From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


User:SashiRolls is indefinitely blocked. The first year of the block is an arbitration enforcement action. After the first year, he may appeal to any uninvolved administrator. GoldenRing (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning SashiRolls

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29, requesting:
  1. Interaction ban
  2. Indefinite block for continuing same exact behavior after expiration of prior six (6) month block. [1]
  3. NOTE about Interaction ban: Trouble with one-user-interaction-ban is user has history of WIKIHOUNDING against multiple editors and admins.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Summary: Pattern of engaging in personal attacks, WP:Casting aspersions, ad hominem, and (self-admitted) WP:WIKIHOUNDING. [8] [9]

  1. 20 June 2017 - Block expires after blocked six (6) months for Disruptive editing and Wikihounding by Dennis Brown — block expired two (2) days ago. [10]
  2. 00:11, 21 June 2017 - As noted, below, by Timothyjosephwood, casting WP:ASPERSIONS about me without even notifying me. Admits to working on unfounded "story" about me based solely on my high-quality new article creations.
  3. 11:56, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls shows up at page BullRangifer acknowledged that I had greatly improved, Bibliography of Donald Trump [11]. User has never edited this page, prior to my improvement work on it [12].
  4. 13:06, 22 June 2017 - Same pattern as noted in prior AE report [13] -- WP:NPA, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on talk page of article, disrupting formal dispute resolution RFC with irrelevant commentary about one individual editor: "Given the recent creations of categories" -- user links to categories I created. Comments about new articles I created. Nothing to do with the ongoing RFC about a different issue. Uses an ongoing RFC dispute resolution process to disrupt and inject commentary about one single editor.
  5. 13:46, 22 June 2017 -- Again, same behavior. Separate comment, same talk page, same casting WP:ASPERSIONS, irrelevant comment about new articles I've created recently. "Congratulations on the 18 book reviews you've added in the last 20 days (430K)." User seemingly has taken the time to add up all the kilobytes and calculate how much content was generated from my new article creation work. Sarcastic. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Same exact behavior as prior block.
  6. 14:30, 22 June 2017 - Again at Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump - Sarcastic. Irrelevant commentary focusing on one individual editor. User takes time to post huge tabulated index of my new article creation work. [14]. Removed by Salvidrim! with this page is for discussion of improvements to Bibliography of Donald Trump, not for listing other contributions of other editors
  7. 15:10, 22 June 2017 -- SashiRolls admits: "I have indeed decided to follow his contributions to the encylopedia." Admits his edits to page Bibliography of Donald Trump, after I had greatly improved the page, was his, "first ever intervention on a Trump page unless I'm mistaken". Note that his "table" uses the word "below" 7 times. He appears to have copied this data from an off-wiki attack harassment site.
  8. 16:39, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls admits to "sifting through the diffs" spending an inordinate amount of time going through my edits. SashiRolls seems unable to comprehend working on a new article in a text file naturally means taking more than "10 minutes to prepare". SashiRolls says, "I have not sought to identify anyone working through the Sagecandor account as a RW person." and yet he has harassed me offsite including in at least three (3) separate websites including apparently his own personal website where he created an entire harassment page about me.
  9. 16:58, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls changes header level names at Arbitration Enforcement to say "Defendant" and refers disparagingly to me as "Prosecutor" and "special prosecutor". Header level removed by Floquenbeam at DIFF.
  10. 21:20, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls tries to tar me with edits I have not performed myself, on pages where I am not active, citing diffs of someone else.
  11. 06:15, 23 June 2017 -- SashiRolls again engages in casting WP:ASPERSIONS, calling me a "remarkably productive Democrat-minded SPA who after working to astroturf Russian influence on the 2016 US election". I just ... I don't know what to make of this one. It seems like an implicit threat against me. See: "Once blocked, I'm afraid Wiki rules do not apply".

