User talk:Roscelese/Archive 17

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:. 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."

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: 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 &sdot; 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&#39;Toole (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019 (2)

 * 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)
 * Thank you! Understandable - everyone has a lot going on both on and off wiki. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; 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)
 * 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 &sdot; contribs) 16:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done: . 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)
 * 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 &sdot; contribs) 17:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * 1) April 23, 2019
 * 2) April 23, 2019
 * 3) April 18, 2019
 * 4) April 11, 2019
 * 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 &sdot; contribs) 16:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:  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: . 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: . 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: . *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)
 * 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 &sdot; 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)
 * 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 &sdot; 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 &sdot; contribs) 17:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, are you alleging sockpuppetry? The first edit was made by, the second by . The third was indeed made by , but the fourth was by . 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 &sdot; contribs) 17:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &sdot; contribs) 17:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &sdot; contribs) 18:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

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 &sdot; 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)
 * 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 &sdot; 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)


 * 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 &sdot; 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)

Enforcement
I believe you are in violation of the restrictions placed against you and have asked for an administrator to review. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: AM-C
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 &sdot; contribs) 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)
 * Makes sense! Thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:39, 10 June 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)

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 &sdot; contribs) 02:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The disruptive editing has now, AFAICT, crossed the bright-line of 3RR, if you're interested. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: Abortion debate
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 &sdot; contribs) 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)
 * 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 (talk &sdot; contribs) 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)

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:. 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."

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 &sdot; contribs) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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 &sdot; contribs) 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done --MrClog (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, friend! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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 &sdot; contribs) 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.
 * ("it very clearly is in the source and therefore not unverified or OR") explains this edit re: Church's opposition to antidiscrimination laws
 * ("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
 * ("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 (talk &sdot; contribs) 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)
 * 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 (talk &sdot; contribs) 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 (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:42, 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 (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Assistance offered
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)
 * Thank you! Is there anything you're particularly interested in collaborating on? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism and me?
This is to inform you about your recent misbehaviour with me. See here. Dagana4 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

AE report
I regret to inform you that I have reported your behavior to the AE noticeboard. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Heidi Lavon
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)
 * I'm not sure "we sat our calendar girl down for a few questions" really establishes notability either way, but I'd definitely also disagree that all of these blogs are RS. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In my defense, it is better cited than most model stubs. Could the tag not be replaced with a notability tag for biographies? TWJohn (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for removing other model stubs. So, the thing about notability tags, like most other tags on Wikipedia, is that they're there to alert editors to a problem to be solved. A notability tag says "the sources might be out there, but someone needs to add them because the sources here don't attest notability"; it's not a permanent badge of shame. Do you believe that there are any sources out there attesting notability that you haven't added? I don't. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

July 30 2017
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)

Problematic sourcing
Hello Roscelese,

Are you sure the source that is the base for this diff is properly given? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)
 * The source very clearly supports these statements. What is the issue that you're having? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:34, 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)

Arbitration enforcement
I believe you have violated one of the restrictions placed against you and so have reported it to AE. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This has now been closed. Slugger O'Toole has been banned from making any reports to administrative noticeboards about you. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC
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 apologize
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&#39;Toole (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The best apology would be to stop harassing me. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

directoshivam
why you considering Directoshivam article for delete Directoshivam (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Pope Paul II
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)
 * I was chasing a vandal at the time and have no memory of the source (perhaps the article had borrowed another author's citation of Dynes?) but I was able to track down Dynes, Wayne (1990). Encyclopedia of Homosexuality. New York: Garland Press. I checked on Google Books and this quote is confirmed to be in the source under "Papacy" in vol. II. Hope that helps! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You rock!! Roche.svg — howcheng  {chat} 23:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me know if there's anything else I can do! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Sarv Webs Page
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)
 * Hi there! Thanks for contacting me. The Huffington Post source that you added is definitely a useful source that might help substantiate notability. Do you have anything else like that? When I looked, I only found things similar to what was already in the article, viz. passing mentions, press releases and other self-published content. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Roscelese, thanks for your reply, yes I have other sources 2 sources and I have update the page with sources. Kindly have a look at it. I would also appreciate if you could revert the decision on the PROD tag you placed on the page and give me an opportunity to learn from my mistake. Am working hard to be a major wikipedian contributor and I would appreciate if you could assit me. Thank you  –Milliede' (talk &sdot; contribs) 10:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like the newly added sources mostly don't identify Sarv by name, suggesting, in my view, that Sarv is at most a footnote to this scandal rather than notable in its own right. Do you have any other reliable sources that discuss Sarv in substantial detail? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Roscelese, thanks for your reply, I have added 2 sources from the 5 sources that talk about Sarv in the Scandal that reference 19 i.e MediaNama.com and huffmanposting. While the other references I have used from BBC and Reuters I have used them to backup my statement on the controversy. The election scandal is what made the company to be notable. Cause its because of the scandal that made whatsapp to revise its policy on sharing of content. Those are the only references that I have found that backs up the notability of the company. I would really appreciate your contributions on the page. Awaiting your response. Thank you Roscelese –Milliede' (talk &sdot; contribs) 2155hrs, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's all you've been able to find, then it seems like I was probably right about the company not being notable. Please stop spamming my talk page, it won't clear up my schedule any faster. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

User warnings
Heyo, hope you're well

Just wanted to drop a note about (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, 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 ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 15:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I jumped to level 3 because people had already reverted him several times noting in edit summaries that this was a BLP violation, but I suppose I could have done level 2. Thanks! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Slugger is doing his thing again.
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)
 * , why do you call him "slugger"? {&#123;31&#125;} {&#123;25A (talk)&#125;} 19:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference_desk/Humanities
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)

DRN
Hello. There is a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that you may care to join. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Explain Pinker revert?
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)
 * Edit conflict, sorry! I was trying to revert the other guy and didn't realize that that was not what happened. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes more sense! And thank you for restoring my edit. Botterweg14 (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion_in_Texas
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 - TP 17:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

About PROD
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)
 * I read your citations, I just disagreed that they supported its claim to notability. This could be discussed in the Titanfall article. "This element of the game was mentioned in many reviews of the game" is absolutely not a claim to separate notability. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:22, 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)

Adele Goodman Clark
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)