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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I would be cautious about following advice from Wikidemon. He is frequently discussed at ANI for his disruptive activities. In a current thread he started there he has been repeatedly asked to abide by guidelines and to treat other editors with respect. So far he hasn't seemed respective to the consideration and good faith suggestions offered him by numerous editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Thank you for your sagely advice. Too funny. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting very tired of what is basically a string of deliberate, malicious untruths about me from ChildofMidnight, or whoever is operating that account. Maybe the time is now that he/she seems to have widened his campaign to a number of other editors. This has wasted far too much time and energy among the editors who wish to make legitimate contributions. Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank

Please do not add dubious, opininionate matters to BLPs. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bearian is an admin, so I'm going to say that warning fundamentally misinterprets what is going on with that article and should not be followed without some substantial review and discussion. If we can get any administrator involvement in the subject we need to take it seriously and deal with the real issue, which should be apparent from edit history and the talk page there, here, and several other places. Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry, I was referring to this cleanup edit, that appeared to have been correcting something made by you. I apologize for the error. It appeared to have been inserted by someone else, and you just passed on over the error, now that I look at it closer. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You are currently violating 3RR on Barney Frank and should back off. CENSEI (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, go ahead and self-revert if you wish - I or someone else will remove this. There's no 3rr vio, and CENSEI's bogus report is clearly in bad faith, but to avoid having to deal with this directly it's best you just drop it for now. Wikidemon (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact alone that he warned you AFTER reporting you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Scjessey reported by CENSEI (Result: ) is too funny. He only warned you so he could put it in his little report. Don't feel bad though, he did the same thing to me a couple days ago when dealing with gay content on Promiscuity. He's the head honcho of the Conservative Cabal. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested[1] to the admin who topic banned CENSEI in the first place that they may wish to expand that ban to include politics related articles, process, and editors more generally. The topic ban seems merely to have shifted CENSEI's focus, not his methods or targets. Wikidemon (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all concerned. CENSEI has nominated me for 3RR violations several times, all of which have been unsuccessful. He routinely files 3RR reports against anyone he disagrees with, and I don't know why this is not considered disruptive in itself. If I've genuinely violated 3RR then I will submit to whatever punishment is deemed necessary, but I believe the bulk of my edits fall under the auspices of BLP-related reversions. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is an example of administrator misconduct, and is related to Obama articles then you should probably mention it over at the ongoing arbcom case. --ScWizard (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any hint of administrative misconduct, just simple disruption by CENSEI, and somewhat more complex disruption by ChildofMidnight. Arbcom is a slow and inefficient tool for dealing with misbehavior by individual editors. The more that can be processed as a routine administrative matter the better. It seems likely that CENSEI is headed for further restrictions as an outcome of his part in the latest flare-up. If administrators do not deal with COM this time at AN/I I'm not sure what the next step is. Pulling COM into the Arbcom case would probably throw that case into disarray if COM behaves there as he has elsewhere. Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I was confusing filing complaints with admin action. General newbie confusion in general. --ScWizard (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • Don't listen to these people. He obviously is a controversial figure and not a martin luther king as these people try to portray him as. Nicholas.tan (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

