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)

September 2008

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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:

1. 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")
2. 22:08, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288296766 by Grundle2600 (talk) - this isn't Wikiquote, it's Wikipedia.")
3. 22:29, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288358928 by ChildofMidnight (talk) - rv quote again. "Consensus before contentious", CoM")
4. 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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 believe that 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Richard Lindzen

I protected that article before seeing your comment at AN3. If you think that warnings to the users are sufficient and protection is unnecessary, please feel free to lift it. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, ask me or WP:RFPP to lift it, that is. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but...

Honestly, it's only a small degree of difference from some of the other comments on that page. At the same time, we haven't had a lot of comments like that so far. Maybe there's some small chance that the next person looking to rant that way will see it and stop and think for a moment. Oh, wait...think. What am I thinking? :) Guettarda (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Having spent years editing the intelligent design articles (I believe that we pioneered the idea of FAQs at the ID article), and having lots of experience in places like the Obama and Olbermann articles, I'm well aware of what you mean. A FAQ will probably be in order soon enough. Guettarda (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that someone will take a comment like that seriously and argue for an extension on your topic ban, right? We are SERIOUS PEOPLE here. Joking is NOT PERMITTED. Didn't you get the memo (in triplicate)? Once upon a time we didn't need to tag the Wikipedia:Department of Fun article with {{humour}} and assorted hatnotes. But those days are long gone! Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Should have just sent them to the candidates that shouldn't get elected (but might). That way, we'd have something to hold against them if they do. Guettarda (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Great video! :) Guettarda (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Alex Jones (radio host) always that funny? Guettarda (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I should have looked at your user page. Somehow I just assumed that the SC was a reference to your point of origin, not your initials. And I figure that anyone living in SC is probably pretty familiar with right-wing talk radio, by force. Granted, I live in OK, but I live in a bubble in which I keep a safe distance from conservatives (unless they're my students). Guettarda (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Great news! I will be adding it to the GW article right away. Guettarda (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Enable email, dammit. Or email me. Guettarda (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - had missed it amidst all the other crap thoughtful and contemplative commentary on that page. Guettarda (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Research Unit Hacking Incident Soapboxing

"Global warming has the potential to kill billions if not dealt with smartly. That's an order of magnitude more than the atrocities committed against the Jews. Just sayin'."

That doesn't add anything at all to the discussion of the article. I'm no climate change denier but the talk page isn't the place for warnings about climate change. Could you please keep to the topic? Ignignot (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Your post at Grundle's page reminded me that I intended to ask you if you're aware of this sub-page of yours created by someone else. I saw it on my watch list when the talk page was deleted.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of it, but I am aware of the user who created it. Fortunately, it fails to spell my username correctly. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, s/he sure would've lost in any spelling contest :)) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The World and Wikipedia

Hi! In response to your query on my talk page: yes, you're mentioned, one among several whose involvement in the disputes over Obama articles caught my eye. For me this was a sufficiently immediate and important issue to figure in chapter 1, which gives examples (all happening in March/April 2009) of the way Wikipedians work and the way the encyclopedia is built. Andrew Dalby 11:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mice and bits of balsa wood

"There are mice and bits of balsa wood more knowledgeable about science then he is."  ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

JettaMann

Unfortunately JettaMann (talk · contribs) has totally ignored the warning you gave him earlier. Please see WP:ANI#Persistent personal attacks and disruptive editing by User:JettaMann, where I've requested that he be blocked and/or topic-banned. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

HI

I read your bio and I see that you are an athiest. Why do you think that the idea of a God is so awful for the US? TheMan888 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would've thought it was obvious. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't seem to be very obvious so, "Please, enlighten me." TheMan888 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in engaging in a theological discussion on a Wikipedia talk page. I'll let Pat Condell explain for me here. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know I'm not the only athiest on this Project. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Obama claims

