Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scjessey (talk | contribs) at 00:56, 7 April 2009 (rv trolling by troll). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Blocked for 3RR

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

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)

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)