time have been wasted on that debate over whether or not a clearly superior filing cabinet which lists prosecutor, defendant, closer, and sentencing should exist in some obscure corner of the wiki. I'm pretty sure I've seen that file backed up in quite a few places off-wiki. I know I have a copy or two of it.

I really think they shouldn't leave ol' X with such easy access to the bananas.

But after all, it's their asylum ...

[Poetlister]

I do wonder why IW derailed this thread with what would have to be one the most improbable socking stories ever.

I'm beginning to think that he's a brilliant comedian. If I'm right, he's completely wasted on this site. Apart from Zoloft and Mr. Midsize, nobody here is clever enough to appreciate him.

[Bezdomni]

Wow, this thread is popular. I was looking at all time greatest WPO "governance" hits (those with over 10K views) and in the last 7 or 8 hours there have been another 110 views. Crazy. (NB: #2 Flow should not be in the list; I thought I'd missed it earlier today, but forgot it wasn't in governance... & am too lazy to retake & recrop the screenshot)

Gabbard emphasized her roll in getting a constitution amendment passed [...]

source

Meanwhile, I notice that ContentEditman & MrX have both editwarred MrX's constitution roll back into the entry.

One of the inveterate copy-editors (really the inveterate copy-editor in AmPol) fixed it without comment, such that when one of the tag-teamers reverted it again, it was no longer ungrammatical.

The relationship between ContentEditman, MrX, Cirt/Sagecandor, and Snooganssnoogans is pretty clear, maybe I'll add a screencap of that .pdf later... looks like the three unblocked ones were working Ron DeSantis' page... among others.

nb: The word "constitution" above may well be a tell for MrX. In case anyone is looking for his socks... he seems to frequently drop words & derivational morphemes in ES and in mainspace.

[Poetlister]

Obviously, the number of views is likely to be greater for old threads. The top two threads seem to be the oldest (though in reverse order, second oldest first).

There are two funnies in the "most recent" column. The entry for the Wikipedia Signpost thread is blank, and that for the Arbitration thread says 2010 although the OP was in 2017.

[Bezdomni]

Well, I've fixed it; thanks for pointing out the Arbitration thread problem, I hadn't noticed that. What I find particularly weird of course is the fact that Fram had 13x as many posts, but less than twice the views. I suppose it could be that people like me or like reading about my situation; but I keep thinking that there might be something more to it than that. The more I look into it, the more I realize just how many people are aware of the problem with this decidedly unmerry band.

So here's the deal on ContentEditman... not counting his edits to drama boards, 19% of his contributions are to pages MrX has also contributed to. Coincidence, surely. AGF! (allied goon force!)



I also noticed that the 2018 ArbCom race was of greater interest than 2019 despite Framgate. Odd, that.

[el84]

The 2018 ACE had all that drama concerning whatsiface and the arbitration case that happened.

[tarantino]

So here's the deal on ContentEditman... not counting his edits to drama boards, 19% of his contributions are to pages MrX has also contributed to. Coincidence, surely. AGF! (allied goon force!)

ContentEditman Is apparently for DC. MrX's account name was originally Umbris. He's a commercial photographer from Orlando.

[Pudeo]

Today, ContentEditman (T-C-L) was indefinitely blocked for socking as SomeEditorsAreMoreEqual (T-C-L).

The timeline is a bit fuzzy: TonyBallioni blocked the sock a month ago, but ContentEditman was blocked just today. Also two additional older socks have been tagged as his socks by ST47: AppliedCharisma (T-C-L) and TweedVest (T-C-L). Apparently the socks were tied to AppliedCharisma, and ContentEditman was tied to him now.

I note that AppliedCharisma seems to have a different POV than ContentEditman, so who knows.

