This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Sandstein
17:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Roscelese ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I didn't think it was necessary to "argue" that I had discussed the reverts when the diffs provided by the filer showed my discussing the reverts! It is very clear from the talkpages of the articles in question that I am discussing the reverts. (See the talk diffs provided and also Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality and Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality generally.) I didn't tacitly admit to anything, I simply didn't think it was necessary to add additional refutation to something the filer himself refuted. Additionally, if it wasn't clear, I do also contest the claim that I personalized the dispute, per Debresser's observation (I address people by name all the time). Noting that an editor is editing tendentiously against consensus is not personalizing, and the AE case history shows that I know what personalizing a dispute looks like. I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense as a reason. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Addendum: Looking back at the report, I'm reminded that I did point out that I had discussed the reverts. So this reason is even less valid than it previously seemed. Slugger's "she didn't discuss them at all" is in the same box as "you agreed on this edit" and "consensus was in favor of my language" - a false claim that anyone looking can see is false, and thus a very strange thing to say, but not something that should be regarded as gospel by administrators! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You do not appear to be currently blocked. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 17:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Further evidence, in case any was necessary, that administrative action on Wikipedia is arbitrary and capricious and that certain administrators are corrupt and incompetent. But everybody already knows that. I'm sorry you got caught in the web of corruption and incompetence. I'm sorrier still that most Wikipedia administrators prefer to look the other way because it's easier than trying to clean up the mess. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, if it wasn't clear, I do also contest the claim that I personalized the dispute, per Debresser's observation (I address people by name all the time).
You did far more to personalize a dispute in these diffs instead of just mentioning his former username:
[1]
[2] Please don't bring up a dishonest red herring. --
Pudeo (
talk)
10:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Sandstein has acknowledged that he doesn't read most of what people write at WP:AE. As I wrote, arbitrary and capricious, corrupt and incompetent. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
For continuing to make reversions without going to talk, I have filed a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 03:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Roscelese ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Once again, the reason for the block is false on its face - I very much did defend and argue for my conduct. As I said at AE, I discussed the reverts with the users who had made the edits I was reverting, sometimes even getting an explicit statement of agreement. The restriction was put in place to prevent edit-warring and reverting without discussion, not to prevent the reversion of drive-by destructive edits - which, when I reverted, I still explained fully in the edit summary. In fact, Newyorkbrad has specifically stated in the past, a propos of my restriction, that a talkpage thread which merely duplicates the contents of an edit summary should not be necessary. Moreover, the filing was pretty obviously bad-faith to begin with (Slugger falsely claimed that I wasn't discussing reverts on article talk which I did in fact discuss, and had never edited any of those articles before). My conduct was compliant with WP policy and with my own editing restrictions, and AE is not a block dispenser for winning what other users, oddly, seem to be seeing as personal battles rather than collaborative encyclopedia-building. In light of the fact that this is not the first time that Sandstein is blocking me on the supposed basis that I did not say things that I in fact did say, and of Sandstein's clear misinterpretation of the restriction, I'm pinging the admins involved in creating the restriction and the discussion that led to it. @DeltaQuad: @Salvio giuliano: @Courcelles: @Euryalus: @AGK: @Seraphimblade: @Doug Weller: @Guerillero: @Callanecc: @Bishonen: @Newyorkbrad: @Thryduulf: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Block has expired SQL Query me! 05:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The AE report had 4 diffs claiming that there was no discussion for those reverts.
You say that you did discuss these reverts with the users that made the edits. Could you please provide a corresponding list of 4 links (diffs preferred) to where the reverts were discussed, to help out the 12 admins you pinged so they don't have to individually go picking through your contribution history? ~ Awilley ( talk) 16:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I've taken a look in detail at the four edits brought up in the AE report. The restriction specifies that Roscelese must discuss any content reversions on the talk page, with the exceptions of blatant BLP violations or vandalism. So, the question at hand is whether the reverts were discussed on the talk page, and if not, whether the edits reverted were blatant BLP violations or vandalism. (It would of course also matter whether the articles edited fall under the scope of the restriction, but Roscelese has not disputed that they do and they all seem clearly to be within it.)