OK, first please accept my apologies for making it look like I was dressing you down at the Obama article's talk page. That was not my intention. Secondly, I think you smell something fishy with the new user "Hawaii57". But, what if they are just a new user unfamiliar with the Wiki way of doing things, and are making an honest effort to improve the article (from their inexperienced perspective)? It that possible in your view? Plausible? If not plausible, how does that jive with AGF? The operative point is that I recognize there is a group of editors sympathetic to the president, and that's OK. Hell, there's a group of editors bent on his failure. But, if there is no way for anyone new to make suggestions to improve the article, why not just archive the whole damnned thing? Zip it up, assuming that everything that should be said about Obama has been said. No other views welcome, unless they meet with approval from the "experience editors." Is that how you wanted to edit when you first started at Wikipedia? I don't know about you, but it kinda reminds me of a certain totalitarian regime where asking questions without the fear of censorship was verbotten. I am not suggesting that is the goal of you and others, merely that there is a perception of that being the goal from those of us who have a differing viewpoint. It doesn't make you right or me wrong. It doesn't make me bad or you good. It just makes us different. So, will you help? Turn a new leaf? I bring it to you here so as to not appear to be grandstanding (which was not my intention). I have seen hatred and the horrific things that mankind can do to each other; I fight that kind of hostility wherever I can. Am I perfect, hell no. But, it is certainly worth a shot to at least try to be civil to each other and not automatically assume the worst. If every new edior that asks a question (well intentioned or not) is shot on the spot for daring to cross the status quo, then Wikipedia as a project will fail. As Reagan was quoted as saying, "Trust, but verify." Now, I have probably mused too much, so I'll leave it to you. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of new editors who (1) come to the Obama page within their very first few edits; (2) make sweeping negative statements about the article, editors, or process; and (3) make statements or proposals for making the article more unfavorable to Obama based on very weak understanding or logic; have turned out to be sockpuppets or tendentious trolls. Some of them have been spotted quickly and blocked; others have wasted hundreds of hours of our collective time. We - administrators in particular - have been far too accepting and trusting of problem editors on the Obama page. The fact that problem editors are allowed to persist means that legitimate editors sacrifice time, credibility, and nerves trying to keep the Obama articles, and Wikipedia as a whole, from becoming a partisan battleground. But calming partisanship means opposing the partisans, and one of the favorite techniques of the worst of them is to try to make the legitimate editors seem just as bad as they are (and, they claim, the ones who are wrong as to the facts). The article quality would be best if we simply chased them all away and allowed only experienced, uncontentious editors. How do you reconcile WP:AGF and WP:DUCK? Neither can prevail all the time. 100% AGF would mean we might as well give up on the article and allow it to become a playground of trolls. 100% DUCK is the dictatorial extreme which, as QOB points out, creates a number of problems and is counter to some fundamental parts of Wikipedia's mission. This is a persistent question, and I think it is at the heart of the current Arbcom case. It would be a mistake in my opinion to conclude that AGF urges us to be less vigilant to problems, or slower to investigate, report, or block editors when they are a problem. There will always be false positives and false negatives - trolls who slip through the cracks and sincere potentially productive editors who are unfairly blamed. To the extent that some approaches help on one side of the equation at the expense of the other, we need to decide what our tolerance level is for disruption versus oppressive behavior enforcement. But some things hurt all concerned, like feeding trolls or getting into flame wars on the talk page. Whatever process we have, being cordial but firm when interacting with new editors is going to be a requirement. We should figure out what the best way is to deal with editors who post certain types of unconstructive suggestions in the talk page, and stick to that.Wikidemon (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I don't disagree with you re: trolls and vandals (someone recently gave me rollback rights to help in my anti-vandalism work). But, the Obama article already is a partisan battleground. There are pro-Obama editors who think their POV is N, and anti-Obama editors (or at least those of us who didn't vote for him) that think our POV is N. We both play one of the older games in the book, where we selectively pick sourcing favorable to our POV and then demand its inclusion (or the exclusion of the other guy's stuff), by yelling loudly from the top of our soapboxes. Some do it obviously or over do it (e.g., ChildofMidnight seems to be awfully, umm, active right now), while others are a bit more subtle. But, rest assured, it is happening, and happening alot. Interesting that you you view the administrators to be too lenient--no judging of your view--just interesting. Isn't that part of what Wikipedia is about, accepting and trusting to a fault? Hell, Jimmy Wales begs people to edit his user page. Fairly accepting and trusting, I'd say. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, neither WIkipedia nor life are about being so naive that you get burned. Ultimately the goal here is to create good quality free content, not to subject others to accusations, fighting, and drama. People who are frequently and incorrigibly doing more fighting than article building can and do outlast their welcome here. If you seriously think there is a pro Obama cabal and that the editors holding out for article stability are POV warriors, then with all due respect that kind of assumption gives rise to much of the trouble, and allows it to persist. No, I do not see anyone launching edit wars, crying foul, process gaming, setting up sockpuppets, and insulting everyone in sight to try to add pro-Obama material. Nearly 100% of this has come from editors trying to disparage Obama. Their personal politics and voting record does not matter. Content is content, whoever adds it. If your point is that the consensus favors Obama, first of all I disagree, but second, that is what consensus means. It's not "interesting" that I think admins are too lenient, it's a crying shame. COM has to my knowledge never been stopped, and barely even been warned, for behavior that makes a mockery of Obama article probation. Some of the worst offenders, far worse than COM's latest, survived for months. In terms of taking the joy and comfort out of trying to write an encyclopedia, it's completely unfair to let a few difficult editors ruin it for the majority of well meaning, polite, collaborative editors. Trying to be responsible in the face of disruption means you're fighting trolls with a hand tied behind your back in terms of AGF and playing by the rules when they are not. Also some editors throw mud at you, as you can see COM doing at AN/I - and if they get fairly good at it the administrators are duped. Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well for starters, I have a policy of keeping one hand extended with an olive branch and my other hand securely on the trigger of my favorite sidearm. I think that is the best policy in life (and Wikipedia). As to the rest, I understand, I just don't completely agree. I do, in fact, think there is a pro-Obama cabal, and my suspicions are confirmed often. But, I also recognize that there is an anti-Obama cabal, which is active every day. The pro-Obama forces think they are "doing the Lord's work" (it's just a figure of speech) and the anti-Obama forces think they are doing "protecting freedom" (or vis-a-versa). As in life, there are two sides to every story and the truth always lies comfortably somewhere in between. Those are the facts of nature and they are time-tested. I think to assert otherwise, with all due respect, is either naive or disingenuous. Wikipedia is no different. Good discussion, though. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mind if I comment? I've been out most of the day so this is the first time I've seen this conversation. Basically, there are three ways you can look at a contribution from an editor:

1. Assume good faith
2. Assume bad faith
3. Assume nothing at all

In this particular case, I assumed nothing. I read the user's words and was struck immediately by fact that he or she wanted things to change based on what they thought, and there was no mention of sourcing or anything like that. My response was to simply state that thinking has nothing to do with it - what matters is reliable sources. That's all there is to it. Not until after QoB's response about biting n00bz did I go back and check to see the user's edit history, or lack thereof, and realize that this was a new user. Maybe my initial response wasn't particularly verbose and flowery, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Anyway, I don't think anyone has been harmed by this little chinwag, so I suggest we just let it go and focus on the articles. Feel free to keep yabbering here though - it's interesting to read what the two of you are thinking. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon is one of the worst offenders of soapboxing, personal attacks, process violations, etc. His dragging me into this discussion is a perfect example. If he truly doesn't recognize how damaging and harmful his approach is, he should. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)