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.

Fine page!

That's a very attractive talkpage you've got here. Minimalist yet striking. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 23:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

A pie for you!

Thanks for your contributions to WP! Sorry for the whole Trump thing. Hopefully I did not come off in a bad light. I was not trying to be an ass or anything. As I said I don't think either of us did anything particularly reprehensible, but I still feel responsible for getting us both sacked. Hope this pie makes up for anything I did or failed to do. Cheers (and for the record I'm not a MAGA person, not that I would let it get in the way of NPOV if I was) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Civility Barnstar
		For being unbelievably civil in your response to a frustrating situation here in our community of volunteers (the irony of the beverage in this barnstar is not lost on me). 172.56.21.117 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Careful

Editor's priviledge -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Be careful of 1RR [1] [2] ~Awilley (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @Awilley: - Not applicable. They were completely different sections, and both edits were challenges to new material, and so permissible by Arbcom ruling. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC) I point you to the definition of a revert: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." (From WP:Edit warring emphasis added) Are you able to point me to the Arbcom ruling that makes an exception for challenging new material? ~Awilley (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Er... I think this is the way NeilN enforces it, but now you have me confused. Editors must be able to challenge new material in this way, or the system is broken. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC) You should be worried about how I enforce it. The system has other checks for editors who aggressively add material. ~Awilley (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) One editor doesn't get to sit on an article and revert everything added without considering WP:1RR. That being said, if an editor is adding new material with each edit and constantly getting reverted by different editors then we can look at that as well. --NeilN talk to me 14:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @NeilN: In that case, I have misinterpreted how the BRD/challenge system is supposed to work. My first reversion is still under discussion and awaiting new respondents. My second reversion, which I guess took me over 1RR, has been resolved, with the result being the removal of additional material to complement the reversion. If you or Awilley think my reversions are disruptive enough to warrant sanction, I will not complain; however, I believe this will make it hard to cope with multiple, separate additions. In fact, I raised this exact point in one of the discussions. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) If you really prefer a sanction to simply self-reverting one of your edits then please consider yourself restricted to WP:1RR on all articles related to post-19-whatever American Politics. I'll finish up the paperwork later. ~Awilley (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Scjessey has pointed out one dysfunction of the system. The other one that's been mentioned by several talk page editors, and by me on NeilN's talk page a while back, is that after content has "aged" by a month or so, it is being rewritten -- often in flurries of consecutive edits -- to insinuate POV changes under the guise of "copyedit" "remove redundant sources" etc. and anyone who restores the stable version of any of these changes will be making a 'revert' under the current 1RR interpretation. The result is that only a fraction of these bad edits gets reverted each time and the others tend to be forgotten and cannot be reverted for another month until they age so that they can be undone without "reverting". I believe that the Admins who regularly watch this page have seen this and some kind of attention to this issue would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: Regarding your second point, "cannot be reverted for another month until they age" doesn't make a lot of sense. If the rewrites introduce objectionable terms/insinuations then a revert triggers the consensus required restriction. I know I've warned editors trying to change stable material this way. --NeilN talk to me 15:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Hi NeilN. The problem is that when there are say half a dozen of these questionable tweaks all at once, an editor "uses up" his daily revert on one of them. Then five other editors can be similarly disabled for the day if they all come to undo the damage. And they usually can't be "undone" en masse because they may have one or two valid cleanup edits among them so a mass revert is not possible and "undo" wont work where some of the text has been tweaked in more than one edit. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: I'm missing something. Why are the five other editors stopped from reverting changes? Are you saying they've used up their individual reverts but the original editor is still tweaking after that? --NeilN talk to me 15:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Editors say they are reluctant to "use up" their daily revert undoing somebody who appears to be gaming the system, leaving them unable to engage with new content that will expand and improve the article. Comments to this effect are scattered on the talk page over time, sometimes even with a call for someone else with a revert available to step in. It appears to be gaming the system when one editor can disable several others by waiting a month and then changing longstanding content (not a revert) while it takes several editors using up their daily budget to undo the damage. This might sound like cloak and dagger stuff, but I assure you it's an increasing problem because it's a very effective strategy for editors who wish to insert non-consensus minority or fringe material in these articles. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: It would be helpful if you could list diffs of edits that employ this strategy or alert an admin (providing diffs) the next time it occurs. Admins have heard the desire for a greater willingness on their part to employ sanctions so any game playing like that will be looked at. --NeilN talk to me 18:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC) NeilN, that is very constructive and I will do so on your talk page either looking back or next time I feel that this has occurred. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @Awilley: I can self-revert if you like, but it will just mean another editor will have to revert my revert, since we already have a consensus on the new version. Do you want me to do that to avoid sanction? Also, I can't actually do an "undo" of the edit in question because of subsequent edits. I'll have to do it manually, then someone else will have to revert my edit. This all seems rather pointless, but I'll do it to avoid sanction if you insist. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC) The ship has sailed on avoiding sanction. You would have avoided it if you had self-reverted after my 2nd or 3rd post here. The only thing I haven't decided on yet is the duration. Re: manual reverts, I expect Wikipedians to be proactive problem solvers. I don't have time to hold your hand the whole way and I'm certainly not going to explain how to do a manual revert or tell you what to put in your edit summary. ~Awilley (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @Awilley: The second reversion that challenged added material, the one that took me over 1RR, prompted a discussion on the talk page with the editor in question (which is how it is supposed to work). It led to a solution we were both happy with, which the other editor then implemented, before you even had a chance to make your second post to this discussion. Reverting my offending edit thereafter would have been a pointless exercise. I even pinged NeilN because of my confusion, which led to a useful discussion about issues with this policy. So at this point, any sanction you give me would not be to "prevent harm" to the encyclopedia, but rather it would be purely punitive. If you really feel it is necessary, please do what you think is best; however, perhaps you should consider consulting one of your administrator colleagues. Incidentally, if your intention is to restrict me to 1RR on the politics topic, is that not already the case? Is that not why you are sanctioning me in the first place? I'm confused. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) My objective here is to teach you to follow 1RR and to be proactive in fixing your own mistakes. When an editor or admin approaches you on your talk page pointing out a mistake you have made, it is your responsibility to fix that mistake, not argue endlessly about policy. To me that (preventative) lesson is worth the extra disruption of making SPECIFICO or whoever spend 5 seconds re-reverting your self-revert. ~Awilley (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @Awilley: I already understand how 1RR works (I have a substantial, multi-year editing history), although I confess I thought it did not apply to "challenged material". I think what you are suggesting is punitive, not preventative. I'm sorry you can't see the absurdity of me reverting a thing and then asking someone else to undo the revert (costing them their 1RR of the day) just to satisfy what I perceive to be astonishing inflexibility on your part. I'm just shaking my head here. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC) We'll just have to agree to disagree I suppose. In the future though, if somebody approaches you on your talk page and correctly informs you that you've exceeded 1RR (or 3RR or whatever) your next edit should be to self-revert something, assuming you want to avoid a sanction. The more you put it off and argue the more likely you are to get a block. In re-reading the above I realize that I didn't actually ask you to self-revert early on. I assumed (incorrectly apparently) that as an experienced editor you would know that was the right thing to do. Because of that I'm not going to make the 1RR sanction as long as I had determined to do earlier today. It will be for 3 months and covers post 1932 American Politics broadly construed. I won't insult you with a template, but it will be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018#American_politics_2. It can be appealed directly to me or at WP:AE if you want. To answer your question above, this 1RR is only partially redundant with the politics articles you edit, not all of which are covered by the special 1RR and consensus required rules. ~Awilley (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC) @Awilley: I accept the penalty, although I maintain it is entirely punitive, and I think that reflects on your approach to administation poorly. I won't be arguing it, because I admit the violation (although I didn't initially think it was a violation). I believe editors should be able to do what I did without it being a violation, although that's for discussion elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Awilley, you are basically citing Scjessey for jaywalking while there's folks across the street holding hostages by the throat chanting in tongues. Anyway, Scjessey is actually one of the editors who received an AE warning long ago and has done nothing uncivil since then. He's a poster-person for how DS should work, not a problem case. I don't think anything other than acknowledgement of his acknowledgement and a smile is necessary to prevent any future problem. SPECIFICO talk 17:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC) (Personal attack removed) My bad, I thought you were referring to JFG with your "holding hostages by the throat" analogy. ~Awilley (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Scjessey had the courtesy to notify me of this discussion, as all his reverts today challenged my edits. Technically he did perform three reverts of newly-added content: 11:28, 13:34 and 13:42. On the other hand, he engaged in good-faith discussion on the talk page, and recognized his errors when pointed out.[3] Any sanction should be lenient. — JFG talk 18:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Thanks, JFG, although that middle edit is clearly not a reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC) This middle edit at 13:34 was most certainly a revert of the content I added at 12:46. You chose to keep only the part that MrX added at 13:01 for balance, and you called it "false balance" in the ensuing discussion.[4] Note that I had asked you to voluntarily undo your change due to a potential process violation,[5] but out of courtesy I did not push things further. — JFG talk 20:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Your interpretation is flawed, but whatever. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC) It's pretty clear that Awilley exercised the patience of Job with Scjessey. This is the Trump article. He was within his rights to block the minute he saw the violation. He was within his rights to block the entire time Scjessey was arguing about the "broken system." But what strikes me as troubling is Scjessey's initial remark "permissible by Arbcom ruling" and then when challenged changed his story to "Er... I think this is the way NeilN enforces it." Even after Scjessey's defense of the 1RR has been vacated, Awilley gives him yet another chance with "You should be worried about how I enforce it..." but Scjessey still does not self-revert. Endorse 1RR restriction primarily because when his defense collapsed he didn't take responsibility for it. – Lionel(talk) 01:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Thanks, but it's not really a vote. ~Awilley (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Awilley is correct; nobody took this incident to WP:AE, and Awilley has decided on a sanction by his own initiative, which is the spirit of "discretionary sanctions". Case closed. — JFG talk 07:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC) @Lionelt: Who asked for your opinion? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) @JFG: It's not "in the spirit of discretionary sanctions" at all. The purpose of the sanctions is to prevent harm coming to Wikipedia. None of the edits I did were harmful. They were productive. In the case of the "violating" edit, it led to a mini-consensus between the two of us that we were both satisfied with. And it was that edit that led to me being sanctioned. That's just dumb. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) I think Awilley has been graceful and lenient in his interactions with you; not sure it's in your best interest to criticize his decision as "punitive". Besides, there were three different reverts, and you are still contesting that they were reverts, while claiming you "understand how 1RR works". Puzzling. — JFG talk 13:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC) @JFG: Lenient? Most other administrators would've passed it off with a slap on the wrist at the most. WP:PUNISH makes it clear this was a punitive act, since it did nothing to serve the goal of preventing harm to Wikipedia. Moreover, criticizing the actions of an administrator should have no effect on my "interests". Finally, two of my edits were reversions. The other one is something you concocted to make me look bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For upholding the spirit of BRD at Talk:Donald Trump#Reversion explanation. — JFG talk 07:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Thank you :-) -- Scjessey (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

