User:Essjay/Archives/52

Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page. Please do not leave comments on this page. Please leave messages on my talk page.

I don't like for outdated discussions to remain on my talk page; I absolutely hate clutter, and frankly, there is no real reason for a week-old discussion to still be sitting on my talk page. I believe old discussions make the page hard to read, both for me and for other users, and they make other users less likely to leave a message. In the spirit of clutter-free talk pages and uncensored archival, I present here all previous discussions, in the order they were removed from my talk page.

Note: Some discussions are archived on separate pages either:

1. Because I archived them there before I created this archive, or
2. Because they were too long for this archive.

Those archive pages are listed below as well.

Existing Archive Pages

• The most recent archive is Archive 52. Check here for posts within the last few days.

• Archive:   1 –  2 –  3 –  4 –  5 –  6 –  7 –  8 –  9 – 10 – 11 – 12 – 13 – 14 – 15 – 16 – 17 – 18 – 19 – 20
  

21 – 22 – 23 – 24 – 25 – 26 – 27 – 28 – 29 – 30 – 31 – 32 – 33 – 34 – 35 – 36 – 37 – 38 – 39 – 40

41 – 42 – 43 – 44 – 45 – 46 – 47 – 48 – 49 – 50 – 51 – 52 – 53 – 54 – 55 – 56 – 57 – 58 – 59 – 60

• History Archives:
  • User: 1
  • Talk: 1

• My Answer to KHM03's Question on Apostolic Succession (Jun 10, 2005)

• Archive of the "Doppelganger" Discussion (15 Jun 2005)

• On Esperanza (8 May 2006)

• Re: Socktagging (9 May 2006)

• Re: The Mediation Committee (19 May 2006)

• Archive for Comments that are Intended to Bait, Insult, and/or Assault

• Archive for Messages from Trolls

Discussions Archived from My Talk Page

Contents 1 Archive bot 2 Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Olivierd 3 Did you (or anyone) authorize this message sent to me? 4 Village pump subpage archiving 5 MedBot 6 Hello 7 A comment at Wikipedia:Changing username 8 A comment from a relative newbie 9 Thank you very much 10 Archival 11 Access in #vandalism-pl-wp 12 Your Monobook 13 Making sure I do the mediation request correctly 14 Question about changing usernames 15 Continuing discussion on WP:CHU topics 16 Profiles don't mesh... 17 Nice User Page! 18 No bot flag for Essjay Bot II? 19 Random Smiey Award 20 Personal Sandbot 21 Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Olivierd 22 Toolserver development suggestion/request 23 Sean Wolfington -Please help 24 Thanks 25 Hello Essjay 26 New Icon? 27 Pwned! 28 Essjaybot III 29 Username/usurpation question 30 Your New Yorker bio 31 Hi Essjay! 32 Help

[edit] Archive bot

Hi Essjay - as I'm going to be inactive due to my internet breaking, could you please temporarily disable the bot on my user page until I get back to normal, so I don't miss anything. If this isn't possible/you don't have the time, it's not a problem. Thanks, Martinp23 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Done Let me know when you want me to reactivate it. Essjay (Talk) 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Olivierd

Quick question: Did any of the users involved in this request use other IPs to log in - other than the one they share? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you (or anyone) authorize this message sent to me?

User talk:ArtKoen From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This is your only warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Ball python, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia and other sites that use the MediaWiki spam blacklist at all.

[edit] Notice of Arbitration Request I hereby notify you that I have made a Request for Arbitration for the issues regarding the Ball python article. Jhall1468 07:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ball python, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Request for Mediation

We were in mediation and I received this message afterwards. I'm not sure if Jhall1468 attempted to "spoof" an administrator by sending me this message. Please advise. Thanks for your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArtKoen (talk • contribs).