Prior behavior with multiple editors

  1. September 2016 - Topic banned by NuclearWarfare, then goes and WIKIHOUNDS admin NuclearWarfare as noted at [15] and [16]
  2. Admin Neutrality prior exasperation with the WIKIHOUNDING: SashiRolls: I've basically tried to avoid interacting with you, given your past conduct, but you continue to draw my name into your constantly grievance-laden posts. The fact that you bear these incredible grudges and follow editors around is extremely off-putting. [17]
  3. Note that user has previously admitted the WIKIHOUNDING with comment: Yes, I am keeping an eye on you from afar [18]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 19:28, 3 September 2016 Topic ban from politics related topic on a living person by NuclearWarfare.
  2. 21:36, 16 December 2016‎ indefinitely prohibited from commenting in AE requests to which you are not a party by Timotheus Canens, after using WP:AE to engage in ad hominem by WP:Casting aspersions.
  3. December 2016 - blocked by Dennis Brown for six (6) months for Disruptive editing and Wikihounding after AE report with consensus from admins Laser brain DIFF, Peacemaker67 DIFF, and Timotheus Canens DIFF.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  1. 12:59, 30 August 2016 Sanctions notice about American Politics 2, by MrX.
  2. 16:08, 6 November 2016 Sanctions notice about American Politics 2, by Doug Weller.
  3. 19:38, 14 December 2016 Reminder by Jytdog about American Politics 2. Specifically by engaging in personal attacks through use of ad hominem.
  4. 21:36, 16 December 2016‎ indefinitely prohibited from commenting in AE requests to which you are not a party by Timotheus Canens, after using WP:AE to engage in ad hominem by WP:Casting aspersions.
  5. December 2016 - block notice from Dennis Brown.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • The comments made by Power~enwiki are themselves entirely in bad-faith. Case in point my copyedits were just that: copyedits. I was adding links to another Wikipedia article which I had greatly improved recently: [19] [20]. To suggest any other intention on my part than simply adding local links within Wikipedia itself is the very definition of assuming bad faith by Power~enwiki. The ANI thread started by Power~enwiki was closed without incident by admin Black Kite DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @GoldenRing:Please, please don't change venues. I agree with this comment by admin Salvidrim!: "As many have said above, please don't shovel the issues down the road to AN. It is not fair to either party to have this dissected even more in front of an ever larger audience. I do think this can and should be dealt it here and now so we can all move on." This is appropriate for AE, Arbitration Committee has covered this specifically under allowed sanctions both IBAN and/or blocks, and it should be dealt with here. DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning SashiRolls

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by SashiRolls

I agree that after having been accused of WP:WIKIHOUNDING without evidence, and having noticed that Sage accuses a lot of people of this, I have indeed decided to follow his contributions to the encyclopedia. I would remind Salvidrim! that linking off-wiki is frowned upon based on WP:LINKLOVE. This behavioral guideline contains the root "harass" 26 times and the word "critic" once (as legitimate "critique" contained in a table heading).

In no way do I think my behavior at Bibliography of Donald Trump or at Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump (my first ever intervention on a Trump page unless I'm mistaken) was inappropriate. Wikipedia users who are readers far outnumber Wikipedia contributors. The reader should always be kept in mind. It is therefore important to make readers aware of who the authors of many of the book review entries mentioned on the page are:

  • Disinformation: 2 June 2017 | history | 16K | 27K | (DYK nomination), self-nominated it for GA (awaiting review)
  • The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: 3 June 2017 | history | 18K | 18K
  • Dezinformatsia: 3 June 2017 | history | 21K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (review pending)
  • The Case for Impeachment: 5 June 2017 | history | 28K | 31K | Sage nominated this entry for GA, which it failed.
  • The Plot to Hack America: 7 June 2017 | history | 26K | 31K | Sage nominated this entry for GA (review not yet undertaken), discussed below (see Malcolm Nance, below)
  • Defeating ISIS: 8 June 2017 | history | 25K | 24K | AFD nomination, failed/withdrawn from GA, discussed below (see Malcolm Nance, below)
  • Final Report of the Task Force on Combating Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel: 10 Jun 2017 | history | 28K | 29K |
  • The Terrorists of Iraq: 9 June 2017 | history | 21K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
  • An End to al-Qaeda: 9 June 2017 | history | 20K | 20K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
  • Terrorist Recognition Handbook: 10 June 2017| history | 22K | 22K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
  • Trump: The Kremlin Connection: 11 June 2017 | history | 20K | 20K
  • Think Big and Kick Ass: 13 June 2017 | history | 38K | 38K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
  • Why You Want to be Rich: 14 June 2017 | history | 20K | 22K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
  • Midas Touch: 15 June 2017 | history | 23K | 24K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
  • Insane Clown President: 16 June 2017 | history | 30K | 30K | DYK nomination
  • Time to Get Tough: 17 June 2017 | history | 31K | 30K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review)
  • Trump Tower: A Novel: 20 June 2017 | history | 18K | 21K | DYK nomination, indefinite full move protect request
  • Trump 101: 22 June 2017 | history | 23K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), DYK nomination

I would suggest that administrators kindly but forcefully suggest Sagecandor employ their skills on topics other than US-Russian relations and Donald Trump, as they have already done their work here. As for an I-Ban, if it is two-way, no problem. I'm not looking for conflict with Sagecandor. I want the community to be aware of what they are doing. SashiRolls (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing creepy about sifting through the diffs that are publicly available by design in order to make our readers aware of "on whose authority" our articles have been compiled. There is absolutely nothing personal in the list above. I have not called it creepy that each book review entry took about 10 minutes to prepare and occupied a tiny part of a very long day editing elsewhere. I have not sought to identify anyone working through the Sagecandor account as a RW person. They are obviously very motivated having created all sorts of categories critical of DT (Music, Books, Films, Works, Parodies) as I mentioned on the talk page.

An I-Ban has the effect of preventing a reasonably good copy-editor from paring the text down to size a bit, but that's OK. I'm not very interested in Donald Trump.

What is creepy: TimothyJosephWood's satirical outing of me in December. (A schoolyard play on my real name + that of my mother) sort of a "we know who you are" type edit". I will be happy to provide evidence to Arbcom should that be necessary, but I think we need to move on. I did not start this AE drama; Prosecutor Sagecandor did. (once again: they have appeared in 17 AE cases now in their 80 days in the project, 7 as special prosecutor.) Though they have been taken to ANI several times, I've never sought to prosecute them. (Though on the page in question Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump, they are guilty of restoring contested content without consensus, though I gather that rule has been recently overruled.) SashiRolls (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What is also creepy: Statements with no evidence from (very) involved editors... such as several below, including Neutrality full diff corresponding to what he added from last year, VM, TJW, Objective 3000 (ps: the case is about my right to assemble publicly available diffs to show our readers who has authored encyclopedic entries and categories of entries, nothing more. If it gets to be a big thing I'll add more evidence of astroturfing). With regard to being here to build an encyclopedia my most recent contribution was a translation to French of an English article I added to English Wikipedia. It involves a trade union in Haiti. There is enough time since the events involved that it is WP:NOTNEWS. The overwhelming emphasis of a lot of editors on news, especially partisan issues, is unfortunate. SashiRolls (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki I encourage you to check out the previous cases so you'll be able to determine whether they too were mostly puffery or not. In any case, time has been served for those alleged sins (I was not permitted to appeal the 6-month block, in fact)... I was denied all talk-page access for 6 months, which suggests to me hat Wikipedia prefers that all healthy criticism occur off-wiki. Of course if we prefer having power-users who call themselves contributors but others (like you) as depersonalized "users", well that's the way the psy-ops work these days...