While I obviously disagree with you regarding my Trump article edits, and I believe in God, it seems we agree on a number of things. I agree that organized religion does more harm than good, whether it's Islamic terrorism or Catholic priests abusing children and covering it up. I am likewise a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I believe in a woman's right to abortion, and same-sex marriage (if you are against abortion, don't have one, and if you are against same-sex marriage don't marry someone of the same sex - but don't tell other people what to do with their lives). Everyone should have the same rights and protections - no more and no less. I believe in smaller government, but recognize that there are some issues only a strong federal government can address (e.g. environmental protection, workplace safety). I believe the Constitution has been weakened in many ways, in particular by subrogating States' rights, expansion of the commerce clause, and by Congress delegating rulemaking to executive agencies. And who doesn't like baklava? JohnTopShelf (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@JohnTopShelf: Thank you! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar substitute for you!

Greetings!

I have in the past offered unsolicited criticism of the nature of your participation at Talk:Donald Trump. I don't have a clear memory of what I complained about, but I do recall thinking you were flirting with topic ban. I came here to tell you that I perceived a marked improvement I guess about 6 months ago, and it has been a lasting one. I appreciate it, and I wanted to give credit where credit is due. I don't think this has much to do with the fact that you seem to side with me a lot lately; at least I hope I'm not that shallow.

I'd spend the time trying to find an appropriate barnstar, but it appears you don't save them here or on your user page.

So I arrived here and noticed the previous section, in which you received a complaint from an experienced editor (his adminship is perhaps irrelevant, I don't know), and you neither responded to the complaint nor acted on it. You just ignored the complaint, and the comment he referred to made it into the archive. So my high praise has to be tempered slightly.

Looking forward to a continued working relationship. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Your comment is much appreciated, as your unsolicited criticism has been. I've been a Wikipedian for many years, but I'm not such an "old hand" that I can't take advice from others. The topic areas I mostly involve myself with a quite, er, spirited in their nature, so it is easy for me to get emotionally caught up in things from time to time. I collect nice comments and barnstars at User:Scjessey/Awardery. And by way of penance, I collect the less nice stuff too: User talk:Scjessey/Bad boy.

With respect to the complaint you mentioned, I looked at my comment and did not think it was inappropriate at the time, and given my previous interactions with the editor who complained I did not think I would be able to respond productively. You could say the lack of response was my response. With the benefit of a historical perspective I would agree my comment doesn't look good in a vacuum; nevertheless, in the context of the inflamed passions of the discussion at the time I am still content to leave it. I hope you aren't too disappointed in me for doing so.

Please do continue to offer your unsolicited criticism in this space moving forward, as I value it greatly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

DS alert refresh: AP

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area, about 11 months overdue. Enjoy! ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thank you, my friend. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Biden RfC

I think your arguments on the Biden RfC would be stronger if you left out discussion of the credibility of the accusations and the role of Sanders and Trump supporters in promoting them. This could alienate Sanders and Trump supporters who might otherwise agree with you. We cannot know how credible the arguments are or are not and one would expect Biden's opponents to pay more attention to allegations against him, regardless of their credibility, than his own supporters. These are the same arguments supporters of Kavanaugh used. The only policy based reason for exclusion is weight. TFD (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I understand what you are saying; however, I wasn't referring to the supporters of those individuals, but rather the sources being largely of that persuasion. As far as policy is concerned, I also think WP:BLP is significant: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. I think the sources we have fall short of those requirements. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment review

Had to shake my head about this one. You started with "Exactly", indicating you agreed with SPECIFICO that Personal opinions are not really helpful - there's no way they can support article improvement, so it's best to leave them out. Then you finished with, wait for it, a personal opinion, indicating that your personal opinions are ok, the only problem is personal opinions contrary to yours. Do you listen to yourself?

I'm fairly resigned to some amount of that kind of talk in article talk. I even do a bit of it myself. I am not resigned to editors lecturing others in the same comment as they do the same thing they are lecturing about. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It was deliberate. I was trying to be funny, but I guess it needed a smiley or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, you know Scjessey well enough to know he's fairly far down on the list of editors who might benefit from any reminder about POV stuff. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's okay. Mandruss is welcome to comment on such things, and is bang on the money. I had not intended my comment to be taken the way it was. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem with Mandruss. Because you've disclosed your British heritage, the irony was apparent to me. Maybe not to all the Yanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently I'm too Amurkin or too literal to know what you're both talking about, but I apologize for that defect. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

What is amerkin? Did you mean a gherkin? SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

My fellow Amurkins... ―Mandruss ☎ 00:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hyperbole is not helpful

Greetings Scjessey. In recent weeks, you have repeatedly indulged in hyperbole when commenting at Talk:Donald Trump:

• On the dialogue with North Korea: "it was a total failure by any metric"; "woeful, one-sided coverage to a spectacular foreign policy failure"; "If you exclude the "failure" part, you are effectively excluding the only substantive part of the whole debacle."; "North Korea is at war with the United States and the DPRK's leaders are murderous dictators who America shouldn't be negotiating with. This is like when Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler."
• About a source being discussed: "The suggestion that The Atlantic has a "perceptible slant" is laughable and has no basis in fact whatsoever."
• Disparaging your fellow editors: "Thank goodness it won't be you doing the closing, Mark, since you clearly aren't up to the task with that absurd summary."
• Disrespecting process: "Can we all agree this RfC should be aborted? It's a mess."; "Abort horribly misguided RfC."; "Really, this whole thread is a waste of time."
• Disparaging the American populace: "There are actual people out there who are dumb enough to believe Trump has personally sent them checks."
• Gratuitously attacking the BLP subject: "he has turned it into a Big Thing that makes the United States look like a dictatorship"

I'm puzzled as how you think such remarks are useful to the conversation. If you still think Trump is Hitler reincarnate, keep it to yourself and get a stiff drink. In general, please tone it down or bite your tongue. — JFG ^talk 01:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

If you still think Trump is Hitler reincarnate - Speaking about hyperbole? Do you have a link for Scjessey saying that? The quote above certianly does not say that. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

When I want your opinion, I'll contact you on your own talk page. Scjessey and myself can perfectly have an adult conversation sparkled with humorous hyperbole without your zealous urge to intervene. — JFG ^talk 02:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@JFG: Thanks for your comments! I will, of course, be completely ignoring them. Where Trump is concerned, it is almost impossible to be hyperbolic. I stand by everything I have said. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Returning on another subject, just saw JFG's comment! Sounds like the "Lysol was sarcasm" bit. 🤐 SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@JFG: While I can relate to the "butt out" sentiment, it's contrary to the spirit and tradition of "talk page stalking". If you want a one-on-one conversation, use email. This is not to imply support for or opposition to your other comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Heads up

Check 1RR at Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Well spotted. I was going to self revert, but it has been changed to something else. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Biden

Scjessey, I feel your pain on the BLP/Biden thread. I don't know whether you are aware that this editor is under a short-term ban from the Biden article and that there's been related discussion on its talk page and at User_talk:Bradv#1RR_violations. Stiff upper lip, etc. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I was not aware of the ban. It explains the vociferous arguing with a lack of article editing, I guess. With that said, it doesn't change my desire to try to work with Kolya to improve the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please do not ever refer to me as "its" again. I take such language as a transphobic personal attack. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)