It's an automated message from our case management bot; there were three users listed in the request, only two of you agreed to mediate, so one of the other Committee members rejected the case, causing the bot to leave you a notification that the case was rejected. Essjay (Talk) 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Village pump subpage archiving

Essjay, would you mind setting up your bots to handle archiving the six Village pump archives? Note that the subpages themselves, such as WP:VPA are getting archived properly, it's just the archives themselves, such as Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive, that need to all go into Wikipedia:Village pump/Archival dump to finally get deleted. I asked you about this before here. If you want to set up your other bot to wipe the archival dump page (like it does the sandbox), that would also be helpful.--Kchase T 13:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about exactly what it is that the bot is supposed to do; could you provide some diffs that show what the process is? Essjay (Talk) 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The existing process is to delete comments from the archives that are over 14 days old. I can't figure out how to do just that, so I'm trying to jury-rig a solution with bots. The way it works is that an archival bot moves comments that are over 14 days old from the six archives to Wikipedia:Village pump/Archival dump, where that page is then wiped clean on a regular basis to just delete the old comments. Ideally, a bot could automate all of this.--Kchase T 11:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So, basically what is needed at this point is a bot to clear off the archival dump? I suppose the question that comes to me is, why even bother with the dump, why not have the bots just remove the posts from the archives and not put them anywhere? (Or, is that what you're wanting to do, in which case, that shouldn't be too hard to modify my archivebot code to do.) Essjay (Talk) 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If you can get the bot to just remove posts from the six archives that are over 14 days old, that is precisely what I'm trying to accomplish.--Kchase T 11:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to tinker with the code and see if I can figure out how to make it do that (I didn't write it, you see), and if not, I'll ask the original author if he can write up a variant for me. I'll let you know what I find out! Essjay (Talk) 03:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Essjay! You're the greatest! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kchase02 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] MedBot

The Medbot is acting up. When a case is tagged with either {{Accepted case}} or {{Rejected case}}, it is properly listing it under Open Tasks or the appropriate Archive, as it should. Also, if it was Rejected, it is removing it from the Pending list. However, if a case is Accepted, the bot is failing to remove the case from the Pending list. No clue as to why yet. Just thought I'd let you know. Regards, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was the change to the capitalization. Let me know if it works correctly the next time a case is opened. Essjay (Talk) 05:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello Essjay. My name is Zazzer, and I was wondering if you could create an infobox counter, so that people that have an excedingly large amount of infoboxes (and wish to know how many they have) could find out. Cheers--Zazzer15:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean, a counter for userboxes? There used to be several (avar had one on the toolserver, but it seems to be down, and Gmaxwell did a number of queries on the toolserver database to check for it) but it's not something that can be done reliably anymore. Most userboxes have been moved out of the template space, and many people's solution to the userbox problem last year was to subst: thier boxes. Others, like myself, use thier own templates. The only thing a counter can do is search for how many userbox templates they are using, so it won't account for hand-coded boxes, subst:'d boxes, and other variances. Essjay (Talk) 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A comment at Wikipedia:Changing username