[MrErnie]

Pretty effective ambush here - link. Amazing that what kicked this off was a bad partial block by El C for "edit warring," (despite not breaking 3RR). I've seen El C write many times that "you need to have 4 reverts to violate 3RR," advice he didn't heed this time. That prompted Sashi to wonder how El C can edit for 27 hours straight, with no breaks. This behavior, according to TonyBallioni, is a "vendetta," "equivalent to harassment." If I was the boss of Wikipedia I'd block El C for unhealthy editing.

There are already 10 supports (and no open opposes) within 5 hours of Tony opening the discussion.

[Ryuichi]

There are already 10 supports (and no open opposes) within 5 hours of Tony opening the discussion.

Looking at the supports, its only a FatFloridaBob shy of a progressivist pile-on bingo.

[Lankai]

Pretty effective ambush here - link. Amazing that what kicked this off was a bad partial block by El C for "edit warring," (despite not breaking 3RR). I've seen El C write many times that "you need to have 4 reverts to violate 3RR," advice he didn't heed this time. That prompted Sashi to wonder how El C can edit for 27 hours straight, with no breaks. This behavior, according to TonyBallioni, is a "vendetta," "equivalent to harassment." If I was the boss of Wikipedia I'd block El C for unhealthy editing.

There are already 10 supports (and no open opposes) within 5 hours of Tony opening the discussion.

SashiRolls is just an agitator anyway. He needs to go.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Amazing that what kicked this off was a bad partial block by El C for "edit warring," (despite not breaking 3RR). I've seen El C write many times that "you need to have 4 reverts to violate 3RR," advice he didn't heed this time.

Edit warring is not 3RR. So "you need to have 4 reverts to violate 3RR" should preclude a 3RR block, but it does not preclude an edit warring block. Anyway, I'm sure you actually know this.

[MrErnie]

Amazing that what kicked this off was a bad partial block by El C for "edit warring," (despite not breaking 3RR). I've seen El C write many times that "you need to have 4 reverts to violate 3RR," advice he didn't heed this time.

Edit warring is not 3RR. So "you need to have 4 reverts to violate 3RR" should preclude a 3RR block, but it does not preclude an edit warring block. Anyway, I'm sure you actually know this.

Obviously, but what admins seems incapable of understanding is that seeing it applied by whimsy is frustrating. I'm sure you'd publicly stand by the block as within admin discretion but it was completely unnecessary, especially since it was only a partial block to a page that itself was protected. Blocks should be preventative?

Given El C's history of questionable blocks with Sashi, it is no wonder this pointless partial block stirred up some animosity.

[Poetlister]

SashiRolls is just an agitator anyway. He needs to go.

He can speak for himself here, but why pick on him when there are many agitators who are worse?

[Osborne]

Pretty effective ambush here - link. ...
I've seen El C write many times that "you need to have 4 reverts to violate 3RR," advice he didn't heed this time.

El_C says whatever to protect their kin. Double standard (T-H-L).

That prompted Sashi to wonder how El C can edit for 27 hours straight, with no breaks.

From the different communication patterns exhibited by El_C and the 24/7 operation it is obvious it's an account operated multiple people. Being the police chief of ANI it's presumably the shared account of many admins, those whom we often discuss on this board.

This behavior, according to TonyBallioni, is a "vendetta," "equivalent to harassment." If I was the boss of Wikipedia I'd block El C for unhealthy editing.

TonyBallioni - a repeat policy violator and advocate of no accountability for administrators - is more than likely a part of above mentioned cabal.
Remember how much Bbb23 cooperated with El_C and Tony. I guess since Bbb23's retirement, "El_C" became more active...
This whole cabal is not there to create an encyclopedia, but to WP:OWN (T-H-L) it.
Sashi endangered their rule, so he's now under fire. The cabal should be dismantled instead.

There are already 10 supports (and no open opposes) within 5 hours of Tony opening the discussion.

Mob rule.

[Pudeo]

Edit warring is not 3RR. So "you need to have 4 reverts to violate 3RR" should preclude a 3RR block, but it does not preclude an edit warring block. Anyway, I'm sure you actually know this.

Hmm, I remember some recent cases I thought were odd.

