AC2020: Regular !voters

From Creolista!
Jump to: navigation, search

This page demonstrates that 15 of the 38 !voters have previously called for sanctions against me or have consistently !voted for me to be kicked off the island. These !voters helped to set the tone for the case before any evidence was presented (or dredged up 4-year old "evidence" in one case).

A legend has been provided below to indicate the names of the cases that these !voters were involved in.

Repeat players

Argued against UB, partially on the grounds that I allegedly didn't produce any content, but did not formally oppose.
(first of five comments at SR UB). Their !vote was motivated as follows: "well deserved". That's all. (i.e. purely punitive)
SR UB, (opposed because I mentioned Wikipediocracy) nb: I remained neutral on their RfA, bearing no grudge. RH Responds within thirty minutes of TB's filing.</span>
opposed UB, testified in TF v. SR, was cited twice (1), (2) by Cirt in SC v. SR I,
Symmachus Auxiliarus
SR v SS, (initiates call for boomerang against SR). More than 20% of their edits are to pages also edited by MrX. Cf. Tag, you're it!.
SC v. TR (this "no comments at AE" sanction was later used to keep me from making a clean-start in November 2018), SR AE appeal, SS v SR, X v SR (I), X v SR (II), X v SR (III) Cf. Tag, you're it!.
X v SR (I), X v SR (II), X v SR (III), Cf. Tag, you're it!.
X v SR (III) voted to sanction without reading SR's defense, did not comment on tag-teaming evidence. Cf. Bulldog Antz. Like Davey2010, used violent imagery (suicide, hanging), in Bishonen's case to respond to my showing the rhetoric of Tony Ballioni's case.
SR AE appeal, SR v SS pile-on vote for boomerang, X v SR (III) claims SR "actively prevents me from engaging in discussions or articles that they are involved in". Neither before nor after the successful topic-ban from AmPol has Jorm edited any mainspace or article talk page SR has ever edited. He seems to be primarily interested in GamerGate/Incel issues and has very few mainspace edits. Responds within thirty minutes of TB's filing.
SR UB (first of multiple comments including this one), X v SR (I), X v SR (II), X v SR (III). At least ⅓ of their edits to en.wp are to pages MrX contributed to within 60 minutes. Cf. Tag, you're it!.
Dennis Brown
SC v SR I (sanctioning admin), SC v SR II (leading comment). Both MastCell & I counted his vote as a support, though he did not (actually) say that.
Hut 8.5
RH, X v SR (III), (here proposing a sanction after only MrX, Snoog, & O3000 had made statements, prior to any comment from the accused)
strongest possible oppose to unblock, TF v. SR, SC v. SR (I), SC v. SR (II), SR v SS (pinged by SS), RH, Kofa v SR (I), Kofa v SR (II) (pinged by Kofa). Cf. their own terms for their IBAN being removed
RH, Kofa v SR (I), Kofa v SR (II)
SR AE appeal, X v SR (III) (blocked SR for two weeks without warning for a continuous series of edits to an obscure page in user space. Did not give me the opportunity to revert this ArbCom prep covered by WP:BANEX)


  • TB v SR: Tony Ballioni v. SashiRolls (Monday, 15 Jun 2020 23:41) (AN): rhetorically exuberant prosecution, escalating UTP discussion to dramaboard discussion (Cf. Streisand Effect). Closed during the workweek, despite my request to be given until the WE to respond. Open for 66 hours and 1 minute.
  • Kofa v SR (II): Kingofaces43 v. Sashirolls (II) (AE): Kingofaces43 was again called out for making things up. TF violated his own terms for his IBAN being lifted. El C indeffed me for posting a link to an evidence page (which he called an "attack page"). The previous deletion of the page as an "attack page" and El C's indefinite block were both challenged as unreasonable, so El C reversed it. The case was left open 361 hours and 27 minutes giving ample time for diffs of any disruption to be provided. None were. I was still (!) topic banned.
  • X v SR (III): MrX v. SashiRolls (III) (Friday, 7 Feb. 2020) (AE): tag-teaming case, I was the thirteenth person to reply, most admins had their minds made up before any defense evidence was provided. Uninvolved normal editors had a different impression. Open for 63 hours and 41 minutes.
  • SR v X (I): SashiRolls v MrX (AN/EW): 3RR on a 1RR page (El C warned, and marked it as "no violation", until I complained)
  • X v SR (II): MrX v. SashiRolls (II) (12 Jan 2020) (AN/EW): the "slightly" case, involved: WMSR, O3000, Snoog, MrX
  • TF I-Ban appeal: Tryptofish's I-Ban lifted by Tony Ballioni. TF's claim I was following them was proven to be baloney. See also the evidence on this page of TF following me (after being pinged by SS & Kofa) to various noticeboards since my unblock. Snooganssnoogans and Kingofaces43 both testified.
  • X v SR (I): MrX v. SashiRolls (I) (Sunday 22:11, 26 May 2019) (AE): MrX's 1RR violation claim rejected. Awilley unilaterally imposes his "civility" restriction on SR, then blocks SR due to a comment on his talk page about MrX's misrepresentation of sources one week later. Open for 26 hours and 13 minutes (workweek)
  • Kofa v SR (I): Kingofaces43 v. SashiRolls (I) (16-20 May 2019) Kingofaces43 called out for making things up. Resulted in a no-fault 2-way TBAN between TF & SR.
  • RH: DRV overturned RHaworth's deletion of an evidence page debunking Tryptofish's claim that he had never followed me around, calling it an attack page. Much ado about nothing, in fact... Tryptofish has now followed (or brought) me to: AE (5 times), AN (twice), ANI, DRV, ArbCom (twice), ... and RHaworth has been desysopped. Actually, looking into this further the in-depth version was not deleted by RH, but by ER. my mistake. As stated in the DRV, it (like the one RH deleted) is largely composed of direct quotes from TF.
  • SR v SS: SashiRolls v Snooganssnoogans (21 Apr -3 May 2019 AN/I) report concerning copyvio & incivility. SS pings TF who helped escalate and keep the thread open forever
  • SR AE appeal: AE appeal (13 Mar 2019): MrX, Jorm, Cullen328 were all involved. This was the only outstanding sanction preventing a clean-start to avoid being targeted.

  • SR UB = SR block appeal (28 Oct-5 Nov 2018) pursuant to Cirt/Sagecandor SPI; open for 219 hours and 54 minutes

  • SC v SR (II): Cirt v. SashiRolls (II) (Thursday, 22 Jun. 2017) Cirt's ideological astroturfing, Closed before the weekend. (open for 18 hours and 49 minutes)
  • SC v SR (I): Cirt v. SashiRolls (I) (Monday, 19 Dec. 2016) Cirt cries "hound", open for 38 hours and 48 minutes
  • SC v TR: Cirt v. TLRoche (15 Dec 2016) (MrX as expert witness): resulted in SR being banned from AE for pointing out that the prosecution's case was trumped up. SR was, in fact, correct about SC. Used to prevent clean-start after UB.
  • TF v SR: Tryptofish v. SashiRolls (Friday, 2 Sept 2016) timing coincides with the beginning of the academic year. Open for 29 hours and 32 minutes. A relevant example BLP edit from TF,