*The first edit in the AE report was an edit to The Silent Scream: [4] on 24 April 2019. This edit was not followed by a discussion on the talk page, as Roscelese's last edit to Talk:The Silent Scream was on 11 November 2017. Roscelese's edit summary was "rv - neutral language". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this was a content revert and required discussion. This edit violated the restriction.
*The second edit was to LGBT rights opposition on 23 April 2019: [5]. The last edit to Talk:LGBT rights opposition was on 27 December 2017, so Roscelese did not follow up this edit with a discussion on the talk page. The rationale for the revert by Roscelese was "Even if it is decided to mention the "ex-gay" movement in this article, this promo is not the way to do it". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this would require a talk page discussion. This edit violated the restriction.
*The third revert was to Homosexuality and religion on 18 April 2019: [6]. The last edit to Talk:Homosexuality and religion was on 3 March 2019, so Roscelese did not follow this edit up with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert was "Rv - increases reliance on interpretation of primary sources, does not add any new information, just jargon". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction.
The fourth edit was to Abortion and mental health on 11 April 2019: [7]. *The last edit to Talk:Abortion and mental health was on 21 January 2019, so Roscelese did not follow the revert with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert is "These claims are not in the NEJM article". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction.
Roscelese's restriction requires that content-based reverts are to be followed up with a rationale and discussion on the article talk page, not somewhere else, so discussing it on a user talk page or a different article's talk page is not sufficient as the discussion on the article talk page is intended to involve anyone interested, not just the particular user who made the edit. These four edits were content-based reverts (even if judged only by Roscelese's own rationales for them) and all of them lack followup on the talk page, so they were correctly found to be violations. I would therefore decline the appeal and find the block to be valid. That you find the discussion to be "pointless" does not change the requirement to start it nonetheless. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Black Kite: @ Timotheus Canens: I know this might not change the consensus overall, but I did want to bring your attention to the fact that, as discussed here on my talkpage, Seraphimblade was straight-up incorrect about my not having discussed the Homosexuality and religion edit on article talk. As you can see from the previous discussion, Seraphimblade would have had me frivolously open four separate discussions to discuss the same edit, but I instead opened one, and came to an agreement with the user who had made the edit. I did request that someone copy this explanation over to AE in light of the fact that people were signing on to Seraphimblade's misguided assessment of the situation without knowing the facts, but no one took me up on it. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Roscelese. I have been informed that my article "Tom Gibson (Series)" is being tagged for speedy deletion. I have made other contributions for articles, and they were moved to a draft. How come this article is being speedy deleted, unlike all my other articles? If you would like to tell me why, please leave a message on my talk page at User:Shaddai Wright.
Signed, Shaddai K. Wright— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddai Wright ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, Roscelese. I am not quite sure when to prepare for this article, because the series is planned to come out in 2020. As I have seeen in some articles, there are some that announce that their web series will come online. This one, I am not sure what is different about them. If you would like to explain a little more explicitly, you may leave a message on my talk page.