Wrong venue There is no violation of 3RR here; this is a content dispute. If you believe the behaviour of the other editor requires sanctions, you should be posting at WP:ANI. Black Kite (T-C-L) (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Then when Sangdeboeuf (T-C-L) actually broke the 3RR, there was no sanction because it was a "content dispute" according to Swarm (T-C-L).

This makes no sense. It's as if admins just make up stuff to either sanction an user they don't like, or to protect an user they like.

[Osborne]

This makes no sense. It's as if admins just make up stuff to either sanction an user they don't like, or to protect an user they like.

Emph mine. I'd use the wording "exactly admins just make up stuff to either sanction a user they don't like, or to protect an user they like."

[Boing! said Zebedee]

I'm sure you'd publicly stand by the block as within admin discretion but it was completely unnecessary, especially since it was only a partial block to a page that itself was protected. Blocks should be preventative?

I'm not standing by, or making any comment on, the block itself - I was merely pointing out your "He was blocked for edit warring even though he hadn't broken 3RR" nonsense.

[Osborne]

Amazing that what kicked this off was a bad partial block by El C for "edit warring," (despite not breaking 3RR). I've seen El C write many times that "you need to have 4 reverts to violate 3RR," advice he didn't heed this time.

Edit warring is not 3RR. So "you need to have 4 reverts to violate 3RR" should preclude a 3RR block, but it does not preclude an edit warring block. Anyway, I'm sure you actually know this.

That should be pointed out to admins as well, who use EW and 3RR interchangeably to justify a block.

[MrErnie]

I'm sure you'd publicly stand by the block as within admin discretion but it was completely unnecessary, especially since it was only a partial block to a page that itself was protected. Blocks should be preventative?

I'm not standing by, or making any comment on, the block itself - I was merely pointing out your "He was blocked for edit warring even though he hadn't broken 3RR" nonsense.

It would be more helpful if you could comment on the specific case we are talking about here.

[el84]

Oh no, Sashi has been Balloney'd.

[Pudeo]

Kingofaces43 just posted a support vote with a comment about being concerned with users dismissing harassment at AE.

Yep, that's the same person who defended Jytdog all the time and proposed a finding of fact about editors "casting aspersions" because they dared to say aloud Jytdog had been harassing others. That's just twisted.

[Bezdomni]

Well, looks like it's time to start a new hobby. It made me feel good to read this thread earlier today when there were only however many dozen supports and no opposes. Thanks for making me feel like less of an ogre.

I haven't canvassed anyone because I don't want to drag anyone into it. The rules seem pretty clear. You can tell someone to "get their shit together" while simultaneously urging their banning, but you can't comment on the real crux of the matter, because, well, that would make Floquenbeam sad.

I appreciated your comment Mr Ernie. Crazy that El C didn't just do the right thing and unblock once they full protected. They must either really think they're right, or... (insert fun conspiracy theory here)

In any case, there was no need for that to go to AN. Tony Ballioni sure did get the loony bin alit though. Next thing you know, it's going to wind up in Wired or something.

also: one really great thing about WPO... you never have an edit conflict!

[MrErnie]

Indeffed by the very neutral MastCell. Sashi’s detractors never could move past his crime of calling out a former admin socking to avoid a topic ban and the grave sin of a few edits to Jill Stein that caught the ire of the GMO crew. I find Dennis’ block to be one of the deepest injustices of the modern wiki, and something he’s never been willing or able to acknowledge that may not have been the course of action. Tag team revert at will editors, and as long as you have the mainstream backing of the popular admins you’ll be fine! Particularly fun was the drive by mass block threat from Floquenbeam, but what else is new? Can you imagine if that guy was a cop?

[Pudeo]

Indeffed by the very neutral MastCell.

MastCell (T-C-L)'s first logged action since 3 September 2019. What a time to return, especially given his earlier track record at AE.

[Bezdomni]

Interesting.

Well, the results are in! Tony B wins. In terms of total K left in the letterbox, the champions are listed below.

