User talk:Roccodrift

Welcome!

Hello, Roccodrift, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for SlutWalk‎. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Auric talk 12:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Regarding this, Miles did not violate 3RR, and had already banned you from his talk page. The next time you leave a template on Miles's talk page, with the exception of official administrators noticeboard templates required by policy, you may expect a 24 hour block. Please let me know if you need any clarification — otherwise, stop the templating. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I guess you need to clarify how I'm supposed to address the matter when Miles is edit-warring and is in danger of a 3RR block, which was indeed the case in that situation. I'm fully aware that his 3 reverts covered a span of 29 hours, but do you honestly believe that a 4th would not have resulted in a block? Or are you simply endorsing his behavior?

I haven't posted a single thing on Miles' talk page since his last appearance at ANI (almost 2 weeks ago) and would not have done so were it not for his disruptive behavior. But some warnings are required in certain circumstances and this happens to be one of them.

And while you're here, I think you need to explain your rather blatant favoritism towards Miles by looking the other way even though you know full well he's a sock, and also your stalking of my edits looking for opportunities to abuse your admin privileges. Miles hasn't asked for an administrator to intervene, so why are you stepping into the middle of this on Miles' behalf? Roccodrift (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sock issue has been resolved. MM might be tag-teaming, but is not a sock or meatpuppet. Nor is there even faint favoritism, let alone blatant. Adjwilley is being very even handed and should be thanked, rather than criticized, for endeavoring to get resolution. Finally, there is no need for MM to ask for an admin to intervene. The ANI is underway and making progress. I suggest, I urge you, to retract these comments. – S. Rich (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see things differently on the subjective matter of Adjwilley's behavior, so we'll have to agree to disagree. But on the matter of socking, it is absolutely not resolved. I'm not talking about the case involving Steeletrap; there has been an entirely different case, filed by Adjwilley himself. Inexplicably, Miles was never CUed [1], and Adj is on the record since then stating that he still suspects Miles is a sock [2]. Again, you're entitled to your own opinion on what Adj is doing here, but the facts are the facts. Roccodrift (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the policy that requires you to leave a 3RR template on the talk page of an established user who is at 2RR, and I'll eat my words. On me knowing full well that he's a sock, I'd say that in my opinion you and he are in the same boat there. I've filed SPIs on you both, and they came back stale. On addressing the matter of edit warring without user talk templates, start a thread on the talk page and seek consensus. If they break 3RR, take them to WP:ANEW. There is no obligatory warning, especially for someone who has been warned as often as MilesMoney. If you think I'm wrong there, we can discuss it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this guidance under advisement, but my understanding of the rules of engagement at ANEW is that the template is required before filing a report. That truly is the only reason I gave it to him, and had I believed that step could be skipped, I would have done so.

And again, had Miles dropped another revert and gone to 4RR in 30 hours, do you propose that he would have gotten away with it? Because of the previous warnings you just mentioned, I don't believe he would have.

In any event, I hope we can at least agree that his editing on the article was disruptive and for the good of the project it was time to slow his roll a little. Roccodrift (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, a template is not required for users like MilesMoney who are experienced enough to know better and have already been to ANEW several times. If you want to slow somebody's roll a little, a short non-templated note on their talk page is almost always more than sufficient. (eg. "Just a reminder that you're at 3RR on _____.") Also, I highly recommend that you read WP:DTTR for some of the reasons behind this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what users see in the pre-populated edit screen when they create a new report:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

This certainly does imply that a template warning is a pre-requisite to filing a report, does it not? Anywho... as I said before, I was happy to stay off of Miles' talk page and I would not have placed a template had I known that it was not required. Roccodrift (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and I understand. It does indeed imply that there needs to be a warning, but it doesn't need to be a templated warning. I've seen text warnings, warnings in edit summaries, and diffs of old warnings. (example: "User has been warned multiple times about 3RR [diff] [diff] [diff] and has been reported here twice before [link] [link]") In the case of MM, my problem was that he had asked you to stay off his talk page. Anyway, this is all moot now, and this "Warning" is no longer applicable. It might be something to think about in the future though...I think you'll get better reactions from people when you're not dropping templates on their talk pages. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Please be aware that WP:BLP applies to talk pages also. As such, I have redacted this.- Mr X 21:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor judgment on your part, I would say. And I doubt if Ms. Marcotte would appreciate your white-knighting. Roccodrift (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you restore that WP:BLP violation again, you will be reported to WP:ANI.- Mr X 22:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrX is correct about BLP. And WP is not your soapbox. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're both wrong. Talk pages are for discussing sources. Marcotte is a source. Marcotte is a public figure, anybody can express an opinion about a public figure without fear of repercussion. MrX is simply trying to defend a source that he likes, but he (and you) should know that his BLP argument is preposterous. Roccodrift (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Mr X 23:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These were in BLATANT violation of the policy; you were warned and edit warred to reinsert them. Not even vaguely a close csll. You are blocked from editing for 24 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Roccodrift, I've seen you make worthwhile contributions to WP, so I am sorry to see you blocked. And if I had seen the ANI notice earlier, I would have commented in support of a block. You're not just grinding the axe, you're swinging it wildly. As a result, you only wacked yourself. Come back next year with a calmer perspective. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Please read WP:ELNO, as you seem to be confused:

Links normally to be avoided

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[4] one should generally avoid providing external links to:
1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
71.23.178.214 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of my comment at WP:BLP/N

Please don't reformat other people's comments. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In matters concerning BLP issues, we err on the side of caution. Roccodrift (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duck Dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian conservatism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

Would you kindly review WP:Discretionary sanctions and help me understand the reasoning that you followed that led you to drop this warning on my talk page and log my name at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement? Thank you. - Mr X 00:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Phil Robertson". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 00:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting removal of a stigmatizing ARBCOM case log entry. Thank you. - Mr X 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier thread

(edit conflict)Actually, notice was given here. And Roccodrift deleted the notice here. What is interesting is Roccodrift's nonchalance about the SPI. In the one SPI regarding me, there was no evidence to examine so (as I recall) I simply disregarded it. But in this case I think Roccodrift would do well to respond in some declaratory fashion. But, maybe, as newbies go, Roccodrift is simply one cool character. (Composed before Roccodrift deleted section, hence edit conflict.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't I be nonchalant? There's nothing to get excited about.

But since there are now several of you clamoring for a comment of some sort, I guess I'll throw you a bone: I found this discussion to be fantastically amusing. If Miles knew how I actually came up with my handle, he might be embarrassed by his feverish theorizing about it. "Roccodrift" was simply the CAPTCHA challenge when I signed up. Roccodrift (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTCHA is an interesting way to come up with a username. (But doesn't the challenge come later in the sign-up process? I don't recall.) In any event, I know very little about how these SPI thingies get resolved. From what I see, though, I'm thinking the SPI will come out adverse to you. If so, I will regret it because I found that many of your edits were worthwhile. (And many of MM's edits were worthwhile too.) But the value of edits must be weighed against the spirit of cooperation in the community, as well as the rules. Sadly, RD, you presented many rough edges, which does not help collaboration. (And if you are Belchfire, wouldn't a WP:CLEANSTART be the way to go?) – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Your "support" is likely to be misconstrued as support for a topic ban on Arzel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I put "Support sanction against QuackGuru" in bold, instead of just "Support". But if it comes across as something else, I suppose I can go back and clarify further. Thanks. Roccodrift (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts, per this investigation page. If your main account is not subject to blocks or sanctions, you may use it, but this account was clearly being used inappropriately to avoid scrutiny. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to see bad people blocked

Although no doubt this one's still got a sock. -- Jibal (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]