→February 2020: Replying to SashiRolls (using reply-link) |
GlassBones (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
:Also, I do tend to agree that characterizing me or my edits as "pro-Trump" in Dec. 2016 is about as devoid of any possible truth as can be imagined. It would have been better to use the terms HOUSE POV and ANTI-HOUSE POV. None of this is related to American politics, as such, but to who the HOUSE TEAM decide to kick off the island / out of "utopia", usually, as here, with the flimsiest imaginable excuses. So, removing the label "anti-Trump" from my name and noting that very successful prosecutor and former admin Sagecandor was a sockpuppet violating a TBan is grounds for a block? Give me a break. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 09:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
:Also, I do tend to agree that characterizing me or my edits as "pro-Trump" in Dec. 2016 is about as devoid of any possible truth as can be imagined. It would have been better to use the terms HOUSE POV and ANTI-HOUSE POV. None of this is related to American politics, as such, but to who the HOUSE TEAM decide to kick off the island / out of "utopia", usually, as here, with the flimsiest imaginable excuses. So, removing the label "anti-Trump" from my name and noting that very successful prosecutor and former admin Sagecandor was a sockpuppet violating a TBan is grounds for a block? Give me a break. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 09:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
::There's really no point appealing. {{U|Cullen328}} seems to have made his mind up that this block was necessary to prevent, well I'm not exactly sure what it prevents, but nonetheless, to enforce a sanction. It is interesting to note that a certain user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:James_J._Lambden/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=941150432 followed] Sashi to that sandbox and nominated it for deletion - behavior that earned another [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive260#BullRangifer user] a sanction a few weeks ago. I don't expect Wikipedia to be fair, but it is very demoralizing when such completely different standards are used. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 11:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
::There's really no point appealing. {{U|Cullen328}} seems to have made his mind up that this block was necessary to prevent, well I'm not exactly sure what it prevents, but nonetheless, to enforce a sanction. It is interesting to note that a certain user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:James_J._Lambden/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=941150432 followed] Sashi to that sandbox and nominated it for deletion - behavior that earned another [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive260#BullRangifer user] a sanction a few weeks ago. I don't expect Wikipedia to be fair, but it is very demoralizing when such completely different standards are used. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 11:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::{{u|SashiRolls}} - I received another ban from post-1932 political articles as well. I had the audacity to revert a couple edits by the great and powerful Snooganssnoogans. This professional editor snowflake thinks he or she owns every article he or she has ever touched, and accuses anyone who reverts Snoogy's biased edits of harassment or worse. How can Snoogy operate with such impunity? The article you sent me about the railroad to the Gulags (which is on my User page) was spot on regarding Snoogy. [[User:GlassBones|GlassBones]] ([[User talk:GlassBones|talk]]) 13:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:40, 17 February 2020
For those who like to rummage, the been is here.
Railroading at WP:AE#SashiRolls
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AE#SashiRolls. - MrX 🖋 14:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48
- Per the result of this discussion, you are indefinitely topic banned from the subject of post-1932 American Politics. This sanction has been logged at DSLOG2020. Best, ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry to see you joining in with the "I didn't hear that" crowd. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 06:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Swarm, interesting to see discussion among the uninvolved admins avoiding all of the points Sashi raised, and to also see how several had already made up their mind before Sashi had a chance to respond. Nobody made any attempt to look into the tag-teaming. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- In fairness, they probably don't need to look into it: they know how it works already and want to keep it working that way. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 09:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's a truism that Wikipedia is the way it is because that's how the community wants it to be. FWIW Sashi I've been a much happier editor since I've stopped trying to edit AP2 articles (and pretty much all other DS areas). Turns out it's quite relaxing to edit articles where other editors aren't actively trying to stop you. Levivich 18:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm glad you have found things more relaxing outside of these areas. Looking in at the intense wiki-lawyering here, I'm a bit surprised to hear you you say that. :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's a truism that Wikipedia is the way it is because that's how the community wants it to be. FWIW Sashi I've been a much happier editor since I've stopped trying to edit AP2 articles (and pretty much all other DS areas). Turns out it's quite relaxing to edit articles where other editors aren't actively trying to stop you. Levivich 18:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- In fairness, they probably don't need to look into it: they know how it works already and want to keep it working that way. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 09:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Best regards