1) Tony B: 14141
2) Sashi: 13570
3) Kingo: 8550
4) Trypto: 8069, including 0 diffs
5) Lev: 7394

Levivich's comments were by far the most detailed. My comments during the workweek were probably ill-advised, though I did learn through the discussion that Polisher of Cobwebs (T-C-L)' latest sock had been blocked.

In their appeal to the 2-way topic ban,

I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction, it will be reinstated.

It was not, though every admin present in the thread had access to that case once Levivich provided the link to it.

I wonder why Tony didn't mention he was linking to a 2-way interaction ban he was clearly aware of since he undid it, despite Trypto's fundamental claim having been systematically disproved. §: ctrl-f (Sashi) "followed me around; I never followed him."

In any case, I suppose at this point it's moot. My free speech is not fettered here, so I'll just point out the ghoti seems to have become the mother of all HTDers:

[A] new drahmah pops up just as the previous one ends. But I'm very much withholding any content contributions.

I see they are also driving traffic to WPO.

I wonder if I should follow JzG's advice...

[Bezdomni]

Oh dear. Looking into this further I see that TreeLethargy (T-C-L) has been urging me to get into a fight over Mille Plateaux (T-H-L) since September 2019.

• 29 April 2020
• 5 December 2019
• 22 September 2019

Anyone want to bet whose sock that is?

Maybe JzG could guess ( § ).

Was Bbb23 a weakening link in the blockchain of hanging those washed-out gardening socks to dry?

• ... looks for tin hat
• ... remembers someone swiped at it at AN.
• ...

[Osborne]

link

Comment This is the second time in less than a month that TonyBallioni has proposed sitebanning an editor based on out-of-context, cherrypicked, and/or misconstrued evidence (see here for the other one). Perhaps a restriction preventing him from proposing site bans is in order. Let's say for the next 12 months. There is no shortage of other admins and established editors who can propose site bans for truly banworthy editors. −−− Cactus Jack 07:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

CactusJack, the number of good faith Supports above [...]

"Good faith banning"

Comment I have also noticed this concern regarding User:TonyBallioni and also feel he should step back from these kind of multiple proposals, we don't need single admins becoming excessively central to control of any aspect of the project, User:Bbb23 comes to mind as a similar situation. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni is becoming Bbb23...

[Poetlister]

CactusJack, the number of good faith Supports above [...]

"Good faith banning"

WP:AGF (T-H-L)! Everything on Wikipedia must be presumed to be in good faith unless you don't like either the author or what is said.

[Bezdomni]

So, after, ContentEditman, here is some more data. 20% of Sayerslle's contributions as Dan the Plumber were to pages MrX was hyperactive on too.



I see MrX accused me of "hounding" them (in MrX v. SashiRolls: 26 May 2019) because I reported on this at WP:ANI, after being unable to comment on it at WP:AE. (gag rule)

In fact, MrX was prosecuting someone for reverting the sock. When the case was at AE "Dan" was discovered to be a sock. Did MrX drop the stick? No. They brought it to ANI, perhaps thinking nobody would notice.

in re: people leaving the projects due to bad actors...

Everything on Wikipedia must be presumed to be in good faith unless you don't like either the author or what is said.

That's a good point Poetlister. I'm sure that's why Bishonen assumed good faith about Bulldog Antz / Sayerslle calling me a fascist shortly thereafter ( § ).

[tarantino]

SashiRolls has made ~1400 edits since his unblock in November, and ...

pleads temporary insanity.

I'm sure at least a third of those donations to the letterbox are polishing my own previous faulty donations to the letterbox. And gosh, I'm feeling lucky. I've now met the l-e-g-e-n-d-a-r-y Polisher of Cobwebs (T-C-L)!

So, I'm terribly curious which admin you think Goldenring is, of course. They haven't said hello or offered me any cakes since their return, but then again neither have I. I saw the Snoog's edit history was up for review at AE recently and that GR got involved. I'm still barred from talking there and since I wouldn't have had that much I would have wanted to say anyway, I suppose that's for the best.