P.S. What happened to my article? Was it already deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddai Wright ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe you are in violation of the restrictions placed against you and have asked for an administrator to review. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 14:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Praxidicae: Sorry about that! I didn't realize it wasn't a good source - it just looked like a short news piece to me, but I was Google translating. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I am increasingly concerned about a number of behaviours being exhibited by Slugger O'Toole. I have made complaints against a number of them. I am particularly alert to issues around neutrality in relation to the topic of Catholicism and of "playing the system". I think your edits and contributions have been valuable to date and I would encourage you to remain active. Regards. Contaldo80 ( talk) 01:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@ NorthBySouthBaranof: Thank you for the work you're doing to keep tendentious editing in check at Catholic Church and homosexuality; sorry I can't do more at the present moment... – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@ NorthBySouthBaranof: The disruptive editing has now, AFAICT, crossed the bright-line of 3RR, if you're interested. [8] [9] [10] [11] – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Boeing720: It's original research because it was saying "scientists use the term 'unborn baby'" and instead of citing a reliable source that makes this point, it was citing a list of search results for the phrase. OR (and V) aren't about whether or not something is "right," it's about whether or not reliable sources actually say it. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 13:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Sandstein
15:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Roscelese ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The sanction was upheld at WP:AE. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
As I explained at AE, I complied with my restriction in discussing all reverts on the talk page and in making only one revert per day, since consecutive edits are universally understood to constitute one edit. I didn't realize until later that another user had made intervening edits, and I did not revert the same text more than once in a day-long period. It's troubling to me that Sandstein seems to be taking the words of the filer (who filed this report after I'd made a report about his long-term disruptive conduct at ANI) at face value, despite them being demonstrably false - the diffs that I did not discuss were not reverts, my restriction does not require me to start a talk page thread about every edit which I make, and I did not revert the same text more than once in this period. The block is invalid because I did not violate the restriction. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@ TonyBallioni: Hiya Tony - I was just remembering that you pointed out last time that block appeals were not automatically copied, and kindly copied over my appeal to the right places. Would you mind doing the same again? Thank you! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: I understand your confusion about whether or not the edits constituted one revert or more than one, but it's simply not true that I didn't discuss these edits on the talkpage. My comments about these edits are on the talkpage for all to see. I have to ask you, as an arbitrator, to actually investigate reports instead of functioning as a willing block dispenser in content disputes. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Roscelese,
I want to ensure that when this block expires, that there won’t be another one, anytime soon. Although we don’t always agree on stuff (sometimes yes, sometimes no) I’ve never doubted your good faith and desire to improve the encyclopedia. And maybe even especially when we disagree, I look forward to your thoughts to keep me honest and make sure I’m not omitting something through whatever biases I may have.
Given that, I’d like to make sure you stick around when you come back to editing. So, if there’s anything I can do, on or off-wiki (I’m emailable), please let me know. I don’t wish to get involved in second-guessing anything involving a current or past AE, but pretty much any other assistance I could offer I’d be happy to do. Ping me here, email me, or write on my talk page, if you think of anything. Meanwhile, enjoy your break, and don’t forget to smell the flowers. Mathglot ( talk) 05:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
This is to inform you about your recent misbehaviour with me. See here. Dagana4 ( talk) 15:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I regret to inform you that I have reported your behavior to the AE noticeboard. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 01:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that you recently nominated the Heidi Lavon article that I created to be deleted. You stated that the sources are blogs and do not meet the WP:RS standards. The sources, however, are published magazines that all possess an editorial process. Additionally, I designated the article to be a stub so that other editors may expand upon it in the future. Based on this, I plan to delete the tag later tonight pending any commentary Best, TWJohn ( talk) 20:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
You deleted my offering regarding an estimate by Linda Fairstein of false rape allegations as a percentage of all reports. Why? Are you just censoring salient information? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.97 ( talk) 20:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Roscelese,
Are you sure the source that is the base for this diff is properly given? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=False_accusation_of_rape&diff=910401579&oldid=910393024 As it stands it has all wrong: book name, first 2 links have zero relevance and the 3rd is inaccessible. I haven't looked at this article for months but you could remember something. Thanks. -- J. Sketter ( talk) 03:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Why did you remove my writing in the Bible and homosexuality? It isn't self-undermining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GayOrdinaryChristian ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe you have violated one of the restrictions placed against you and so have reported it to AE. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Rosclese, I started an RFC on the Bible and homosexuality page to get more participants involved. I didn't want to not alert you to it, your voice deserves to be heard as much as mine does here you go , feel free to respond! Necromonger... We keep what we kill 14:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I was overzealous with my recent report to AE, and I want to apologize for it. It was a mistake and I should not have filed it. I hope you will forgive me and that we can work together productively on topics of mutual interest in the future. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 16:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
why you considering Directoshivam article for delete Directoshivam ( talk) 05:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit from 2011 you made, I realize it was a really long time ago, but there is no source with an author named "Dynes" listed in this article, so if you perhaps remember the details (or can figure it out), please add the full citation. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 17:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello I have recently done an article on Sarv which you proposed for deletion. Am a new Wikipedian and this being my second article am very keen in getting the right suggestion. The main reason for the deletion as you have highlighted was that the article does not meet the notability guideline. On my end I have reworked on the sources so that the article meets this. I don't know if its right for me to remove the deletion tag after I have made the changes or its you as the admin to remove the tag. I would also appreciate if you could revert the decision and give me an opportunity to learn from my mistake. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milliede' ( talk • contribs) (UTC)
Heyo, hope you're well
Just wanted to drop a note about JustLucas (no ping) and the user warning template you left on their page. You jumped straight to a {{ Uw-blp3}}, was there a particular reason for doing so? I've not seen evidence of bad faith editing, so I'm not sure it was appropriate to skip straight to a level 3 warning, rather than placing a level 1 one. Per WP:UWLS#Levels, a level 3 warning assumes bad faith - I'm sure you meant well, just as a note for the future, it could come across as a bit WP:BITEy.
