User talk:Scjessey

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 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 April 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]

May 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated personal attacks. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hey. Because of your edit warring at the Presidency of Barack Obama article, you've been blocked (not by me). Edit-warring on an article group on probation that's in an arbcom case you're a party to.. well, that wasn't the best move, and it is something I'm going to look at while writing up the proposed decision. Wizardman 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how that could possibly be described as edit warring, and the two edits I made occurred several hours ago. I received no complaint, and no warning. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to request an unblock. I pledge to avoid edit warring in the future, although I would like it to be understood that much of my work in this group of articles is "regular article patrol" reverting acts of vandalism and the like. I will voluntarily take a 24-hour wikibreak if an unblocking editor requests that I do so. I believe my edits (documented in the section below) have been unreasonably characterized as edit warring. I made only a single edit in the last 24 hours, removing content per talk page consensus (a discussion that is still ongoing). This block came several hours after my last edit. I was given no warning of any kind, and without the courtesy of a formal block notice I have had to improvise this unblock request.

Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Toddst1 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the unblock. Apart from this edit, I intend to keep my promise to take a voluntary 24-hour wikibreak. I will return to editing no earlier than 02:45, 9 May (UTC), which is 24 hours after the block was applied. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that's necessary, but do as you wish. Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block explanation please

(this note after edit conflict with previous section)

I have been accused of edit warring at Presidency of Barack Obama, and blocked for 24 hours. I have received no warning and no explanation. My last 4 edits to that article are as follows:

21:05, 29 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 128.240.229.68 identified as vandalism to last revision by QueenofBattle. using TW")
22:08, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288296766 by Grundle2600 (talk) - this isn't Wikiquote, it's Wikipedia.")
22:29, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288358928 by ChildofMidnight (talk) - rv quote again. "Consensus before contentious", CoM")
23:19, 7 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288570875 by ChildofMidnight (talk) - rv per talk page consensus that you must've missed")

I am completely at a loss as to why this block has occurred. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually pointed this out here and got this response. Soxwon (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well I think this is a bad block (although I would say that, I suppose). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be worse Soxwon (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the same text three times, triggering a large revert war on the article. Edit-warring is a bad thing for the project, and you should know better than to engage in it. I don't care whether you reverted three or four times, the principle remains the same. — Werdna • talk 03:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just realized that User:ChildofMidnight has also been blocked for the same thing. I think that was also a bad block. We were in the middle of an active discussion about this on the talk page. I do not understand the logic of your heavy-handed approach. The lack of a warning, or even a courtesy notice after the block, is quite unreasonable to my mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey, Wizardman, is one of the arbitrators so I think you should pay some serious attention there. Personally, I think that the administrator Werdna was within the bounds of blocking policy. Whether you should have been blocked is perhaps a different question, but setting the content and consensus question aside for the minute you were at 3RR in 2 days, versus ChildofMidnight being at 4RR in the same period. Unblock requests that look like protests against perceived unfairness don't really work - you might take that as a sign to take things easy. Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Werdna's explanation above, the block is justified - perhaps not strictly necessary, but within discretion. Given the assurances in the unblock request, though, I'd support an unblock at this point. Sandstein 09:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for "you fail to see the problem" -- warned you about that on Talk:DreamHost. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just totally ridiculous, and especially unbelievable given that this is my own talk page. Shamefully bad block, Sarek. I have attempted to explain to Grundle why his approach is problematic, and you have blocked me for it. Neither a personal attack nor harassment. I will consider bringing up your block-happy approach at WP:ANI as soon as this bad block expires, because this is your second bad block of my account. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you, after discussion with Sarek. I agree this block was overly severe, given the phrase cited as the blocking reason, which occurred in the context of a legitimate spirited debate. Still, you'd probably do well to try to keep the rhetoric down in some other contexts you are involved in discussions. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the unblock. I will take on board your suggestion, and the suggestions of the blocking administrator and try to moderate my comments in future. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's over now, I'd just like to second the view that this was a bad block, as there's really nothing uncivil in Scjessey's comment. And I say this as one who warned him about some recent incivility in the section immediately below this one about 10 hours before the block happened. Bad call here by Sarek I'm afraid. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case he felt it was something he needed to know.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just offering my own two cents (I'm not sure if the recall link was for me or Scjessey or anyone who happened by), I certainly don't think this is remotely cause for recall. I just don't think a block was at all needed in this circumstance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. I'm not interested in turning this into a big deal. I didn't like getting either of the harassment blocks, as I believed them to be unwarranted, but the good admin work that Sarek does far outweighs what I perceive as the bad. I do not see any reason to take this further, but I reserve the right to stamp and scream and throw my toys out of the pram at some point in the future. ;) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Stevertigo (talk · contribs), Sceptre (talk · contribs), ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs), Scjessey (talk · contribs) and Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) are admonished for their edit-warring. Furthermore, they shall be subject to an editing restriction for one year. They are limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
In addition, Scjessey (talk · contribs) and ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) are topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions.

Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.

Wikidemon (talk · contribs) is admonished for his part in the edit warring.
Grsz11 (talk · contribs) and Tarc (talk · contribs) are reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations.
Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.

The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amended remedy

The Committee has amended several remedies of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles, at least one of which mentions your name. You may view the amended remedies at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Remedies.

On behalf of the Committee. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Requests for clarification

Please note that there are two requests for clarification of the Arbcom remedy, including one I recently filed, that may affect you. They are here and here. Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Not a big deal at all and nothing you even really need to comment on it, but see my request for clarification to the Arbs here regarding the recent amended remedy. It's a technical issue but it was the source of some confusion so I'm asking for the matter to be clarified. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight topic banned

As a party to the Obama articles arbitration case, you are notified as a courtesy of this amendment to the final decision.

By motion of the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,

Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed):
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.

Discussion of this motion should be directed here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this[1] I don't think vandalism reversions are described as an exception. So please be careful. Take these off your watch-list. If you don't, someone will. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected - there is a vandalism exception and this is obvious vandalism. Still, do be careful! - Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your tireless and good-humoured efforts to keep the hacking article NPOV.Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your analysis of my efforts would be considered a fringe view LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

142.177.62.236

I've noticed that you've repeatedly removed talk posts from this IP. Which block is this IP evading? How do you know? Why haven't you gone down proper channels to get this IP investigated and blocked rather than just reverting comments that, in a vacuum, do not appear disruptive (disclaimer: I have only seen the few most recent ones). Oren0 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's evading the blocks on 142.68.92.131 and 142.68.165.13. Reverting all of his contributions is appropriate per WP:RBI. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plea

Could you try and express your sentiments in more temperate language? You're only giving ammunition to the "other side" and admins who are sympathetic to them. It's to your benefit to tone it down, even if you have to grit your teeth while you're typing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking again in light of [2]. See also WP:BAIT. Be a smart fish. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might interest you

Saw this on AN3, and it appears to be a long nasty battle over adding and removing quotes to refs. Glancing over it, they're calling "invisible" and "unnecessary". Just thought you might want to educate some people... :) Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve the issue? Nah, I just figured you'd have fun yelling at people. :) Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You? Never! But seriously, I had no idea what the point of the quotes was until that discussion with you. Until then I thought them pointless. When people are dug into a good fight, they may not appreciate an outsider intervening with facts, but it may given them a reason to back away, while still saving a little face. Guettarda (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - This proposal is closely related to an earlier discussion that you had started as you will see in the discussion section referenced above. --GoRight (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, Rudeness and Personal Attacks