Looks like GoldenRing (T-C-L) disappeared on Oct 11 2019, and his last visit here was Oct 9. Nobody seems to miss him.

[Bezdomni]

This is BS, coming as it did after this request, following this suggestion.

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.

Bref... there's something ig in the Wikimart, I tell you.

edited title

[Poetlister]

This is BS, coming as it did after this request, following this suggestion.

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.

Bref... there's something ig in the Wikimart, I tell you.

If "the changes are either verifiable or productive", they are likely to be improvements, so surely that is a good enough reason to make them.

[C&B]

So JzG removed TPA on the Grounds that SR was proxying for... JzG

[Bezdomni]

As Angelone mentioned in another thread, I recently offered to contribute to en.wp again, but withdrew my offer shortly after a person who had been asked by El C not to interact with me (2-way interaction ban) showed up for the 10th consecutive time at a noticeboard to lobby against me.

One of my "judges" wrote:

Of course they could have learnt in the 5-6months, but clearly they haven't as they didn't last time. It's clear they are able to contribute productively, unfortunately they are unable to do so without also causing enough problems that harm outweighs the good.

Today my finely-tuned hearing aid picked up his contribution to another discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard (eight days later) which helped me to understand what he understands by harm :

If you find the minor flag useless, that's you (sic) fucking choice. Just as it should be other's (sic) fucking choice to use the flag. It's utterly disgusting that you would try to harm other editors by refusing to allow them to use the features present by riding roughshod over community consensus over how they should be used. People like you who feel they can demand how others edit here are what make Wikipedia a terrible place. [...] What remains utterly disgusting is you telling people who do wish to use the minor flag to fuck off because if (sic) your dislike of the flag.

source

Checking the context, one finds no such overheated prose coming from the person Nil Einne is attacking. 7% of Nil Einne's contributions are to mainspace (§) and he serves as a very good example of the moral quality of some of those who seek to prevent others from having write-access to the website.

[el84]

Just plonking this link here whilst I wonder why the IBAN hasn't been reinstated, given that said person obviously has all of Sashi's pages watched so he can jump in and cast aspersions every time his name is mentioned.

Recognizing that the 2-way IBAN was no-fault, and that there were good reasons to deal with the dispute promptly, I'm really not unhappy with the restriction, and indeed, I'm very happy to be separated from the other editor and I want to remain separated from them. In that sense, it's no big deal. But I also realize that, like it or not, some other editors are likely to misjudge me by it, and I would prefer not to have it continue hanging over my head. And I think it's clear that I can be trusted. I plan to continue to voluntarily avoid the other editor. I don't want contact with them, and I have zero interest in editing the content areas where they edit, and avoiding them is just the right thing to do. I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction, it will be reinstated.

[Osborne]

link

there were approximately 40 editors [the admin cabal] supporting a ban and ~18-20 opposed.
...
it would be inappropriate to close a discussion like this—with >2/3 of commenters supporting action—as "no consensus".

"Clear" consensus is what admins say it is. Sashi was iced by the well known ban-happy admin TonyBallioni - who's been cleansing WP from unwanted editors - and his entourage. I wonder when TB will follow his forever friend Bbb to the sideline. Him being persuaded to withdraw from ACE might suggest that direction.

[Bezdomni]

Actually, credit where credit is due, that was MastCell who 1) miscounted the votes and 2) didn't mention those people who said "kick it to ArbCom" instead at all.

The actual vote was:

• 38 for banning (15 of whom said they voted because I removed the BS from TB's report directly in the morning before work, rather than starting a completely new post)
• 29 for not-banning or for sending the case to ArbCom for further investigation, and
• 2 neutral.

So there was, admittedly, a 38-31 majority (counting Trypto) because of that hasty reaction in order to be able to respond in the 24 hours I was guaranteed for my defense.