Essjay, normally you have my full respect and appreciation of your work. I was quite surprised by this edit. This had nothing to do with editcountitis as a further reading of my comment showed. I was making a suggestion to the user to help him preserve his anonymity, nothing more. Also from this page, in this edit you made note that having few edits and requesting a username was no barrier. My understanding has been, apparently incorrectly, that the recommendation was to create a new account if your account had few edits and there was no problem with trying to get past the impostor filter. This stuff isn't written down anywhere that I know of, and it probably should be to help change requesters and people assisting at WP:CHU alike. --Durin 13:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who request username changes but have few edits have frequently been treated as second class: "You have only a few edits, just make a new username." I don't believe in this practice, as a Wikipedian's merit is not based on edit count, and telling new users to just register a new account is tantamount to biting the newbies. You went systematically down the page telling every user with a low edit count, including a person with 100 edits, which I don't consider to be low, to just get a new account; the fact that you didn't leave similar notes for the others, leading me to believe that the low edit count was the impetus for your message, and the privacy portion was a secondary point to strengthen the argument for "just getting a new username." Essjay (Talk) 14:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Both are true. As I noted above, I believe it has been common practice by bureaucrats to deny requests for accounts with few edits. User:Warofdreams acted in this manner (see last two denials at Wikipedia:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2006/September and the first three from Wikipedia:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2006/October for multiple examples). Warofdreams routinely denies for low edit counts. User:Redux has made similar assertions (see [1]). Even you yourself seem to agree that this is how it should be (see [2]). Maybe you have changed your stance on this, but denial for low edit counts has been common and barring some described stance in the headers at Wikipedia:Changing username is the general rule of thumb adhered to by multiple bureaucrats. You know from recent communications that privacy is an important issue for me; I am conveying that to the users in question that their privacy could be violated still with a username change rather than simple abandonment. It is a primary point, not a secondary one. The low edit counts observations have been in keeping with the above cited general pattern of bureaucrats. I think it might be a good idea to create a section for WP:CHU that addresses common request types and why they are denied, rather than the bureaucrats apparently being in disagreement on what is and is not a valid request. --Durin 15:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, bureaucrats have often said so; it is a remanant of the mistaken belief (put to rest definintively by the Chief Technical Officer of the Wikimedia Founation, Brion Vibber) that username changes are bad for server performance and from a time when there was no filtering on usernames, making the creation of a new one trivial, and the effort required of bureaucrats to enact a change was greater. It is now trivial for a rename to take place (it can be done with two clicks of the mouse), and far more difficult for a user to register a new username (usernames are now filtered, preventing the creation of similar usernames, and there is a limit on how many can be created from a given IP in a given period, which often results in users being unable to create a new account.) Renames are a trivial matter, and there is absoultely no reason to refuse to perform them for users with low edit counts; we profess to be unconcerned with edit counts, so it should not be a factor.

The privacy matter is one that is addressed in the header, and does not require a specific message to every contributor; I am moved to wonder why only the privacy of low-edit-count users was of concern to you, as it would seem that those with higher edit counts would be more likely to have incurred the problems created by a lack of privacy, but that is neither here nor there.

My practice will continue to be to perform any open rename request that is validly requested, regardless of edit count; if other bureaucrats feel that renames are something to be reserved for those with high edit counts and are comfortable with both the edit-count-based value system created by such standards and the liklihood that new users will feel bitten and leave as a result of such a decision, that is left to thier conscience. My understanding is that Wikipedia is about being welcoming to new users and valuing all contributors, which leads me to be unwilling and unable to devalue them based on something as stupid as edit count. Essjay (Talk) 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your bot told me I had made a request for ursurption - I hadn't - I just commented on that page.. It's a total waste of time to spend time renaming someone who has a tiny number of edits - accounts are not rationed in any way. Secretlondon 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I went through the page pulling names for the bot to notify; I read through them to weed out comments and requests that couldn't be filled under the new policy, but must have accidentally included you. As for renames, we don't value contributors by edit count, or at least we say we don't; if that is really true, then those with 2 edits are just as deserving of a rename as those with 2000. Beyond that, renames are the only way for many users to get thier preferred names; when it is a matter of capitalization or otherwise yields a name similar to an existing one "just create a new one" is defeated by the filter that prevents imposter usernames. No less than Brion Vibber himself has stated for the record that there are no performance reasons for rationing rename changes, and the bureaucrat effort required to enact one is trivial, so there is really no justifiable reason for saying "Your edit count renders you insufficently worthy of what others may freely have, often repeatedly." I simply will not be responsible for devaluing contributors in this manner. Essjay (Talk) 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A comment from a relative newbie

Just a little line to note that your extraordinary contributions to this project are much appreciated. I'd give you a Barnstar, but it seems rather trite given the magnitude of what you do round here. A heartfelt "thank you" seems more appropriate. --Dweller 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it; you're quite right, heart-fealt thanks are always appreciated. :) Essjay (Talk) 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you very much

Thank you very much for changing my username for me. Link9er 19:08, 31 January 2007

You're very welcome. Essjay (Talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archival

From a personal point of view, I'd just say yes carry on. However I'm not that active of BRFA at the moment, so politically that's not ideal. I can't see any reason why it couldn't be speedily approved like previous times, nor why it would require any waiting time to get it initially running on a trial basis. As you say it's a pretty non-controversial task outside of the main space and running pretty much the same elsewhere anyway. --pgk 20:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess in the spirit of both efficiency and transparency, I'll post a note on the talk page of BRFA and see what they say. Essjay (Talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Access in #vandalism-pl-wp

Howdy, Essjay. I'm trying to set up my pgkbot clone in the (now rather empty) #vandalism-pl-wp channel. I find it however extremely difficult, having no access level there. Since you're the only one with lvl 30+ there, could you please provide me with at least level 10, so that my own bot recognizes me as its operator? :-O Cheers, Миша13 22:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added you with level 20 so you can add others if needed. Essjay (Talk) 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Monobook

Hi Essjay. First of all, I love your monobook. I was wondering, however, how I can remove the checkuser and admin functions. Is there an easy way (i.e. just to take a few lines out of the monobook.js or monobook.css?)

Thanks!

ThePurpleMonkey's Temporary (but still cool) Signature 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Found It! ThePurpleMonkey's Temporary (but still cool) Signature 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making sure I do the mediation request correctly

RE: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Firestone_Tire_and_Rubber_Company

This is my first mediation request, can you please take two minutes and make sure I did it correctly?

I am particularly concerned about how I removed some of the information added by Mobile 01, addressed on her talk page [3]

Mobile 01 is a new user (December 2006) and we are both trying to learn.

If any of my edits are incorrect, you are welcome to restore them, or I will gladly restore them.

thanks for your time, Travb (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, our mediation does not appear on the mediation page. In addition everyone has agreed to mediate, except for the completely unrelated three people which Mobile 01 added, Leaders100, Ekun, Terrorific. If you are too busy to handle this request, can you suggest someone else? Thanks Travb (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, the category that triggers the case management bot was not included correctly, causing the bot to not recognize and list the case. I have corrected it, and the bot should list it shortly. Essjay (Talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Essjay, thank you [4] If I can be so blunt, the current system for listing new mediation requests is not very user friendly at all. Maybe you need an assistant (or several) to help you, and your and the assistants' links should be at the top of all of the mediation pages. Having this job is a huge job for one person.

Thanks again for your help.Travb (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly supposed to be easy; it's supposed to provide exactly what the Committee needs to see to take on a case, and to weed out those who aren't serious about mediation (before we made the process more involved than just posting "ZOMG I HATE USER:X", we had dozens of requests that never went anywhere; the process helps to weed those out, because the users who file those requests won't go to the trouble of filling out the paperwork.) We have tried to make it as user friendly as possible; we have the one-click fill-in box, and the preloaded template with the format, as well as several guides to filing a request. If there are specific points you could offer, I'd be happy to explain why we do things the way we do, and to make any reasonable adjustments. Essjay (Talk) 06:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I'd pop in here and say that I'd be happy to help if Essjay or anyone else wants it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather keep you at RFCU and CHU; RFM is pretty well handled by the case management bot. Bad idea to stretch good clerks too thin. ;) Essjay (Talk) 06:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about changing usernames

I recently submitted a username change request, and that request was denied. I was confused as to exactly why, and so I asked the Bureaucrat (or anyone else, really) to explain things more clearly or give me some idea of what might be an acceptible name to choose. I received no response, but since you seem to be more inclined to give people a hand, I was wondering if you could just take a look and maybe clear things up for me. The archived request can be found here. Feel free to move this to my talk page. Thanks. 149.43.x.x 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the archival bot activates when one of the result templates is used (in this case, the denied template, with the red X); as a result, the bureaucrat probably never saw your extended comments. Given that the existing user is not active, I've gone ahead and performed the change. Essjay (Talk) 22:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see why no one addressed my question. Thanks much for taking care of it quickly - I appreciate the careful and friendly consideration you give to your fellow Wikipedians (particularly myself, at the moment). I'm glad to have this all taken care of! :) Cheeser1 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome; I do what I can. :) Essjay (Talk) 06:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing discussion on WP:CHU topics

Essjay, you archived before I had a chance to even read :) Responding to a few points:

Re: I am moved to wonder why only the privacy of low-edit-count users was of concern to you, as it would seem that those with higher edit counts would be more likely to have incurred the problems created by a lack of privacy: This is twice now that you have doubted my sincerity regarding this issue. This, combined with accusing me of editcountitis leaves me feeling fairly attacked by you. As I have explained to you, and provided cites to prove to you, the general rule of thumb at WP:CHU has been to deny requests for people with low edit counts. I have blatant evidence to support that position, even words from you yourself to support that assertion. Yet, you still doubt my motivations. I am flummoxed at how you can maintain this position. I note that a current request on WP:CHU of a user with less than 50 edits has bureaucrat Angela suggesting very much the same thing that I did (though not directly noting edit counts, it is for a low edit count editor). Perhaps you should accuse her of editcountitis and insincere motivations?

It should be obvious, but apparently isn't, that opting to avoid the log entry on a changed username is considerably less troublesome a matter for a new editor than an editor with a long history making an abandonment. Please stop assuming nefarious intent on my part, and give me some credit. I never have done things nilly willy, and certainly would never induce editcountitis into a process. In fact, very very very much the opposite. For example, early on when I used to do charts for low edit count nominees at RfA, it was with the expressed intent of helping people get past the editcountitis types. In the ~50 such nominations on which I did these charts, there was a 10% greater promotion rate vs. those that did not have the charts and had the same range of edit counts. Please, enough of the accusations from you and assumption of insincerity.

I appreciate your thorough explanation, now provided (as opposed to just accusing me of editcountitis), of why promoting irrespective of edit counts should be the norm now. I agree. Please keep in mind that failing that explanation from you, all I had to go on was the track record of bureaucrats (including you) to perform such rejections based on edit counts. I'll re-iterate my suggestion that this needs to be clarified, and probably agreed upon by bureaucrats to prevent the sort of misunderstandings that obviously exist now, since bureaucrats other than you are still denying username changes based on edit counts.

Re: My understanding is that Wikipedia is about being welcoming to new users and valuing all contributors, which leads me to be unwilling and unable to devalue them based on something as stupid as edit count: I have always maintained and will always maintain that an editor with 0 edits is every bit as valuable as one with a million edits. I've even noted from time to time that I do not consider Jimbo to be above anybody with regards to editing. I simply do not believe in stratification of users; it's a very negative effect scenario and antithetical to what we are trying to achieve here. We're making a free, open encyclopedia...but then create strata of users? That's nonsensical, I don't buy into it, and never have. Quoting from User:Durin/Admin voting measures (which I first made in 2005, and haven't touched since March of 2006) "The qualities that make a person a good admin existed before they ever came to Wikipedia. Thus, a person with 1 edit has the same qualities as a person with 10,000". This equally applies to non-admins as well. I have never maintained that users with higher edit counts are worth more and never will. Please, enough of this insistence that I am devaluing people based on their edit counts. It's frankly, and bluntly, absurd.

My intent at WP:CHU has been simply to help the project, in what ways I can. Pure, simple. I didn't step into WP:CHU and suddenly start making recommendations to people left and right without consideration of the history of that element of the project. I watched, learned, read past rejections/changes, and only then began helping. I've had it bookmarked for nearly as long as you have been a bureaucrat. I would appreciate it if in the future you gave my motivations the benefit of the doubt, did not assume nefarious intent on my part and make accusations against me for it. Thank you. --Durin 14:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't doubt your intentions, myself, Durin - but there is a saying my friend Hannah used to say often - "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." The fact that you've been told you're doing something wrong, and want to argue instead of correcting yourself, well that worries me. People make mistakes - it's human nature. All you need to say is "okay, I'll keep that in mind," and move on. This is only a big issue if you two choose to make it one. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify; as noted elsewhere, I don't feel I made a mistake because tradition at the time I made the comments was that change requests were often denied under low edit count considerations. Further, I am not arguing the validity of Essjay's position. I agree with it, now that he's taken the time to explain it. --Durin 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue this conversation any further. I'm sorry you feel attacked, but I feel exactly the same way. As with most of our interactions so far, we will simply have to agree to disagree. I think it would be a positive step if we also agreed to stop interacting with one another. Essjay (Talk) 04:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe you to be an irrational or unreasonable person. I hold nothing against you. Some people do not work well together, and maybe that is you and I. Perhaps if we both put down the barbed pens and assumed the best of each other in future interactions, and thought twice before hitting "save page", inline with the quote on your userpage from you, we'd get along better. Honestly, I don't recall poor interactions between us prior to this. I've always held you in high regard. --Durin 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profiles don't mesh...

Essjay, I'm kinda puzzled. Your Wikia profile says that you're 24 years old, work as a Community Manager for Wikia, and used to be employed by a Fortune 200 company. But your Wikibooks profile says you're over 30 and currently work as a Theology professor. Is the Wikia profile someone else? I hope you can shed some light on this matter. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the Wikia profile is me. :) One of the things that tends to happen as you become, let us say, "popular" on Wikipedia is that you attract the attention of an unsavory element. There are a number of trolls, stalkers, and psychopaths who wander around Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects looking for people to harass, stalk, and otherwise ruin the lives of (several have been arrested over their activities here). It's quite unfortunate that this happens, but it all to often does. (A good friend of mine who is a minister had to leave Wikipedia after his Bishop was threatened by Wikipedia stalkers.) For those who have little to lose from thier participation here, there is no reason not to be fully open about who they are; if you don't have a boss or a family, you don't have to worry about losing your job or your family being stalked. A few people are lucky enough to actually work for Wikimedia or Wikia, and are in an excellent position: When the people who are stalking you are also stalking your bosses, you really don't have to worry about the effects.

Many people have tried many things to keep thier identities secret: They worry over every little detail they may have released, or refuse to answer anything about themselves, making it very difficult to form any personal ties. Quite unfortunately, it simply isn't possible to keep your details quiet: You will eventually say something that will lead back to you, and the stalkers will find it. My approach was different: I decided to be myself, to never hide my personality, to always be who I am, but to utilize disinformation with regard to what I consider unimportant details: age, location, occupation, etc. As a result, I've made many strong friendships here, because I've always been the person I am, but the stalkers have spent the last two years searching for middle-aged college professors with the initials "SJ" (which are, by the way, my initials) who live in the Northeast; I never had to worry that anything I said would lead back to me, because the areas they focused on, the unimportant statistical information, was a cover

I was actually under the impression that the stalkers and psychopaths were the only people who actually believed the story; a quick examination of the time I've spent here should lead to the conclusion that there's no way I could be who the statistics said I was. (This has been confirmed by nearly everyone I've talked to; I've heard "I knew it!" more times than I can count in the past two weeks.) I've been pretty upfront about using disinformation (I didn't put "I use disinformation" on my userpage or anything, as that would have defeated the purpose); most everybody who is particularly close to me knew it was a cover.

Once I accepted a position with Wikia, I was in a safe place to "come out," and I did. Before I accepted the position, I provided all my real details to Angela and Jimbo, and immediately provided the same information to Brad Patrick; I also placed it on my Wikia userpage, from where I expected it would fairly quickly make it's way back to Wikipedia. The stalkers picked up on it immediately (but couldn't believe that a 24 year old had fooled them), but nobody here seemed to notice, which I didn't find particularly odd, since I expected that everybody here knew what was going on.

So, that's the story. My Wikia profile provides my real information; some of the other sites still have old information simply because I haven't gotten around to updating them (I've been a bit busy over at Wikia). Nothing really has changed any; I'm still the person everybody has known for the past two years, I just have a different job. I've never been disingenuous in my interactions with others: I've always been myself, and have every intention to continue being myself, people just know a bit more about what I look like and where I live now. Of the dozens of people I've talked to since I "came out," all have been happy to have a face to associate with the person they know, have understood the need to be protected, and have no doubts that nothing has changed about the person they have come to know. I don't expect anyone who knows me to feel any different. Essjay (Talk) 06:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I didn't think you had the time to be everything you said you were. :) Thanks for taking the time to write such a lengthy reply, and congratulations on getting the job at Wikia! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome; I've been thinking about what I'd say when someone finally asked, so I had a bit of time to be preparing. ;) Essjay (Talk) 04:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice User Page!

