User talk:Roscelese

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two days for returning to edit war immediately on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism after protection expired. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Roscelese (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I restored a semi-stable version from before page protection, and would like to be able to discuss the changes that other users wish to make if they decide to use the talk page instead of simply implementing them repeatedly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per agreement not to revert that article for the remainder of the block length. v/r - TP 18:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Restoring a consensus version is not an exemption under WP:EW. If you were unblocked, do you affirm you will not make any more reversions on this article for the remainder of the block length?--v/r - TP 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yup - I see that restoring a consensus version's a waste of time anyway :/ –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

(PS. I can't edit my user subpages while blocked? Is this new? I was going to use the time to work on a draft, and I could have sworn that was possible in the past.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, sorry.--v/r - TP 18:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The system allows you to edit only your own user talk page during a block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I can tell that now :P I was wondering if it had always been that way, since I thought that in the past, I had worked on userspace drafts during this down-time. Maybe I had them as subpages of my talk, I don't know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you aren't expecting to be blocked frequently enough for this to make a practical difference :-). EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course not! But I'm a coder and I'm curious :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

IPT

I did forget that you were there for Atsme's previous effort. While I was mentioning Atsme previous canvassing I was also alluding to [1]. She seems to think that wp:collaborate removes the requirements of wp:canvass. I guess because she used the word neutral she doesn't feel the need to be nuetral.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiBullying

Please stop WikiBullying newer users like you just tried to do on my talk page Padresfan94 (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, you're not a new user and warning someone about sockpuppetry when they exhibit classic behaviors isn't bullying. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You literally threatened me with another frivolous investigation if I didn't stop opposing your POV. Padresfan94 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Shomrim page

Hi, I'm a new user to Wikipedia , and I wanted to know what was wrong with the additions I made to the Shomrim page. I wanted to write about another organization. If you felt something was wrong you can revise it w/o totally deleting it. Thank you very much, and feel free to message me,JoelBuchbinder (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You should find a trustworthy source that isn't affiliated with the Shomrim group in question, and make sure that you add content that's cited to that source, rather than content that isn't cited at all or that is cited only to sources affiliated with the Shomrim. Is this helpful? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll try, thanks a lotJoelBuchbinder (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC) re-did it. is it better?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelBuchbinder (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U

I'm wondering if you would help with an RFC/U. You are the only individual who has contacted Atsme on their talk page regarding their disruption in this tiresome and ongoing dispute.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really have the time to take a leading role in this. I'll submit a View, but I can't really help compile the evidence with you. Feel free to check out the User Interaction Tool for me and Atsme, if it'd help. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no I wasn't looking for someone to help me compile the evidence but thanks for thought certainly. I just wanted to ask if you would want to be involved.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I dug thru and gathered some diffs. User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox I posted them there. I thought the SIOA conversation may in some way relate but I wasn't involved there. See if you think I should gather more if that is enough. I'm just trying to keep it simple.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"United States pro-life movement" page, section on violence

Hi there. Just a note to advise you that someone has re-introduced the case of Theodore Shulman and his online threat into the "Violence against pro-life people" section of the "United States pro-life movement" article. Didn't you say the article should only list actual incidents of violence, not mere threats? Also, someone has introduced the trivial case of Professor Miller-Young, who did what, shoved someone and damaged their gory anti-abortion sign. Hardly seems worthy of inclusion in the article! Please advise or correct the article. Thanks! Goblinshark17 (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the article, but in future please be careful to avoid canvassing. Selectively notifying users based on their known or supposed point of view is against the rules. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

1RR on United States pro-life movement

Hi Roscelese, as you may know, the page is the subject of discretionary sanctions. It looks like you've made 3 reverts in the last 2 days, would you mind self-reverting yourself? Juno (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not about to start edit-warring over it, didn't the sanctions expire? I don't really have the time to go looking for dates, but I remember being concerned a while ago that they were about to expire. Talk page stalkers with more information may correct me, of course. (Incidentally, I have no idea how I managed to edit exactly 24 hours, to the minute, after my previous edit - I wasn't sitting on it.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not really an issue now as the text has been re-added but I don't think that sanctions for abortion-related articles ever expired. Please do be more careful in the future. Juno (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please

Self-revert at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Roco (2nd nomination). I can see clearly the situation and will deal with it in the next 24 hours, but this doesn't help. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked that editor. I still suggest that you self-revert and you can note my action when you do that. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. I wasn't able to see this in time to self-revert before the discussion was closed, but honestly, I probably wouldn't have done so anyway. It's obviously not a good-faith !vote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 05:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U on Atsme

Before I posted it I wanted to allow you to review and see if you agree these diffs are of issue. These aren't the only policy violations and really even a quarter of the diffs. But everything would take a really long time and there's no point. Either this will be enough to get her reconsider her behavior and change it or it will be enough for ARBCOM to get involved. Here is a link to what I have User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox/2#Applicable_policies_and_guidelines. Let me know what you think.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think those diffs definitely show negative behavior, but rather than numbered links, it might be helpful for other users reviewing the RFC/U if you "previewed" what the links were, either with quotations or with an explanation of what they demonstrated. (BATTLEGROUND is accurate, but possibly describing a little more the nature of the battleground behavior.) I also strongly recommend that you decide what the desired outcome is - do you want Atsme to be banned from editing IPT and related articles? from Islam-related articles generally? ...? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

With an RFC/U you can't impose or enforce sanctions so no blocks, bans, or disciplinary measures will come from this. Basically ARBCOM won't look at it without an RFC/U. RFC/U is basically a call to chill but ANI hasn't done anything and ARBCOM won't look at it without a RFC/U. So in the short run it could prove to be a waste of time but in the long run it may prove necessary. This whole thing is really annoying. It seems she will do anything but honestly seek a consensus.Serialjoepsycho (talk)

I've added more to the cause for concern and desired outcome section.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help you by providing some diffs - the ones demonstrating your disruptive behavior beginning with the time I first disagreed with your POV pushing, your racist slurs against me, your public statement about your intent and purpose for me, the many uncivil comments and hounding on the Talk pages of other editors, on noticeboards and in forums, the ANI Roscelese initiated in her attempt to get me blocked and her pattern of behavior, the results of the two BLPNs, the results and discussions of our prior three ANIs - one of which involved the BLP issue, the apparent team work to cause me harm on Wikipedia, your pledge to "stop me", etc. I have a 23 pg. Word doc with plenty of diffs and will be happy to share. Atsme☯^Consult 11:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add - the diffs I have are a result of the ANIs, BLPNs, and other discussions that have taken place in recent months, unlike the harvesting attempts that you are actively involved in with the two editors you recruited to help cause me harm. What a remarkable "collaboration", indeed. Apparently, the last ANI Warning about your behavior toward me wasn't enough to stop you. Atsme☯^Consult 16:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, you're not helping your cause here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)