Having rallied from a deficit of over 20 votes I remember I had been guardedly optimistic on my way home from work that last day, but just as the bus arrived, MastCell shut it down since it had already reached "no consensus" territory.

This weekend I've been watching with some amusement the nearly unanimous AfD for the page Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden (T-H-L) whose first line is

An impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, the 46th president of the United States, has not been initiated.

source

At the moment the voting is 47-1 against keeping the entry, yet it remains open after 68 hours with no end in sight.

I guess it is more important to give fake news entries as much time as needed to be absolutely sure they get a fair shake and are not being unduly railroaded out of the encyclopedia.

[Yamato]

After one long discussion, quite some protest, and many restrictions emphasised, SashiRolls has been unbanned.

link to close of discussion

[Vigilant]

After one long discussion, quite some protest, and many restrictions emphasised, SashiRolls has been unbanned.

link to close of discussion

I suspect they will come to regret this decision.

[Emptyeye]

After one long discussion, quite some protest, and many restrictions emphasised, SashiRolls has been unbanned.

link to close of discussion

I suspect they will come to regret this decision.

I have to agree. (Since I know you contribute here, Sashi, I'll address you directly.) Despite how you tried to spin it here and on WP, I always agreed with the "official Wikipedia line" on your banning. In other words, you weren't banned because you accused a well-connected administrator of being a sockpocket and then unbanned as vindication that you were correct, as you claim. You were banned because you accused just about everyone you ever disagreed with of being a sockpuppet and/or cabal out to get you, and only unbanned because the law of averages dictated you were eventually going to be right on one of them. And I don't think I'm alone in this thinking.

Either way, you rewarded the people who had faith in you by...going right back to that behavior, accusing another administrator of being multiple people, and getting yourself banned a second time.

I suspect it won't be long until you do it again. Unfortunately for en.wp, I disagree with Iridescent and the others who claimed "rope", "reblocks are cheap", "Sashi will have a bunch of scrutiny on them", etc. That should be how it works, but I've lurked around long enough to know that it isn't, despite claims of such.

For what it's worth, though, I do think the reading of that discussion was correct--for better or worse, there was, indeed, consensus to unban you. And I hope you prove me wrong and don't waste it.

But I'm skeptical.

[Bezdomni]

I always agreed with the "official Wikipedia line" on your banning. In other words, you weren't banned because you accused a well-connected administrator of being a sockpocket and then unbanned as vindication that you were correct, as you claim.

Let's get the facts right.

I did not know Sagecandor was Cirt nor did I accuse him of being a sockpuppet. I learned that here well after the fact. I *did* know he was a bad actor (though there is little merit in this as it was quite obvious). You are correct that he was not the only bad actor I tangled with in my tenure on en.wp. A few are now indeffed, others have left due to conflict with other people, some have been courtesy vanished or had their username changed due to multiple conflicts they've been involved in, with active sanctions on their renamed accounts.

I've always liked that line in Steely Dan's "Black Cow" ( § ) "You should know/ How all the pros play the game / You change your name."

you rewarded people by [...] accusing another administrator of being multiple people [...]

This is also not true.

FWIW, you are confusing me with Osborne on page 3 of this thread. What I actually said was something joking about violating labor laws... suggesting directly to the person in question that he was working too hard. It's true afterwards I wondered about the conspiracy theory but never posted about it here or there.

I'm glad to hear you hope the future will be rosier and more peaceful. That makes two of us. Since I'll be avoiding pages bad actors have any interest in, I think it should work out pretty well.

[Smultronstället]

I always agreed with the "official Wikipedia line" on your banning. In other words, you weren't banned because you accused a well-connected administrator of being a sockpocket and then unbanned as vindication that you were correct, as you claim.

Let's get the facts right.

I did not know Sagecandor was Cirt nor did I accuse him of being a sockpuppet. I learned that here well after the fact. I *did* know he was a bad actor (though there is little merit in this as it was quite obvious).

I remember that.