  • A couple AfDs Sagecandor initiated for two books in February 2017, to give you an idea of how this all got started:
    • Snakes in Suits | result: keep (6-0)
    • Psychopathy in the workplace | result: keep (5-0)

An example of how links to SC's book reviews have been included willy-nilly on pages that are completely unrelated: here is an example of such astro-turfing on Tulsi Gabbard. I gather it was one of a dozen such edits. I mention this because the contributor involved was active in both of the delete discussions above. SashiRolls (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer

This is an especially egregious demonstration of NOTHERE. Support sanctions. SashiRolls has no right to suggest another editor change editing areas. Subject experts are welcome here, and if an editor adds good content, without creating disruption, then they are welcome to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, after reading the link provided below, I support an INDEF from Wikipedia. Creepy indeed! -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Timothyjosephwood

Well... I'm not going to have any hurt feelings over an indef. The above is just creepy AF, and this is starting to get into actual real life stalking. If there's a compelling reason to keep Sashi around I'm not seeing it... not now... all of 48 hours after their block expired. The time other editors have spent on this exact shit right here outweighs their positive contributions tenfold. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

TimothyJosephWood's satirical outing of me in December. ...Wut? I'm sure this will be good. TimothyJosephWood 16:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Well I for one am anxiously awaiting finding out how I managed to figure out their real name, plus that of their mother, plus somehow gave enough of a damn to go to all that trouble. Because... you know... I may need to have myself evaluated to see if I had a major stroke some time in December. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Good news everyone. Apparently what happened is that I made a perfectly normal comment, and... I dunno... I guess if you take every third or fourth letter it's probably an anagram for Illuminati. I'll just throw in WP:CIR, and double down on indef. TimothyJosephWood 22:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

I did the last block and not technically involved but think it best that other eyes review. For the record, the last block was for 6 months, had a strong consensus at WP:AE, and was done as a NON-Arb Enforcement block. It can be found here. There was some confusion on his talk page about whether it was an AE block or not, but it absolutely was a traditional block, just done at AE because it seemed unnecessary to move the case to a new venue once it has already started. As for the merits herein, I have no comment. Dennis Brown - 15:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • GoldenRing, there is no time limit to sanctions if they are not WP:AE sanctions. That limit only applies to Arb specific remedies. Admin are free to act unilaterally on a case at AE and sanction as a non-AE sanction, just as my last sanction against this editor was a non-AE sanction. Moving cases is problematic and bureaucratic when there is already adequate representation here. Admin are never restricted from acting just because a case was filed in a different venue. A "ban" would require WP:AN but that seem premature since they are reserved for serial sockpuppets and the like and only used when an indef block is unable to do the job. Not saying what the sanction, if any, should be. Just saying you are not bound to any limits just because it was initially filed here. You could indef me or any other editor commenting here, for edits made here, if there was cause. Dennis Brown - 00:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Capitals00

@GoldenRing: Topic ban can be indefinie and also an indefinite AE block can be made too, but this kind of block can be overturned by any admin after 1 year and 1 second, but not before 1 year. Capitals00 (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: yes it has happened before. For example, block of Darkness Shines.[21] It was made by the blocking admin as indefinite block due to an AE complaint, but he described that block will be no longer AE once it crosses the duration of 1 year.[22] Capitals00 (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Neutrality

I'll keep this short. I am involved as to SashiRolls. Suffice it to say this user has demonstrated that he or she is not here to build an encyclopedia, has had multiple opportunities to change behavior, and has refused to do so. My comment here is illustrative of what we are looking at here.

I support an indefinite ban. Neutralitytalk 17:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Power~enwiki

I agree that SashiRolls made several edits out of line immediately after a 6-month ban, and should probably be blocked completely. I disagree strongly with an interaction-ban.

I have had disputes with Sagecandor in the past (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Sagecandor). I find these "Hounding" accusations misguided. Sagecandor has edited or created almost all the Donald Trump-related book pages. An interaction ban is inappropriate due to it being equivalent to a topic-ban, possibly with political implications.

