User talk:RoseL2P
Input[edit]
Why did you removed your comment? I just looked into the matter JzG brought up but it wasn't really revealing, and there seems to be no reason for you to not participate in GMO articles. Don't let yourself get bullied, no need to hide infos, when someone bullies or outs you report him at ANI. prokaryotes (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
email?[edit]
Hi. Do you have an email address you use for WP - I would like to contact you. If you do not want to post it here, please send an email to me and I promise not to pass this on without your permission. I think you know I am "a friendly". DrChrissy (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, there is nothing wrong in general with the two of you communicating by email. However, given the timing of this message, I want to caution DrChrissy about not violating an interaction ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Trypto, I don't know why you insist on sending precautionary messages like this about me, but you should know that by sending this you are attracting attention from my detractors which I resent extremely. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever about the content of the email (which I have already sent) and by making your post, I think it is tantamount to casting aspersions, perhaps even harassment, or having a chilling effect on me - all of which are actionable. I do not know what you mean by the timing of this in relation to my interaction ban. Perhaps you have been reading posts I have not. Please leave me alone to interact with editors in a way where I do not feel I am being watched. I am beginning to really hate this place because of postings such as yours. Leave me alone. DrChrissy (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Just as a follow-up, I am minded to publish the email here (or elsewhere - perhaps arbcom) to prove that you are talking a whole pile of crap. Be prepared; publication is likely to cause one of the biggest shit-fests these pages have seen for a while. DrChrissy (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Trypto, I don't know why you insist on sending precautionary messages like this about me, but you should know that by sending this you are attracting attention from my detractors which I resent extremely. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever about the content of the email (which I have already sent) and by making your post, I think it is tantamount to casting aspersions, perhaps even harassment, or having a chilling effect on me - all of which are actionable. I do not know what you mean by the timing of this in relation to my interaction ban. Perhaps you have been reading posts I have not. Please leave me alone to interact with editors in a way where I do not feel I am being watched. I am beginning to really hate this place because of postings such as yours. Leave me alone. DrChrissy (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@DrChrissy - I think Tryptofish probably just wants you to be careful about everything you say or do on this website. As you are aware, you are currently under constant surveillance from a group of people who are looking to find the slightest fault with you so that they can eliminate you from this place. This is obviously causing you a lot of stress, but it can also be stressful for those who appreciate your content contributions and do not want to see you trip over. Having said that, I know that you value your autonomy and are generally a very cautious person. Anyway, both of you are nice and decent people, so please don't fight over this :)
@Tryptofish - I just want to confirm that the email which I received from DrChrissy has got nothing to do with the topic or subject of his interaction ban. Thanks for the reminder anyway, and welcome to my talk page!
RoseL2P (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- RoseL2P, thank you for clarifying that, and thank you for the kind words. DrChrissy, my apologies if I jumped to conclusions, but the timing was such that it just seemed too likely. Please stop saying such antagonistic things towards me. Indeed, I am just trying to make sure that you do not get into trouble. Your detractors would draw the same inference that I did, and the fact that my post led to a clear demonstration that you had done nothing wrong ends up helping you. I am not one of your detractors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- We all have our page stalkers. Some of yours are my most active, disruptive and inflammatory detractors. By posting your warning, your stalkers would have been "alerted" to what is a totally incorrect conclusion that I was attempting to violate my interaction ban. I am now convinced this incident will be brought up again at some point in the future by my detractors just to irritate me or to start casting aspersions. The stress just ramps up. Some of your stalkers have made hugely false allegations about me, clearly because of the position they hold which makes them akin to the Untouchables. Your warning is giving these people fuel in their attempts to drive me from this site. My editing here has for many months been under this interaction ban and I am constantly mindful of this - thank you, but I do not need reminding.
- @RoseL2P. Thank you for posting the clarification. I would note to other readers this was unsolicited, for which I am especially grateful. I also apologise for bringing some rather choice words to your Talk page. This is very out of character for me, but is perhaps indicative of my anger at what has happened. DrChrissy (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: No worries, there was no harm done. I am getting very concerned about what has happened to you and am at a total loss for words. But what I want to say is this: Given enough time, things will work out eventually, most of the time. Even if things don't work out as desired, you can be sure that you've already done your best and have a clear conscience. That's what really matters in the end, I think. RoseL2P (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- RoseL2P, thank you for clarifying that, and thank you for the kind words. DrChrissy, my apologies if I jumped to conclusions, but the timing was such that it just seemed too likely. Please stop saying such antagonistic things towards me. Indeed, I am just trying to make sure that you do not get into trouble. Your detractors would draw the same inference that I did, and the fact that my post led to a clear demonstration that you had done nothing wrong ends up helping you. I am not one of your detractors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
See the above SPI, now archived, for its disposition and your responsibilities going forward. If you have any questions, let me know (here).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Bbb23: Thanks for closing the case. I think you made a fair decision and I will agree to keep the disclosure userbox at all times per WP:SOCK#LEGIT. This is probably in the best interests of everyone and will reduce the amount of drama that inevitably arises out of interacting with certain editors. Since the disclosure is very prominently displayed on my current userpage, nobody can claim that they are unaware of my switching of accounts. Going forward, I will also report all future outing attempts to the OS team immediately and without hesistation. RoseL2P (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Doc James arbitration request declined[edit]
Hi,
A recent Arbitration case request you opened has been declined and archived, as it is mathematically impossible for it to be accepted. I would like to pass on some advice mentioned throughout the case, if I may.
Firstly, the Arbitration Committee will only look into cases once other methods of dispute resolution has been sought. In this case, this does not appear to have happened recently, which is partly why they are not looking at it in more detail.
Secondly, a lot of these sanctions are not recent. While the committee do consider previous incidents when deciding whether to make a case, most of these are so historical they would not affect the result.
Finally, I have been asked to remind you that Wikipedia is not a battlefield - sometimes, things don't go your way or you disagree with someone. In cases like this, either take a step back, have a break then revisit, or ideally, discuss the issues through with others and try and pull back a bit. I knows on topics like this, emotions run high and it's easy to run in and want to change something, however, sometimes looking into the long-term is better.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Noted with thanks, Mdann52. RoseL2P (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- In that arbitration request you might recall that I made clear my intention to enforce a WP:BOOMERANG block. Then I got busy, and time passed, and now we're at the point where the block I intended would be punitive. So I'll just give you a final warning: the next time I see you abusing Wikipedia processes (AN/I, AN3, SPI, ARBCOM, etc.) to go after opponents I will block your account. I realize you probably think you're doing the right thing, and I acknowledge that you have made many useful edits to the encyclopedia. That's the primary reason you are not blocked right now. If I were to judge you only by the edits you've made with this account you'd be gone. I'm sorry this sounds harsh, and it may be moot if you've decided to "retire", but if you are to continue editing you need to do just that: edit articles, and not produce drama on talk pages and administrative noticeboards. If you decide you want to stick around, I recommend topic-banning yourself from WP: space and interaction-banning yourself from those with whom you have been in disputes. It's a big encyclopedia. Best, ~Awilley (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)