All the best! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
I won't link so as not to be accused of hounding but after seeing his updates to the HIV article I looked at his sandbox and it was enlightening. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 02:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
If you're interested (and feel free to tell me to stop pinging you about that article). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. There is a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that you may care to join. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 20:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it's me from the Steven Pinker article. Could you elaborate on your edit summary? I'm happy to discuss, but I don't see how removal of content could introduce a WP:Synth or WP:BLP violation. Botterweg14 ( talk) 04:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Roscelese, I left some comments on this page. I'm concerned that a section is entirely anecdotal and not encyclopedic in tone. Could you weigh in, I know you're active, or were active, in this topic area.--v/r - T P 17:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It was a bit rude to add a PROD to the article, like, right after I made it without discussing things with me first, but hopefully I can convince you that it is in fact notable. You said it has just trivial mentions but in fact there exists an entire article about it. There are a couple more that are also entirely about the Smart Pistol, such as one discussing its similarity to a real weapon and whether it is coming to Apex Legends. With that, plus all the mentions in reviews I am pretty well convinced it passes GNG. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 02:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop reverting edits to the Antifeminism article. The content that was removed is offensive and sexually explicit, it has no place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.224.140 ( talk) 20:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You wrote this--thank you! Next step, a historical marker. If we could figure out where she was born in Montgomery, or where she lived... Drmies ( talk) 17:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
And maybe you have an opinion on the IP's recent category edits. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 18:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Sandstein
17:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Roscelese ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I didn't think it was necessary to "argue" that I had discussed the reverts when the diffs provided by the filer showed my discussing the reverts! It is very clear from the talkpages of the articles in question that I am discussing the reverts. (See the talk diffs provided and also Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality and Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality generally.) I didn't tacitly admit to anything, I simply didn't think it was necessary to add additional refutation to something the filer himself refuted. Additionally, if it wasn't clear, I do also contest the claim that I personalized the dispute, per Debresser's observation (I address people by name all the time). Noting that an editor is editing tendentiously against consensus is not personalizing, and the AE case history shows that I know what personalizing a dispute looks like. I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense as a reason. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Addendum: Looking back at the report, I'm reminded that I did point out that I had discussed the reverts. So this reason is even less valid than it previously seemed. Slugger's "she didn't discuss them at all" is in the same box as "you agreed on this edit" and "consensus was in favor of my language" - a false claim that anyone looking can see is false, and thus a very strange thing to say, but not something that should be regarded as gospel by administrators! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You do not appear to be currently blocked. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 17:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Further evidence, in case any was necessary, that administrative action on Wikipedia is arbitrary and capricious and that certain administrators are corrupt and incompetent. But everybody already knows that. I'm sorry you got caught in the web of corruption and incompetence. I'm sorrier still that most Wikipedia administrators prefer to look the other way because it's easier than trying to clean up the mess. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, if it wasn't clear, I do also contest the claim that I personalized the dispute, per Debresser's observation (I address people by name all the time).
You did far more to personalize a dispute in these diffs instead of just mentioning his former username:
[1]
[2] Please don't bring up a dishonest red herring. --
Pudeo (
talk)
10:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Sandstein has acknowledged that he doesn't read most of what people write at WP:AE. As I wrote, arbitrary and capricious, corrupt and incompetent. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
For continuing to make reversions without going to talk, I have filed a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 03:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Roscelese ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Once again, the reason for the block is false on its face - I very much did defend and argue for my conduct. As I said at AE, I discussed the reverts with the users who had made the edits I was reverting, sometimes even getting an explicit statement of agreement. The restriction was put in place to prevent edit-warring and reverting without discussion, not to prevent the reversion of drive-by destructive edits - which, when I reverted, I still explained fully in the edit summary. In fact, Newyorkbrad has specifically stated in the past, a propos of my restriction, that a talkpage thread which merely duplicates the contents of an edit summary should not be necessary. Moreover, the filing was pretty obviously bad-faith to begin with (Slugger falsely claimed that I wasn't discussing reverts on article talk which I did in fact discuss, and had never edited any of those articles before). My conduct was compliant with WP policy and with my own editing restrictions, and AE is not a block dispenser for winning what other users, oddly, seem to be seeing as personal battles rather than collaborative encyclopedia-building. In light of the fact that this is not the first time that Sandstein is blocking me on the supposed basis that I did not say things that I in fact did say, and of Sandstein's clear misinterpretation of the restriction, I'm pinging the admins involved in creating the restriction and the discussion that led to it. @DeltaQuad: @Salvio giuliano: @Courcelles: @Euryalus: @AGK: @Seraphimblade: @Doug Weller: @Guerillero: @Callanecc: @Bishonen: @Newyorkbrad: @Thryduulf: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Block has expired SQL Query me! 05:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The AE report had 4 diffs claiming that there was no discussion for those reverts.
You say that you did discuss these reverts with the users that made the edits. Could you please provide a corresponding list of 4 links (diffs preferred) to where the reverts were discussed, to help out the 12 admins you pinged so they don't have to individually go picking through your contribution history? ~ Awilley ( talk) 16:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I've taken a look in detail at the four edits brought up in the AE report. The restriction specifies that Roscelese must discuss any content reversions on the talk page, with the exceptions of blatant BLP violations or vandalism. So, the question at hand is whether the reverts were discussed on the talk page, and if not, whether the edits reverted were blatant BLP violations or vandalism. (It would of course also matter whether the articles edited fall under the scope of the restriction, but Roscelese has not disputed that they do and they all seem clearly to be within it.)
*The first edit in the AE report was an edit to The Silent Scream: [4] on 24 April 2019. This edit was not followed by a discussion on the talk page, as Roscelese's last edit to Talk:The Silent Scream was on 11 November 2017. Roscelese's edit summary was "rv - neutral language". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this was a content revert and required discussion. This edit violated the restriction.
*The second edit was to LGBT rights opposition on 23 April 2019: [5]. The last edit to Talk:LGBT rights opposition was on 27 December 2017, so Roscelese did not follow up this edit with a discussion on the talk page. The rationale for the revert by Roscelese was "Even if it is decided to mention the "ex-gay" movement in this article, this promo is not the way to do it". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this would require a talk page discussion. This edit violated the restriction.
*The third revert was to Homosexuality and religion on 18 April 2019: [6]. The last edit to Talk:Homosexuality and religion was on 3 March 2019, so Roscelese did not follow this edit up with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert was "Rv - increases reliance on interpretation of primary sources, does not add any new information, just jargon". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction.
The fourth edit was to Abortion and mental health on 11 April 2019: [7]. *The last edit to Talk:Abortion and mental health was on 21 January 2019, so Roscelese did not follow the revert with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert is "These claims are not in the NEJM article". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction.
Roscelese's restriction requires that content-based reverts are to be followed up with a rationale and discussion on the article talk page, not somewhere else, so discussing it on a user talk page or a different article's talk page is not sufficient as the discussion on the article talk page is intended to involve anyone interested, not just the particular user who made the edit. These four edits were content-based reverts (even if judged only by Roscelese's own rationales for them) and all of them lack followup on the talk page, so they were correctly found to be violations. I would therefore decline the appeal and find the block to be valid. That you find the discussion to be "pointless" does not change the requirement to start it nonetheless. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Black Kite: @ Timotheus Canens: I know this might not change the consensus overall, but I did want to bring your attention to the fact that, as discussed here on my talkpage, Seraphimblade was straight-up incorrect about my not having discussed the Homosexuality and religion edit on article talk. As you can see from the previous discussion, Seraphimblade would have had me frivolously open four separate discussions to discuss the same edit, but I instead opened one, and came to an agreement with the user who had made the edit. I did request that someone copy this explanation over to AE in light of the fact that people were signing on to Seraphimblade's misguided assessment of the situation without knowing the facts, but no one took me up on it. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Roscelese. I have been informed that my article "Tom Gibson (Series)" is being tagged for speedy deletion. I have made other contributions for articles, and they were moved to a draft. How come this article is being speedy deleted, unlike all my other articles? If you would like to tell me why, please leave a message on my talk page at User:Shaddai Wright.
Signed, Shaddai K. Wright— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddai Wright ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, Roscelese. I am not quite sure when to prepare for this article, because the series is planned to come out in 2020. As I have seeen in some articles, there are some that announce that their web series will come online. This one, I am not sure what is different about them. If you would like to explain a little more explicitly, you may leave a message on my talk page.
P.S. What happened to my article? Was it already deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddai Wright ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe you are in violation of the restrictions placed against you and have asked for an administrator to review. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 14:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Praxidicae: Sorry about that! I didn't realize it wasn't a good source - it just looked like a short news piece to me, but I was Google translating. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I am increasingly concerned about a number of behaviours being exhibited by Slugger O'Toole. I have made complaints against a number of them. I am particularly alert to issues around neutrality in relation to the topic of Catholicism and of "playing the system". I think your edits and contributions have been valuable to date and I would encourage you to remain active. Regards. Contaldo80 ( talk) 01:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@ NorthBySouthBaranof: Thank you for the work you're doing to keep tendentious editing in check at Catholic Church and homosexuality; sorry I can't do more at the present moment... – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@ NorthBySouthBaranof: The disruptive editing has now, AFAICT, crossed the bright-line of 3RR, if you're interested. [8] [9] [10] [11] – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Boeing720: It's original research because it was saying "scientists use the term 'unborn baby'" and instead of citing a reliable source that makes this point, it was citing a list of search results for the phrase. OR (and V) aren't about whether or not something is "right," it's about whether or not reliable sources actually say it. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 13:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Sandstein
15:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Roscelese ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The sanction was upheld at WP:AE. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
As I explained at AE, I complied with my restriction in discussing all reverts on the talk page and in making only one revert per day, since consecutive edits are universally understood to constitute one edit. I didn't realize until later that another user had made intervening edits, and I did not revert the same text more than once in a day-long period. It's troubling to me that Sandstein seems to be taking the words of the filer (who filed this report after I'd made a report about his long-term disruptive conduct at ANI) at face value, despite them being demonstrably false - the diffs that I did not discuss were not reverts, my restriction does not require me to start a talk page thread about every edit which I make, and I did not revert the same text more than once in this period. The block is invalid because I did not violate the restriction. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@ TonyBallioni: Hiya Tony - I was just remembering that you pointed out last time that block appeals were not automatically copied, and kindly copied over my appeal to the right places. Would you mind doing the same again? Thank you! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: I understand your confusion about whether or not the edits constituted one revert or more than one, but it's simply not true that I didn't discuss these edits on the talkpage. My comments about these edits are on the talkpage for all to see. I have to ask you, as an arbitrator, to actually investigate reports instead of functioning as a willing block dispenser in content disputes. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Roscelese,
I want to ensure that when this block expires, that there won’t be another one, anytime soon. Although we don’t always agree on stuff (sometimes yes, sometimes no) I’ve never doubted your good faith and desire to improve the encyclopedia. And maybe even especially when we disagree, I look forward to your thoughts to keep me honest and make sure I’m not omitting something through whatever biases I may have.
Given that, I’d like to make sure you stick around when you come back to editing. So, if there’s anything I can do, on or off-wiki (I’m emailable), please let me know. I don’t wish to get involved in second-guessing anything involving a current or past AE, but pretty much any other assistance I could offer I’d be happy to do. Ping me here, email me, or write on my talk page, if you think of anything. Meanwhile, enjoy your break, and don’t forget to smell the flowers. Mathglot ( talk) 05:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
This is to inform you about your recent misbehaviour with me. See here. Dagana4 ( talk) 15:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I regret to inform you that I have reported your behavior to the AE noticeboard. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 01:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that you recently nominated the Heidi Lavon article that I created to be deleted. You stated that the sources are blogs and do not meet the WP:RS standards. The sources, however, are published magazines that all possess an editorial process. Additionally, I designated the article to be a stub so that other editors may expand upon it in the future. Based on this, I plan to delete the tag later tonight pending any commentary Best, TWJohn ( talk) 20:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
You deleted my offering regarding an estimate by Linda Fairstein of false rape allegations as a percentage of all reports. Why? Are you just censoring salient information? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.97 ( talk) 20:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Roscelese,
Are you sure the source that is the base for this diff is properly given? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=False_accusation_of_rape&diff=910401579&oldid=910393024 As it stands it has all wrong: book name, first 2 links have zero relevance and the 3rd is inaccessible. I haven't looked at this article for months but you could remember something. Thanks. -- J. Sketter ( talk) 03:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Why did you remove my writing in the Bible and homosexuality? It isn't self-undermining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GayOrdinaryChristian ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe you have violated one of the restrictions placed against you and so have reported it to AE. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Rosclese, I started an RFC on the Bible and homosexuality page to get more participants involved. I didn't want to not alert you to it, your voice deserves to be heard as much as mine does here you go , feel free to respond! Necromonger... We keep what we kill 14:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I was overzealous with my recent report to AE, and I want to apologize for it. It was a mistake and I should not have filed it. I hope you will forgive me and that we can work together productively on topics of mutual interest in the future. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 16:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
why you considering Directoshivam article for delete Directoshivam ( talk) 05:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit from 2011 you made, I realize it was a really long time ago, but there is no source with an author named "Dynes" listed in this article, so if you perhaps remember the details (or can figure it out), please add the full citation. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 17:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello I have recently done an article on Sarv which you proposed for deletion. Am a new Wikipedian and this being my second article am very keen in getting the right suggestion. The main reason for the deletion as you have highlighted was that the article does not meet the notability guideline. On my end I have reworked on the sources so that the article meets this. I don't know if its right for me to remove the deletion tag after I have made the changes or its you as the admin to remove the tag. I would also appreciate if you could revert the decision and give me an opportunity to learn from my mistake. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milliede' ( talk • contribs) (UTC)
Heyo, hope you're well
Just wanted to drop a note about JustLucas (no ping) and the user warning template you left on their page. You jumped straight to a {{ Uw-blp3}}, was there a particular reason for doing so? I've not seen evidence of bad faith editing, so I'm not sure it was appropriate to skip straight to a level 3 warning, rather than placing a level 1 one. Per WP:UWLS#Levels, a level 3 warning assumes bad faith - I'm sure you meant well, just as a note for the future, it could come across as a bit WP:BITEy.
All the best! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
I won't link so as not to be accused of hounding but after seeing his updates to the HIV article I looked at his sandbox and it was enlightening. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 02:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
If you're interested (and feel free to tell me to stop pinging you about that article). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. There is a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that you may care to join. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 20:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it's me from the Steven Pinker article. Could you elaborate on your edit summary? I'm happy to discuss, but I don't see how removal of content could introduce a WP:Synth or WP:BLP violation. Botterweg14 ( talk) 04:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Roscelese, I left some comments on this page. I'm concerned that a section is entirely anecdotal and not encyclopedic in tone. Could you weigh in, I know you're active, or were active, in this topic area.--v/r - T P 17:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It was a bit rude to add a PROD to the article, like, right after I made it without discussing things with me first, but hopefully I can convince you that it is in fact notable. You said it has just trivial mentions but in fact there exists an entire article about it. There are a couple more that are also entirely about the Smart Pistol, such as one discussing its similarity to a real weapon and whether it is coming to Apex Legends. With that, plus all the mentions in reviews I am pretty well convinced it passes GNG. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 02:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop reverting edits to the Antifeminism article. The content that was removed is offensive and sexually explicit, it has no place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.224.140 ( talk) 20:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You wrote this--thank you! Next step, a historical marker. If we could figure out where she was born in Montgomery, or where she lived... Drmies ( talk) 17:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
And maybe you have an opinion on the IP's recent category edits. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 18:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)