Sagecandor's case for an IBAN is full of puffery. He is exceedingly quick to file unnecessary [23] escalations in response to any comments [24] . Sagecandor also recently made a series of trivial edits [25] in quick succession [26], behavior I often take suspiciously. Some of this is Sagecandor's tendency to make bold statements and later word them more cautiously. [27].

This request was appropriate, but the forum may not have been. I am worried that Sagecandor may continue his trend of escalating disagreements more often than is necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC) (amended Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC))

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Stalking and harassing editors - which is what we definitely have here - isn't just IBAN worthy, it's sufficient for an indef ban, especially since SashiRolls appears to have no intention of stopping. IBAN will just result in more drama as people start to try to Wiki-lawyer it or tiptoe on the edges of it just enough to be irritating but observing "the letter" of it. You can look forward to numerous future WP:AE request if you do just an IBAN. Furthermore, as evidenced by other users' comments, SashiRolls' problematic behavior isn't limited to just their interactions with Sagecandor - it's basically one big WP:NOTHERE which also makes an indef ban more appropriate. Enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

There seems to be a pattern in SashiRoll’s reactions to sanctions, requested and applied. It’s always about other editors. This request is supposed to be about SashiRolls. But, the response was a long list of articles by the filer. Changing Statement by to Defendant’s and using the word prosecutor illustrates SashiRoll’s attitude toward any corrective action. Six months doesn’t seem to have been enough time for an attitude change, even after a ban from their own Talk Page. Objective3000 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

It boggles my mind that we are back here so quickly after the previous block expired. I agree with all the other editors who say that this is in NOTHERE territory, something that I have been seeing since a long time ago with this user. I think that an IBAN will just mean that we will be back here again, very soon. It's not enough. There is no reason that I know of why AE cannot consider an indefinite block, and an enacting administrator could issue it. Please do not kick the can down the road. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that I was unaware of some details of the AE block procedures, sorry – but the take-home message remains the same. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning SashiRolls

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Sashirolls went right back to hounding Sagecandor hours after his latest block expires, (and has been involved in off-wiki harassment I can't link to). I absolutely support an immediate IBAN between Sagecandor and Sashirolls, at the very least.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Sagecandor requests an IBAN, and SashiRolls says he's fine with it, so I suggest we quick-close this AE with an enforceable IBAN for today. It may not solve the entirety of issues but it's an immediate solution to an immediate problem. Small steps and all.  · Salvidrim! ·  15:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
With that being said, I'm also generally in favor of an indef block with the provided evidence and comments above, especially considering the last six month under a block did not change anything. As T.Canens and GoldenRing point out, it would have to be an "indef with first year as AE" at best.  · Salvidrim! ·  21:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm tending to agree that this user is not a net positive to the encyclopaedia and should just be indeffed - but that can't be done as an AE action. I guess an admin could do it under their ordinary discretion, or otherwise this should probably go to WP:AN for community discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Capitals00: the policy, WP:AC/DS#Sanctions, says, Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place ... blocks of up to one year in duration. It seems fairly unambiguous to me, bit of a third-grade idiot that I am. At any rate, I think that if no-one has done anything about this by the morning, I'll close it in favour of a proposed site-ban at AN. GoldenRing (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
As many have said above, please don't shovel the issues down the road to AN. It is not fair to either party to have this dissected even more in front of an ever larger audience. I do think this can and should be dealt it here and now so we can all move on.  · Salvidrim! ·  21:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, you've convinced me. User:SashiRolls is indeffed, with the first year as an arbitration enforcement action. He can appeal here or at WP:AN immediately, or to any uninvolved administrator in a year's time.
I've spent some time digging through the contributions of User:Timothyjosephwood for evidence of outing around the 19th of December and I sure can't see whatever's supposed to be there. Posting a diff and saying the outing happened "shortly after" that diff is about as useless as just casting aspersions. GoldenRing (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA