User talk:Scjessey/Bad boy

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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--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]

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: [2], [3]. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle reminder

Hey, the disengagement was with immediate effect and the restriction applies to the existing case pages. Roger Davies ^talk 13:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
- Scjessey [4]
- KimDabelsteinPetersen [5]
The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
- Stephan Schulz
- Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change amendment: notification of three motions posted

Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]