Open main menu

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 (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


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

  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 articleEdit

Catholic Church and homosexualityEdit

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

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.

                                                                                                                        Shaddai K. Wright— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddai Wright (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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'TooleEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 02:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: The disruptive editing has now, AFAICT, crossed the bright-line of 3RR, if you're interested. [1][2][3][4]Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:56, 11 June 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)

June 2019Edit

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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Roscelese (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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 (talkcontribs) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


  • 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.

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done --MrClog (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@MrClog: Thanks, friend! –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@MrClog: @Black Kite: @Timotheus Canens: I honestly don't know how this is usually handled - as you can see, Sandstein is recommending keeping the block under the misapprehension that the reverts were not discussed, and I'd be happy to link diffs of my discussing those reverts (unsurprisingly the filer didn't see fit to include those diffs in his evidence list, since he falsely claimed that I didn't discuss) but I don't want to keep bothering people to copy over comments for me. Would it make sense to transclude or something? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:42, 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 (talkcontribs) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please provide the diffs of the edits with which you discussed your reverts of 10 June. Sandstein 18:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Firstly: I'd already left this comment the day before explaining in a general sense that I had reverted the addition of some obfuscatory wording, which is the wording that Slugger has been trying to edit-war in.
  • [5] ("it very clearly is in the source and therefore not unverified or OR") explains this edit re: Church's opposition to antidiscrimination laws
  • [6][7] ("our article indicates that most of the Church's political activity has been against, rather than for, gay rights...My concern is, as ever, representing the sources with appropriate WP:WEIGHT, a part of our WP:NPOV policy") explain this edit about the Church's political opposition to LGBT rights
  • [8] ("In neither case is your wording an improvement...I don't know where you're getting 'diametrically opposed' from. The two groups have two different briefs, that's all. Re the potential move, I don't understand your logic in moving Dignity there, even if Courage probably belongs there.") explains this edit about why it's not appropriate to describe Dignity as an organization that "advocates for gay sexual acts" just because Courage "encourages gay Catholics to be chaste" and to put them both under "pastoral care".
I even specifically noted in my edit summaries that I'd explained the edits on talk. Are you suggesting that I was not only failing to comply with my restriction, but lying in my summaries? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
This does not meet the requirements of the restriction. These talk page statements do not make reference to the wording you propose, either in the form of a quotation of the text you propose or in the form of a link to the diff of the revert. Not every vague statement on a talk page is a "discussion". It is not possible for a reader to unambiguously associate your reverts with these statements. To make sure to observe your restriction, you should start separate talk page subsections for every proposed revert, quote the original and the proposed text, and provide the reasons for that specific revert. Sandstein 19:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Sandstein: Respectfully, if this was the intent of the committee, it should have been stated unambiguously in the restriction rather than used as after-the-fact justification. At no previous point has anyone at AE ever stated that this is the bar for what constitutes "discussion" or dismissed my attempts at discussion on this basis, and no one involved in editing seemed to be confused about what I was referring to. I recommend amending the restriction to state this specifically if this is what you wish to enforce. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It's my determination as the enforcing admin what "discussion" means, as understood by a reasonable editor, and that will have to do. As a sanctioned editor with two blocks already, you should have been exceedingly careful not to violate your restriction again. Instead, as far as I can tell, you have completely ignored your restriction, and coming up with flimsy justifications after the fact does not help you, on the contrary. You must henceforth observe the restriction, or appeal it, or face significantly longer blocks. Sandstein 19:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, I've been increasingly scrupulous about complying with my restriction in the face of all but the most obvious vandalism, and I'm at a loss to account for your impression that any of this was come up with "after the fact." I would respectfully ask you to confer with other arbs about your definition of "discussion" and add an explicit baseline of what constitutes "discussion" to my restriction if need be; the other editors in the discussion, who presumably are reasonable editors, seemed to understand what I was doing as discussion, and indeed you yourself(!) have previously accepted talkpage contributions that did not meet the baseline you describe as "discussion". Maybe to you this seems like quibbling, but on my part, I feel that I am actually trying hard in good faith to comply with the restriction, and that I'm up against a "block first, justify later" attitude in light of things like this completely new, previously unmentioned (either in this case or in previous cases) bar for "discussion". Have I done something in the past to offend you? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: AM-CEdit

@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 (talkcontribs) 15:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries, on it's face it looks like a news website and it very well may be but it's definitely not reliable considering their "editorial policy" is a blank page as is their contact. Praxidicae (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: Makes sense! Thank you. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: Abortion debateEdit

@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 (talkcontribs) 13:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

But there are different opinions also among the scientists. A problem is that early born babies can be saved within the time that abortion is legal (in some countries at least). Boeing720 (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Boeing720: Your latter statement doesn't make this not original research. What you would need is sources of comparable quality that talk about the use of the phrase "unborn baby" - does that make sense? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
T think that phrase has been used outside Wikipedia. The OR-argument often arise when people dislike other's contributions. I'm a bit uncertain in this case. However I give you the ball & thanks Boeing720 (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Roscelese".