Happysomeone (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
142.68.88.4 (talk) |
||
Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
Hi again SCjessey, there is a substantive edit/merge discussion occurring over at [[Tea Party protests, 2009]] and [[Tea Party movement]]. Given your significant contributions in the past, I thought you might want to drop by and check out what's going on over there. Thanks. --[[User:Happysomeone|Happysomeone]] ([[User talk:Happysomeone|talk]]) 21:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC) |
Hi again SCjessey, there is a substantive edit/merge discussion occurring over at [[Tea Party protests, 2009]] and [[Tea Party movement]]. Given your significant contributions in the past, I thought you might want to drop by and check out what's going on over there. Thanks. --[[User:Happysomeone|Happysomeone]] ([[User talk:Happysomeone|talk]]) 21:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Overweight Programmer Syndrome == |
|||
Anti-social self importance availed through excessive writing regardless of sophistication of knowledge. Exacerbated by unemployment and failure to appeal to members of the opposite sex. Other symptoms include bizarre behavior in public, inappropriate response to authority figures, rejection of authority, and denial of any kind of deity other than self. |
|||
Associated disorders: |
|||
Eye problems: Due to continual focus on a computer screen the eye loses the ability to change focus and articulate in the socket. |
|||
Arrogance: Lack of proper human interaction, results in belive that the self is infallible. |
|||
Eczema: Remaining in a single position all day results in a fat ass ans well as development of circulatory problems with skin and extremities below the waistline. |
|||
Body Odor: |
Revision as of 23:59, 11 February 2010
Blocked for 3RR
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
{{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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
{{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)
- 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)
- Just in case he felt it was something he needed to know.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- ? Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
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)
Thank you
For your tireless and good-humoured efforts to keep the hacking article NPOV.Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect your analysis of my efforts would be considered a fringe view LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
142.177.62.236
I've noticed that you've repeatedly removed talk posts from this IP. Which block is this IP evading? How do you know? Why haven't you gone down proper channels to get this IP investigated and blocked rather than just reverting comments that, in a vacuum, do not appear disruptive (disclaimer: I have only seen the few most recent ones). Oren0 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- He's evading the blocks on 142.68.92.131 and 142.68.165.13. Reverting all of his contributions is appropriate per WP:RBI. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Plea
Could you try and express your sentiments in more temperate language? You're only giving ammunition to the "other side" and admins who are sympathetic to them. It's to your benefit to tone it down, even if you have to grit your teeth while you're typing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Asking again in light of [2]. See also WP:BAIT. Be a smart fish. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Might interest you
Saw this on AN3, and it appears to be a long nasty battle over adding and removing quotes to refs. Glancing over it, they're calling "invisible" and "unnecessary". Just thought you might want to educate some people... :) Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Resolve the issue? Nah, I just figured you'd have fun yelling at people. :) Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- You? Never! But seriously, I had no idea what the point of the quotes was until that discussion with you. Until then I thought them pointless. When people are dug into a good fight, they may not appreciate an outsider intervening with facts, but it may given them a reason to back away, while still saving a little face. Guettarda (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please consider signing our proposal.
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- PS - This proposal is closely related to an earlier discussion that you had started as you will see in the discussion section referenced above. --GoRight (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
WMC, Rudeness and Personal Attacks
I have no history with WMC that I'm aware of and bear him no personal ill will. I responded tartly to his snide comment above and found myself to be the only recipient of multiple criticisms for poor behaviour. I'd feel a lot more amenable to discussion and compromise had WMCs rudeness been mentioned as well. Although the stubborness of the Sceptics is problematic, it is no more so than the condescention and dismissiveness of the True Believers. It took quite a bit of back-and-forth to stop the "septics" nonsense, and I would sincerely hope that you would be willing to work to stop snarkiness on both sides of the fence. BTW - your page, your space. No grief from me if you decide to delete this w/o comment. Nightmote (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Tea Party miscellany
Hi again SCjessey, there is a substantive edit/merge discussion occurring over at Tea Party protests, 2009 and Tea Party movement. Given your significant contributions in the past, I thought you might want to drop by and check out what's going on over there. Thanks. --Happysomeone (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Overweight Programmer Syndrome
Anti-social self importance availed through excessive writing regardless of sophistication of knowledge. Exacerbated by unemployment and failure to appeal to members of the opposite sex. Other symptoms include bizarre behavior in public, inappropriate response to authority figures, rejection of authority, and denial of any kind of deity other than self.
Associated disorders:
Eye problems: Due to continual focus on a computer screen the eye loses the ability to change focus and articulate in the socket. Arrogance: Lack of proper human interaction, results in belive that the self is infallible. Eczema: Remaining in a single position all day results in a fat ass ans well as development of circulatory problems with skin and extremities below the waistline. Body Odor: