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

April 2019 (2)

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:

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.

• A superficial look shows that there is enough going on here that a look at the detail is necessary and this cannot be granted or dismissed out of hand. Unfortunately I don't have the time now to look in detail (and might not until next week), but I will look when I can if others haven't done so already (hopefully they will have done though). Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Thank you! Understandable - everyone has a lot going on both on and off wiki. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m generally involved re: Christianity and Catholicism, but I can copy your appeal to AE or AN if you don’t mind (AE blocks can’t be resolved on User talks). I don’t have an opinion either way and won’t be commenting, but I thought I’d make the offer to copy for review. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Holy...! Yes, please do copy it! I thought it got automatically copied, no wonder at the radio silence last time until the block had already expired! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Done: [1]. I’m placing the appeal on hold while it is discussed. I’ll be listed as the reviewing admin because of the template, but as I said, I won’t be commenting as I stay out of Christianity as an admin, so someone else will close it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I know AE appeal is not really meant as a big discussion forum on my part, but if there's anything that requires clarification from me, would you mind passing a statement/update on? Seraphimblade seems to be confused by some of the reverts that I discussed on the article talk pages, so if anyone else is experiencing similar confusion I would be happy to explain - especially since it seems that other admins may now be deferring to Seraphimblade's incorrect assessment of the situation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The AE report had 4 diffs claiming that there was no discussion for those reverts.

1. April 23, 2019
2. April 23, 2019
3. April 18, 2019
4. April 11, 2019

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)

@Awilley: here's my AE diff explaining - religion&homosexuality here (diff here, but just wanted to illustrate that the other user agreed), warning re: falsely cited content in abortion&health here (no diff because it's the first thing on the page; they never re-engaged), the other 2 are drive-by unconstructive edits so starting a separate talkpage thread to duplicate the fully explained edit summary would, as Newyorkbrad mentions, be pointless and not what the restriction is intended for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 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: [2] 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: [3]. 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: [4]. 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: [5]. *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)

@Seraphimblade: obviously I continue to disagree in general that my edits are violations in any meaningful way, but I would like you to clarify: are you seriously suggesting that after Oct13 made the same edit on four different articles, that I should have started a talkpage thread at each one of those four articles? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The four edits cited were not at all the same edit, nor made by the same user. Only one was made by Oct13. But yes, if you make content reverts in four different articles, you must open talk page threads on each explaining why you did. Whether or not it was the same user is irrelevant. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I would gently suggest that you are not familiar enough with the situation to make a call here. The edit by Oct13 was made in four different articles, hence the "different article's talk page" you're trying to knock me on. I legitimately do not believe that anyone intended my restriction to require me to start four separate talk threads and ping Oct13 four separate times for the same edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

(As well, Seraphimblade, if you're going to copy your comments here to AE, I would appreciate it if you would explicitly note there that you, personally, believe "Oct13 makes the same edit on four articles -> Roscelese is required to start new talk threads and ping Oct13 on all four articles" as context for your "not discussing the edit on the article's talk page" comments. Please.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Roscelese, are you alleging sockpuppetry? The first edit was made by 130.101.154.62, the second by 141.191.36.10. The third was indeed made by Oct13, but the fourth was by 84.223.69.2. Are you alleging that all these were made by sockpuppets of the same editor? If so, that would require some corroboration. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not. This is what I'm talking about when I'm saying that I don't think you know enough about what's going on here to make an accurate call about whether or not these are violations. What I'm saying is that despite your claim that I didn't discuss Oct13's edit on the article talk page, I did in fact do so, and posted a diff of my doing so. You seem to think that I just randomly chose a "different article's talk page" to discuss it on for no reason, when in fact the "different article" was the article where Oct13 had made the edit. Like I said - I am discussing the reverts I make in order to comply with the restriction and avoid edit-warring/editing without discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And I already stated my belief that you must start a talk page thread each time you make a content reversion when I voted in support of the restriction saying you must. That had two exceptions. "The same user made the edits" is not one of those." The restriction means what it says. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Okay, I would appreciate it if you would make your position on that clear at the AE appeal, since I think that's a pretty strange and idiosyncratic position and that no one (including you! since you seem to have ongoing trouble understanding what's actually happening here) intended the restriction to mean that I should make four identical threads and hit Oct13 with four separate pings for the same edit. It would be useful for other people at AE to know that your statement that I discussed the edit on a "different article's talk page" is not really true. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I don't think you understand what Roscelese is saying about Oct13's 4 edits. Oct13 added the exact same material about Concupiscence to multiple pages including: Homosexuality_and_religion Christianity_and_homosexuality and Catholic_teaching_on_homosexuality. Roscelese reverted the edits but only started one talk page thread at Talk:Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality. This seems reasonable to me, having one centralized discussion instead of starting 4 identical talk threads on 4 different pages. So in the list of reverts above, diff #3 is not a violation. ~Awilley (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: The restriction still specified on each talk page. I see that as important, since the idea is not only to discuss it with the individual who made the edit, but with any interested editors on each article. Other editors might be watching one talk page but not all four. Regardless, however, that would still leave the other three as clear violations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: So hypothetically, if one user went on an editing spree and changed the words "anti-abortion" to "pro-life" on 100 different articles then Roscelese would need to start 100 identical threads on 100 different talk pages if she wanted to revert those edits? ~Awilley (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It's mindboggling to me that we are still discussing this. The system worked exactly as intended: I discussed the edit on the article talk page and came to an agreement with the other user. And now, after that agreement was resolved, a random third party who has no history of editing the article, but who does have a history of editing disruptively and trying to get me blocked over content disputes, swoops in to falsely "report" this as reverting without discussion. This should have been a non-event. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Awilley Okay, I think we're still losing the plot a bit here. Even if we presume that one edit to be excusable (which I don't, the requirement is every time with two exceptions, and one of those exceptions is not "The user made the same edit elsewhere"), that still leaves three done by entirely different users which were also content reverts and were not discussed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, I'm not contesting the other three diffs for which Roscelese has still not provided links to any discussion. I was just trying to clear up the misunderstanding you were having with Roscelese on diff #3. And I doubt it was Arbcom's intent (in the hypothetical situation above) to make her start 100 identical discussions on multiple talk pages. I think the intent was to get her to stop reverting without discussion. It might be something to bring up at ARCA. ~Awilley (talk) 21:49, 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)

Why is my page being speedy deleted instead of being moved to a draft?

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)

@Shaddai Wright: Wikipedia is not a free web host, and draft space is meant to be used to prepare articles that are intended to go in mainspace. Your article on a fictional character backstory that you have created is, honestly, never going to belong in mainspace; even if by some slim chance your web series is created and becomes notable, you would have a promotional conflict of interest in maintaining the article yourself. I hope this helps - please let me know if you have any more questions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:38, 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)

@Shaddai Wright: It looks like it was already deleted, yes. So, there are several problems here - one, the topic of the article does not exist. Even films from big-name studios, the kind that will definitely meet notability guidelines once they're released, don't get articles until they are confirmed to have at least started filming or recording VO - an idea is not enough. Two, even if it is created and released, there are billions of videos on Youtube. We couldn't have an article for every one. This is where notability comes into play - reliable sources must take note of something, and only then can Wikipedia have an article on this. It's important to note that Wikipedia follows here, it does not lead - there is no argument of "how can I get anyone to pay attention to it unless it has a Wikipedia article". Thirdly, as I said, Wikipedia generally frowns upon editors using it to promote their own products. The best advice I can give is to edit articles about other things you're passionate about, work on your web series, and don't cross the streams. If articles on other web series are here, then either they follow our rules in a way that yours did not, or they're also in violation and no one has caught it yet.

P.S. You can sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) and it will attach your name and the date/time of your comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I emailed the original article text to Shaddai. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole

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)

Enforcement

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)

June 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 month. 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 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."

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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. 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, and my restriction does not require me to start a talk page thread about every edit which I make. The block is invalid because I did not violate the restriction. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)