I have no history with WMC that I'm aware of and bear him no personal ill will. I responded tartly to his snide comment above and found myself to be the only recipient of multiple criticisms for poor behaviour. I'd feel a lot more amenable to discussion and compromise had WMCs rudeness been mentioned as well. Although the stubborness of the Sceptics is problematic, it is no more so than the condescention and dismissiveness of the True Believers. It took quite a bit of back-and-forth to stop the "septics" nonsense, and I would sincerely hope that you would be willing to work to stop snarkiness on both sides of the fence. BTW - your page, your space. No grief from me if you decide to delete this w/o comment. Nightmote (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party miscellany

Hi again SCjessey, there is a substantive edit/merge discussion occurring over at Tea Party protests, 2009 and Tea Party movement. Given your significant contributions in the past, I thought you might want to drop by and check out what's going on over there. Thanks. --Happysomeone (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of formal request

I know that you said that I should never post on your talk page again, but I am required to inform you of the following complaint against you.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Scjessey:

User:Scjessey is warned that the Biographies of living persons policy is interpreted liberally, and discussion should occur before restoring any text about which another editor has raised concerns. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how article talk pages work - it's a stretch to use BLP to justify editors removing each other's article talk page comments. The below WP:NOT#FORUM warning would be more germane. I do see some unintentional irony here because Scjessey has in the past on other pages advocated an expanded view of BLP. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

The discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues: [4], [5]. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you win Obama

Ok, you don't like the current size of 10. Just put it back to the old version, which says 12. A 12 lawyer firm is not that small. Furthermore, you have no references that say it's small. The old version might not be completely correct, but it's close enough. JB50000 (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Another panel member facing calls to resign

I just collapsed part of the discussion there as it looked like you and A Quest For Knowledge were diverging from the topic at hand. Please feel free to continue the discussion productively or create a userspace draft or article if indicated by the sources, but I think disengaging from that particular subthread would be ideal. I have made the same request of A Quest For Knowledge. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

Hello, Scjessey. You have new messages at Nsaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP Block

That's ok, I have had an issue before, believe it or not, I have been harassed by my ex-boyfriend in the past on here(why I don't know). I had to make different accounts to get away from him, and he seemed to be stalking me, since I edited an article that he never edited(I stopped editing the article he also edited to get away from him). He then went and found my new username since he knew of a show I liked that I was editing, and started harassing me on there, demanding for Checkusers to be performed on me and everything, saying that I vandalize articles. I don't, since I know you can be blocked if you are vandalizing articles. Anyway, if he harasses me on this account I will be demanding that something be done, isn't it harassment if someone stalks you and harasses you on accounts you make and you make new accounts just to get away from them? I know I shouldn't have made new accounts, but this is the last account I've made and am using, and I am not abusing multiple accounts. This is the only account I use. Abby 96 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Abby 96 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support this?

On the CRU hacking talk page, I asked you this: would you support a separate article named (e.g.) "CRU Documents Controversy", with Climategate redirecting there? This would specifically address your concerns expressed in the "Utah" analogy.

Here is my problem with the Utah analogy you gave: Utah is a much more broad topic than the "Utahgate" controversy you allude to, as opposed to CRU hacking which is a very specific topic intricately associated with the document content controversy that followed. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Furthermore, I have never opposed the creation of a separate article on the documents controversy, and in fact I believe that is an angle worth pursuing, but it is my understanding that many editors oppose that as well. So my point is, as long as the hacking article is intended to cover the whole debate, it should be titled more generically than it is now, which only covers one aspect.

So would you support a separate article dealing with the content controversy, with Climategate redirecting there? That would address my concerns. Others have proposed this as well. In that scenario, the hacking title would remain as it is. ATren (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Feedback

Hello. I see that you have frequently edited the Barack Obama article and I want to invite your feedback on this draft article on the international media reaction to Barack Obama's 2008 election. Please note that images are available to improve the article's look and will be added once the page is published. Please leave comments on the draft's discussion page. Thank you!--Amandaroyal (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Atheism#Re:_tag_added_by_NickCT

Would like you to see my reply to your comment at Talk:Atheism#Re:_tag_added_by_NickCT. NickCT (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]