Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:38, 21 June 2009

Blocked for 3RR

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages.")
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)

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)

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

Soxwon (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

ALLST☆Recho's Placenta Award Because life begins, and ends, with WikiPedia. Thanks for living. =) - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Message from Scjessey concerning Obama-related articles

I have de-watchlisted all Obama-related articles (and talk pages) for the time being because I could use a break from them and a glorious summer beckons. Any editing of this group of articles that I do will be restricted to reverting or fixing vandalism/spam I have spotted while patrolling Special:RecentChanges. I'm happy to answer questions related to this group of articles, but I would prefer to stick to user talk pages for now. Keep me posted here if anything interesting happens. I will continue to monitor the Obama-pages ArbCom thang. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Update

It seems as if ArbCom is planning to topic-ban me from this group of articles for 6 months, which seems harsh and unnecessary. Of more concern is an inexplicable 1-year, Misplaced Pages-wide editing restriction, which will leave me unable to do my usual "article patrol" activities. The ArbCom process does not seem to include much in the way of discussion, so I was unable to defend myself or even get clarification for questions I had. Oh well. It is what it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Adding diffs

I wasn't adding the diff, rather I was just moving it because I accidentally put it under someone else. Granted, I don't really see that one diff moving an arb from on side to another. Wizardman 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edit at User talk:217.129.67.28

Hello Scjessey. User:NothingButAGoodNothing, who writes to me often about socking issues in Portuguese football articles, has expressed concern to me about the sock template which you added to his IP user talk at User talk:217.129.67.28. Since there does not seem to be a violation of WP:SOCK, I hope you are willing to remove the template. WP:TPG provides: Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. There is no mandate I'm aware of for this template to be retained unless a sock case is being pursued. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for removing the template, although i know you did it solely because Ed asked you too. I see your "concerns remain" (concerns? of what? i guess i cannot convince you i am not a vandal) and, i also told Ed in his talkpage, while asking him to intervene, i will continue in the future to edit with both the account and the IP (sometimes i forget, sometimes i do not want to log in), and i fail to see what my "contentious edits" are: if it's my "wording" in edit summaries, i do acknowledge as of now that i sometimes get carried away in edit summaries, and have already insulted some vandals. Thus, i have already received some messages regarding uncivility, which i have rebuffed to the best of my abilities. But, never, NEVER, have i been blocked (nor tagged, until today), in three years at WP (one 1/2, if you only count since i've been registered).

All in all, since you have removed the tag, i guess there is nothing more to discuss between the two. Have a good one, my conscience is clear, sorry for any incovenience.

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Equality Mississippi

Actually, I have put it past an admin about having the page protected. He couldn't as he was involved. If you want to protect the page for 72 hours or so while the ANI and talk page discussions reach consensus, PLEASE do so. It would save me an Aleve. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry thought you were :) Still not used to that little popup that says whether you are an admin or not. With the article on protection for 31 hours, it should give the ANI and talk pages posts some time to work themselves out. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't another page block tomorrow though. Sorry again for the confusion. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RE : Misplaced Pages: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)