Swarm I took the time this morning to look through the AE archives from November 2017 to February 2020 (archives 220-260). I am the one and only person to have ever had a judgment rendered against them which ends with a personalized best regards,. During that time, Swarm, you've closed at least 2 other cases, but you didn't include such a personalized message. I wonder if this unusual personalization is related to the criticism leveled at you for your misbehaviour at BN? I notice that you used an even shorter version (best,) to notify me of these heavy and unwarranted sanctions here on my TP above. Is this new personalization something we should expect more of at AE? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 07:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- May I suggest that you let this perceived slight go? This is not a good place to quarrel or pick fights, which seems to be something that you resort to when things don't go your way. We are supposed to be here to build the best online encyclopedia, in collaboration and in the spirit of camaraderie. There are so many wonderful and diverse areas of Wikipedia that could benefit from your contributions. Wouldn't you be happier doing that instead? - MrX 🖋 13:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- May I ask you to respect my twice repeated request (23rd May 2019, 17 August 2019) that you stay off my talk page, MrX? Your habitual prosecution of those who don't agree with your POV and the success of these prosecutions (like the success of Cirt's prosecutions as Sagecandor with your help) is more of a structural dysfunction (feature) than a bug (accident). Had neither side (or both) been sanctioned I would have let it go, however, now that the structural bias of your kangaroo court has been laid so blatantly bare, it does seem a shame to let it slide... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 18:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight...you posted an 3RR report on MrX and he was warned...then he posts one on you that gets you topic banned, and prior to this you twice asked him to stay off your page and now he's here again taunting you?--MONGO (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- No comment on Swarm's wording of the close, but you need to go to arbcomm. MrX think he WP:OWNS wikipedia and his friends at AE just reinforce this. Beyond absurd that he think he can just come to your talk page when you repeatedly told him not to. His mere posting on your talk page (not to mention his condescending tone) is a blatant violation of WP:HARASS. It is obvious that he dose not believe the rules apply to him and has been enabled by bad administrators. You have been treated very unfairly and I will support any effort to overturn your ban.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight...you posted an 3RR report on MrX and he was warned...then he posts one on you that gets you topic banned, and prior to this you twice asked him to stay off your page and now he's here again taunting you?--MONGO (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- May I ask you to respect my twice repeated request (23rd May 2019, 17 August 2019) that you stay off my talk page, MrX? Your habitual prosecution of those who don't agree with your POV and the success of these prosecutions (like the success of Cirt's prosecutions as Sagecandor with your help) is more of a structural dysfunction (feature) than a bug (accident). Had neither side (or both) been sanctioned I would have let it go, however, now that the structural bias of your kangaroo court has been laid so blatantly bare, it does seem a shame to let it slide... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 18:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's just how I sign sometimes.[1][2][3] It's just meant to be polite. I never even thought about it consciously. It's certainly not a personalized sarcastic pot shot if that's what you're thinking. If anything, it should convey that my involvement is nothing personal and that there's no ill feelings in my action, as was the case here. I don't recall any past interactions with you. Did I really post that comment on your talk page? Because that sentence isn't even grammatically valid. My bad. Anyway, I do see the context, I called for a re-RfA for an admin who resigned in support of the WMF during WP:FRAM, and you said I deserved to be blocked for it, and I said that if anyone whosoever thought your request had merit then they should indeed block me without hesitation. Like I said, I don't even remember that exchange. A lot of heated exchanges were had during Framgate. It appears though that in encouraging anyone who agreed with you to block me, I was challenging the legitimacy of your assertion that I deserved to be blocked for stating my opinion in good faith for the record without violating any policies or guidelines. Reading that discussion, I genuinely can't even discern why you even would have called for my block, because I obviously didn't take any of my comments too far and become uncivil or issue personal attacks. Even now, when tempers have cooled, and I can acknowledge that I did definitely cross the line in many instances during Framgate, I don't really see what was wrong with those particular comments at BN, so I reject the notion that my comments constituted "misbehavior". The accusation was silly then and is silly now. It wasn't even significant enough for me to remember. However, if you really think that this is some malicious revenge plot, and that the consensus I officiated did not exist, you have the full right of appeal. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- The consensus view of your action at BN was summarized here.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 09:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- MLauba was heavily WP:INVOLVED, and was an opponent of myself and an an ally of the user I was criticizing. Even if you agree that she was right, you can't possibly claim that her words represent a consensus. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- The consensus view of your action at BN was summarized here.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 09:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- From what I see there is no real evidence to support accusations of "tag teaming", meaning coordinated malicious meatpuppetry meant to fabricate a consensus or otherwise game the system. Users routinely associating with each other, agreeing with each other, or frequently crossing paths is not in itself indicative of bad faith attempts to violate policy. However, let's set that aside for a second: even if the allegations were true, they would have no bearing on the result of the AE report. Tag-teamers or not, the opinions of already-involved users' calling for sanctions carries relatively little weight in a community forum. I assessed the evidence, the community statements, and the consensus of uninvolved administrators. The "tag-teaming" allegations are a red herring at best, a personal attack and aspersion at worst. They do not actually mitigate the underlying complaint, even if you lend credence to them. And as a defensive tactic, it worked, several users focused their comments on their concern over those allegations. However, this comprised little meaningful defense from the actual allegations at hand. The evidence was strong and straightforward, and there was a unanimous consensus from nine uninvolved administrators supporting the topic ban. You have to have a serious defense to overcome that, and instead the defense focused on blaming the other party. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
T.S. Eliot
Clevinger was guilty, of course, or he would not have been accused, and since the only way to prove it was to find him guilty, it was their patriotic duty to do so.
-Darouet (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate you stopping by; I never cease to be impressed with your patients! -- EtherisedPatient 🌿 · 🍥 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
February 2020
Hello SashiRolls,
As you know, you are subject to a topic ban from post 1932 American politics, broadly construed. The topic ban applies to any edit anywhere on Wikipedia, with the only exception being appealing your topic ban. You edited User:James J. Lambden/sandbox 15 times, and that page clearly involves contemporary American politics. Accordingly, I have blocked you for two weeks. Once your block expires, please be scrupulous in avoiding American politics on Wikipedia, at least until you successfully appeal your topic ban and it is lifted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: I don't see this as a good block. It is very possible that sashirolls was going to use the information on that page to appeal his topic ban. Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- That motivation also clearly, brightly, violates their topic ban. This is a good block.--Jorm (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Rusf10, please correct me if I am wrong because I do not have a lot of experience in administrative enforcement regarding American politics, but weren't you formally warned about battleground behavior in the AP topic area? And aren't you the editor who recently revived the moribund page in question that categorizes various editors as "pro-Trump" and "anti-Trump"? Consider yourself warned that your edits to that page were in contravention of your earlier warning. Please do not test the limits. As to the substance of your remark, SashiRolls could have easily made a declaration of such an intent, but didn't. Such a declaration could have been evaluated on its merits, but this editor didn't ask for guidance and instead forged ahead with 15 edits in violation of their topic ban. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: Did I disrespect you? Because you went into attack mode with your response. Please do not threaten me. My edits to the page in question are completely legit and nothing more than a documentation of AE results for others to review. Rusf10 (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Yeah seems a little sketchy to be honest. PackMecEng (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Rusf10, no, you did not disrespect me and no, I do not think that I went into "attack mode". Are you prone to assume the worst? I hope not. I stated what I believed to be facts and invited you to refute my assertions, telling you that I am far from the most experienced administrator in these matters. You have not yet done so. I am only a single administrator trying to communicate my judgment to you about your actions and comments. I could possibly be wrong and if other administrators tell me that I am, I will certainly pay very close attention to them, or to any editor who makes cogent observations about my behavior. Until then, I will reinforce my warning, and I will ask you a direct question: Do you think that any page anywhere on Wikipedia ought to categorize various editors as "pro-Trump" or "anti-Trump"? I don't support that kind of pigeonholing which I see as devoid of nuance. Do you? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think everyone is just confused why you are bringing up an unrelated warning from over a year and a half ago and threatening people for no apparent reason. I would suggest the rest of your question would be better suited for the MFD on the article. PackMecEng (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, I do not accept your characterization that the earlier warning was "unrelated" and instead I believe that it was "on point". I do not care whether it was 15 months ago or 150 months ago. A valid warning is a legitimate warning. I am not threatening anyone with anything new. The editors that I have warned are well aware of the behavioral standards and the consequences for defying them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Cullen328, I'm sorry to butt in here and I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue with multiple editors about this block. I'd ask you to reconsider your view that the table categorizes editors as pro- or anti-Trump. The column heading is "Case evidence". There is only one pro-/anti-Trump column, as opposed to having a separate column for the filer and subject. The table doesn't specify whether the pro-/anti-Trump label applies to the filer, the subject, or the admin. I believe it applies to none of the above–it applies to the evidence, that is, the diffs at issue. If you look at the first row on the table, it's tagged "pro-Trump", and that AE filing involved edits to Donald Trump that are clearly "pro-Trump", such as [4] and [5], and it also involved comments on the Trump article talk page wherein the subject accused other editors of being "obviously anti-Trump", as well as edit warring Breitbart into the Donald Trump article. The dispute in that AE was about edits that were pro-Trump. The second row on the table is "anti-Trump", and one of the subjects of that AE is the filer of the first AE. That AE involved diffs of anti-Trump edits to the Donald Trump article (saying in wikivoice that Trump is a "right-wing populist") such as [6] and [7]. It seems to me fair to characterize the edits in evidence in the first AE as "pro-Trump" and the edits in evidence in the second AE as "anti-Trump", and they both involved edits to the Donald Trump article. I don't see this as characterizing any editors as pro- or anti-Trump, just the edits. Also, note that in the first AE, the result was a TBAN; in the second, no action. Correlation is not causation, but this table definitely appears, or alleges, to document a correlation. I haven't checked the whole table yet to see how far the correlation runs, but I plan to, and to be honest I was kind of looking forward to having some help in that endeavor. :-) Levivich 05:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, your response is artful but unpersuasive in my mind. When I look at that table or chart, I see specific editors characterized as "pro-Trump" or "anti-Trump". If that was not the intent, then whoever designed the table has to answer for that. But since you have engaged with me in an intelligent way, let me ask you a frank question: Do you think that it is permissible for an editor under an AP topic ban to be editing that specific page 15 times without stating that their edits were part of a planned appeal? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Cullen328, true I can't speak for the intent of the table designer. I can see BANEX suggests being clear in your edit summary and it would have been better if Sashi used an edit summary that said, "I am updating this table to use it in a forthcoming appeal". However, failing to use an edit summary is usually not a blockable offense, and I think two things are worthy of consideration. First, Sashi has been up front about their intent to appeal, and their intent to present evidence that they have been treated differently at AE than other editors in similar circumstances. For example, see above on this page, where Sashi writes,
I took the time this morning to look through the AE archives from November 2017 to February 2020 ...
. It's often been observed that Sashi has a unique writing style and one must speak Sashese to truly understand Sashi, but above where they writeHad neither side (or both) been sanctioned I would have let it go, however, now that the structural bias of your kangaroo court has been laid so blatantly bare, it does seem a shame to let it slide...
, that means they are going to appeal based on structural bias. (Nb: "Kangaroo court" is uncollegial and Sashi would do well to avoid that kind of language if for no other reason than that it makes it easier for me to defend you ffs help me out here.) Also, Sashi has a litterbox that they use to prepare postings at AE. You can see in the history the drafts of their recent AE postings, and of them working on the page after the sanction was applied, and editing the page concurrently with editing the table. So the first thing is, even if they're not announcing it in an edit summary, they're clearly working on an appeal and not hiding that fact in any way. The second thing is, this isn't disruptive. I mean, yeah, they're TBANed from AP2, but it's not like they're editing an article, or a talk page, or participating in an AFD, or a VPP thread or ANI or a policy page ... it's updating a userpage in an inactive user's userspace. It hardly gets any more "abandoned corner of Wikipedia" than that. That is the least-disruptive place for Sashi to violate their TBAN. I don't see a block as really preventing any disruption to anyone–certainly not to readers, and not to other editors (except those who choose to watchlist this userpage in an inactive user's userspace). At the most, if Sashi shouldn't be editing that page, I'd suggest simply telling them not to edit that page. If they don't listen, a partial block from the page. It would be different if they were editing a mainspace article after the TBAN. But fundamentally, yes, I think Sashi should be allowed to gather evidence of bias at AE in preparation for an appeal. Levivich 06:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)- I've known about this page more or less since it was created. It's never occurred to me that anyone would see it as anything but a page used by editors of one political blent to try to