User talk:Roscelese

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)

February 2016 – Discretionary Sanctions/Alert (topic=ab) – abortion

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

False accusation of rape article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#Percents_in_lead

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom restrictions

I regret that it has come to this, but I have notified the ArbCom that I believe you are in violation of the sanctions placed against you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

sorry

I'm sorry for making bad and/or irrelevant changes to the page operation market garden. I know this isn't a valid excuse but figured I could be helpful by making some grammar changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siredthea (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Siredthea: Hey, no need to apologize! Welcome to Wikipedia. I reverted your edit because it inserted some "===Header text===" that seemed like testing, and not all the vocabulary changes were synonyms or aided readability (like "obtain a foothold" vs. "form a foothold"). But it doesn't mean you should be discouraged! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Thank you, I,m new to Wikipedia and I don't really know the "language." so sorry to ask you but what do you mean by testing?Siredthea (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Siredthea: Because most articles can be edited by anyone, sometimes people will use an article to either practice adding material/formatting, or to check if they "really" can make it say whatever they want. Because you added the sample heading without changing it to what you wanted it to say, it seemed like it could be the former kind of test. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Roscelese: thanks for clarifying. I thought it was something like that but wanted to make sure. also I kinda wanted to see if it worked while trying to help. oops.Siredthea (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Siredthea: No worries! If you want to practice wiki markup and style, there's Wikipedia:Sandbox! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating restrictions applying to you per the AE report, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)

Yes, it looks like Sandstein decided to pull the trigger without looking deeply enough at the accusations coming from Slugger. I am reminded of the time that Slugger, who was BrianCUA at the time, was asked by Jytdog whether BrianCUA had a conflict of interest with regard to Catholic University of America (CUA), and BrianCUA misrepresented his real life connection, denying a conflict of interest. It's obvious to me that Brian has been putting his interests and political slant into Wikipedia from the beginning. This attack was part of the larger pattern. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 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)

I (and presumably Debresser) mention it because the filer specifically stated that addressing him by name was personalizing the dispute, and since Sandstein appears to be taking everything the filer said at face value in spite of concrete evidence to the contrary, it seemed worth bringing up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That was precisely what I had in mind.

Statistically, the chances of a review ending in an overturn of the block are not high, and a week is not a severe block. You'll be okay afterwards. Debresser (talk) 16:10, 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)

ArbCom enforcement

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)