Jump to content

User talk:Scjessey: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎ChildofMidnight: new section
Line 50: Line 50:


I see you're having your own run-in with this unusually vexatious editor. As disruptive as his behavior has been I would counsel you to maintain as much decorum as you can because one of his/her favorite techniques is to make tit-for-tat accusations and as you have probably seen administrative complaints. As you know from long experience with this, when tendentious editors start flinging mud everyone gets mud in their face. I am not sure when the time would be, but either an admin will start blocking the account at some point, or else we may consider filing an RfC or seeking to add COM to the Obama article arbitration case if the committee sees fit. Although the editor surprisingly has no block history, their long history of incivility, incitement, disruption, blatant talk page violations, and edit warring article after article to the point of protection, would certainly merit some administrative action to reign in further disruption. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 21:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you're having your own run-in with this unusually vexatious editor. As disruptive as his behavior has been I would counsel you to maintain as much decorum as you can because one of his/her favorite techniques is to make tit-for-tat accusations and as you have probably seen administrative complaints. As you know from long experience with this, when tendentious editors start flinging mud everyone gets mud in their face. I am not sure when the time would be, but either an admin will start blocking the account at some point, or else we may consider filing an RfC or seeking to add COM to the Obama article arbitration case if the committee sees fit. Although the editor surprisingly has no block history, their long history of incivility, incitement, disruption, blatant talk page violations, and edit warring article after article to the point of protection, would certainly merit some administrative action to reign in further disruption. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 21:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
:I think it is becoming obvious that CoM is a sock of BryanFromPalatine, or someone eerily similar. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey#top|talk]]) 21:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:08, 6 April 2009

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

Blocked for 3RR

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Nothing personal — consider this a short shock from the proverbial electric fence. Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quartermaster chiming in on Obama article and Rezko edits (as well as other stuff)

You come across as an exquisitely honest editor regarding the Obama article. You're a good shepherd. I will tread lightly per your suggestions. Have a barnstar.

The Anti-Flame Barnstar
Thanks, Mom! Quartermaster (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I'm not seeing edit warring at the article, and I believe this was a simple mistake after reviewing the contribution history of Scjessey and the filer of the original 3RR report. Wikidemon CENSEI is not completely innocent in this whole matter, and these type of reports and tenacious/gaming editing practices is becoming tiring. That said, I don't think that ceasing editing at Barack Obama is necessary, but please be aware of the sanctions that are in existence and save wholesale reverts for blatant vandalism. Cheers, seicer | talk | contribs 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: seicer | talk | contribs 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note directly with the blocking editor suggesting that the block is a mistake and that the editing in question was routine, uncontroversial article patrol. The 3RR report itself is an over-the-top act of wikigaming by a problem editor. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Scjessey, as peculiar as this is, to eliminate any possible argument for the ongoing block will you kindly signal that you will not do more than 3 reverts per day on the main page, even unrelated uncontroversial ones, until and unless we clarify per the terms of article probation that this is okay? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away from Wikipedia for a few hours, and this block has come as a complete surprise to me. I agree that this is a highly dubious piece of wikigaming, and this is clearly confirmed by the reporting editor's attempt to ensure the block remains - an agenda-based 3RR report, basically. Oh well. No real harm done. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re unblocked

I'm glad you got unblocked. I'm sorry you experienced problems with an autoblock. I hope that my comments, with perhaps an overly-strict interpretation of 3RR enforcement, didn't have too much adverse effect on your ability to edit freely. Coppertwig (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight

I see you're having your own run-in with this unusually vexatious editor. As disruptive as his behavior has been I would counsel you to maintain as much decorum as you can because one of his/her favorite techniques is to make tit-for-tat accusations and as you have probably seen administrative complaints. As you know from long experience with this, when tendentious editors start flinging mud everyone gets mud in their face. I am not sure when the time would be, but either an admin will start blocking the account at some point, or else we may consider filing an RfC or seeking to add COM to the Obama article arbitration case if the committee sees fit. Although the editor surprisingly has no block history, their long history of incivility, incitement, disruption, blatant talk page violations, and edit warring article after article to the point of protection, would certainly merit some administrative action to reign in further disruption. Wikidemon (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is becoming obvious that CoM is a sock of BryanFromPalatine, or someone eerily similar. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]