find evidence that editors with a different political view (mainly anti-Trump) were biased. Or that it wasn't all about American politics. To me this was an obvious violation of his topic ban. He must have known that. Doug Weller talk 07:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Cullen328, true I can't speak for the intent of the table designer. I can see BANEX suggests being clear in your edit summary and it would have been better if Sashi used an edit summary that said, "I am updating this table to use it in a forthcoming appeal". However, failing to use an edit summary is usually not a blockable offense, and I think two things are worthy of consideration. First, Sashi has been up front about their intent to appeal, and their intent to present evidence that they have been treated differently at AE than other editors in similar circumstances. For example, see above on this page, where Sashi writes,
- Levivich, your response is artful but unpersuasive in my mind. When I look at that table or chart, I see specific editors characterized as "pro-Trump" or "anti-Trump". If that was not the intent, then whoever designed the table has to answer for that. But since you have engaged with me in an intelligent way, let me ask you a frank question: Do you think that it is permissible for an editor under an AP topic ban to be editing that specific page 15 times without stating that their edits were part of a planned appeal? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think everyone is just confused why you are bringing up an unrelated warning from over a year and a half ago and threatening people for no apparent reason. I would suggest the rest of your question would be better suited for the MFD on the article. PackMecEng (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Rusf10, no, you did not disrespect me and no, I do not think that I went into "attack mode". Are you prone to assume the worst? I hope not. I stated what I believed to be facts and invited you to refute my assertions, telling you that I am far from the most experienced administrator in these matters. You have not yet done so. I am only a single administrator trying to communicate my judgment to you about your actions and comments. I could possibly be wrong and if other administrators tell me that I am, I will certainly pay very close attention to them, or to any editor who makes cogent observations about my behavior. Until then, I will reinforce my warning, and I will ask you a direct question: Do you think that any page anywhere on Wikipedia ought to categorize various editors as "pro-Trump" or "anti-Trump"? I don't support that kind of pigeonholing which I see as devoid of nuance. Do you? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Yeah seems a little sketchy to be honest. PackMecEng (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- That motivation also clearly, brightly, violates their topic ban. This is a good block.--Jorm (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Lol. That's absolutely nuts, Cullen. The tag-teaming of MrX & Cirt (qua Sagecandor) at AE is indeed part of the general problem of admin toleration of and participation in obvious tag-teaming and bullying (sometimes, as in the case of Cirt, while socking and violating a TBan). I was under the impression that I was not to speak about post-1932 American politics due to my having made life difficult for the anti-encyclopedists at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Not that I was not allowed to prepare my defense. en.wp is thoroughly corrupt.
- Also, I do tend to agree that characterizing me or my edits as "pro-Trump" in Dec. 2016 is about as devoid of any possible truth as can be imagined. It would have been better to use the terms HOUSE POV and ANTI-HOUSE POV. None of this is related to American politics, as such, but to who the HOUSE TEAM decide to kick off the island / out of "utopia", usually, as here, with the flimsiest imaginable excuses. So, removing the label "anti-Trump" from my name and noting that very successful prosecutor and former admin Sagecandor was a sockpuppet violating a TBan is grounds for a block? Give me a break. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 09:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- There's really no point appealing. Cullen328 seems to have made his mind up that this block was necessary to prevent, well I'm not exactly sure what it prevents, but nonetheless, to enforce a sanction. It is interesting to note that a certain user followed Sashi to that sandbox and nominated it for deletion - behavior that earned another user a sanction a few weeks ago. I don't expect Wikipedia to be fair, but it is very demoralizing when such completely different standards are used. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- SashiRolls - I received another ban from post-1932 political articles as well. I had the audacity to revert a couple edits by the great and powerful Snooganssnoogans. This professional editor snowflake thinks he or she owns every article he or she has ever touched, and accuses anyone who reverts Snoogy's biased edits of harassment or worse. How can Snoogy operate with such impunity? The article you sent me about the railroad to the Gulags (which is on my User page) was spot on regarding Snoogy. GlassBones (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- There's really no point appealing. Cullen328 seems to have made his mind up that this block was necessary to prevent, well I'm not exactly sure what it prevents, but nonetheless, to enforce a sanction. It is interesting to note that a certain user followed Sashi to that sandbox and nominated it for deletion - behavior that earned another user a sanction a few weeks ago. I don't expect Wikipedia to be fair, but it is very demoralizing when such completely different standards are used. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)