Yea, that user seems to have a passionate agenda that he cannot control. And allowing the accusations to stand should be, and is, against policy. Still, saying that, I am hoping for an impartial party to step in and resolve the matter. What seems blatantly obvious to me, is that the user is using these edits as a platform for his own viewpoints. Which isn't itself totally unheard of, but the accusations of murder and eugenics should make it clear enough that it needs to stop. DD2K (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in, but I've had some constructive discussion with User:Jzyehoshua and find that he/she's willing to be reasonable, polite, thoughtful, etc., even if some of the comments were opinionated. That's what the discussion page is for, sorting that out. If it's a sock account then I have no sympathy, so no objection there. But who? We can't go on fishing expeditions every time an opinionated editor shows up. There's 1-2 other editors on the Obama talk page now who are much more suspicious as possible socks... Jessey, I know you don't often listen to my advice on this, but it might be better for you and for the article if you ease in gently and let some of the other editors make the sock reports. Some of the socks from 2008 and early 2009 got quite prolific at creating drama, inciting people, and impugning the good faith editors. If the same ones are back, I'm hoping we can find a better way to deal with them than the 15-20 AN/I reports it took to get rid of them last time. The more obvious Cordon Bleu-style sockpuppets won't be so difficult, though. They're quacking up a storm. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it isn't Hazleton/Orangejumpsuit if that is who you were thinking; Jzyehoshua's prose is far too refined and coherent, if extremely pointed. I have the acute displeasure of dealing with Joe currently as he has taken refuge over at the Wikipedia Review...where apparently I abused him so badly the other day that he went crying to the WR admins. :) At any rate, little of value has come from this current person's proposals, so we don't have to worry about lengthy diatribes about Keyes and infanticide polluting the article ever.

As for Grundle below, he's going to skate on a technicality on this one. DOn't think there's much more fight that can be put up over it. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

If you ever attribute the wrong quote to me again, I will have no choice but to eat a giant bowl of mint chocolate chip ice cream with chocolate syrup, whipped cream, and maraschino cherries. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Obligatory warning - not being pointy.

This is just a friendly reminder that you are currently at 3 reverts on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Please be mindful of WP:3RR. --GoRight (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

It's nice seeing your name on the Obama page again. I hope your hiatus has been pleasant. :-).

I know you've seen the latest soapbox editor, Jzyehoshua. Ah, the shenanigans! His/her most recent edit was to introduce the silly sentence on Ryan's sex scandal which we worked so hard to cleanup a year-and-a-half ago. Plus a whole paragraph on Keyes, with minutia of campaign platforms (mostly the anti-abortion "infanticide" nonsense). Apart from the partisanship, it's just another one of those cases where an editor just don't get the idea that articles should be about their own topic rather than about whatever tangentially related topic the editor wants to shoehorn in. LotLE×talk 19:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: your note

I responded on my my talk page, but my intention was just to call your attention to this. Sorry if it came across as rude. jheiv (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it, but the idea was that the same edit was reverted 7 times, so I wouldn't consider removing the OR you pointed out as continuing the edit war, but if the IP re-added the "reported" hacking and "allegedly" stole, they would be continuing the edit war. I wasn't failing to assume good faith, as I didn't report you (or anyone) for the edit war as I'm believed you hadn't noticed the edit war, but noted it on the article talk page and then started noting it on editors talk page. But you're right, friendly notes would have been better. jheiv (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not post on my talk page or user page again

I am expressly disinviting you from my leased-IP talk page and user page. Also, do not slander me again. If you have a problem with me, take it to ArbCom. Thank you. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You've been reported

Your refusal to follow Wikipedia policies (specifically those regarding edit warring) despite being warned has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Scjessey reported by User:jheiv (Result: ). jhe_iv (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a very strange report - only 2R doesn't make for 3RR or even close. And your edits look entirely sensible. I wouldn't worry about it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree WMC, and if you're interested, on the report page I noted: this is not a report about a 3RR vio but rather a report about an editor who insisted on continuing to remove content involved in an edit war despite being warned jhe_iv (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read that. I would still go nowhere with 2R. Someone has now provided the missing R but the page is prot so it is still likely, though not definitely, going nowhere. Scj: I'd express contrition for breaking 3RR if I were you William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

You are being discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:scjessey.2C_User:Unitanode.2C_User:Sceptre_reported_by_User:Jzyehoshua__.28Result:_.29 --Jzyehoshua (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Youve been reported here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)