Amazing user page! If ever a page deserved the Excellent User Page Award, it is yours. Nemilar 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you very much! Essjay (Talk) 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No bot flag for Essjay Bot II?

How come edits by EssjayBot II aren't tagged as being made by a bot in my watchlist? —Doug Bell ^talk 21:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like EssjayBot II isn't actually flagged as a bot, despite having all the relevant templates placed on the page by Essjay. See this page, which shows that EssjayBot II has never had its userrights changed (i.e. never flagged as a bot); furthermore, the only log for EssjayBot II is the initial creation log. This needs to be addressed immediately - however, I am sure you can rest assured that Essjay will handle it - he's just a little busy at Wikia at the moment. (To Essjay: hope you don't mind me answering at your page.) Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot is approved. However, if you look at the RFBA page, it was approved with no flag by Essjay's request. Everything is in order with the bot, it is just not flagged because of reasons known to Essjay. Cbrown1023 talk 03:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot flags cause bots to be hidden from recent changes and potentially from watchlists, which in the case of a bot that archives pages, is a bad thing. The point of a bot flag is to avoid the flooding of recent changes with bot edits, rendering it useless; if a bot is unlikely to flood recent changes or watchlists, there isn't any need to flag it, and it is best left unflagged so users will see what it is doing. Flags were not intended as a way of showing what bots are approved, though users often look to see if a bot has a flag as a first check of whether it is approved or not. I have no problem with it being flagged if needed, but it was decided at the time that a flag wasn't necessary because the bot doesn't flood RC. Essjay (Talk) 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Smiey Award

--TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 21:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Essjay (Talk) 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Sandbot

I have been informed that you have got a bot that clears the sandbox; so, could you please help me by making me a bot that clears my personal sandbox or by ordering your bot to also clears my sandbox?

--TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just link me to the page and let me know how often you want it to be cleaned; I can also set up a manual link that you can click on to active it any time. Essjay (Talk) 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Olivierd

Did any of the users involved in this request use other IPs to log in - other than the one they share? User Benio is contesting the decision to block him per checkuser as he states his Ip is shared between him and his roommate. Although its intresting to see they have the same editing habits. Anyway your input into discussion would be highly valued. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 04:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not permitted to reveal that information. The "it was my roommate" excuse, however, is one of the classics; it's been used by nearly every sockpuppeteer out there. Essjay (Talk) 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Essjay I should of known you cant say but are you completely sure their one and only? Beio has contacted via email trying to prove his innocence. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that the technical evidence supports the conclusion that they are the same user; checkuser is unfortunately not a precision instrument, so I'm not able to check DNA samples or anything. ;) The way that cases get to RFCU is because someone notices that two or more users are behaving and contributing in a similar manner; they come to RFCU to have us check and see if the technical evidence supports this, which is all we do: Perform a checkuser investigation and report the state of the technical evidence.

Experience says that roommates generally have diverse interests, different writing styles, and other personality traits that differentiate them; when two users who have been acting exactly alike, especially editing the very same articles in the very same way, then they are one person, not two. As I've said before, many sockpuppeteers claim to be two different people, but it all goes back to what brought the issue up to begin with: They were exhibiting behavior that led other users to believe they are the same person, and the technical evidence supports that conclusion.

Another important point here: Even if two suspected sockpuppets *are* two different users, if they are acting like sockpuppets (i.e., if they are meatpuppets), then they are to be treated as sockpuppets, per the ruling of the Arbitration Committee. "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." [5] Users are not permitted to circumvent Wikipedia policies by recruiting proxies to act on thier behalf.

I'm not surprised that he's emailed you; he's emailed several dozen other people, and he's spammed me to the point that I've put him on filter in my email. The more important point is, however, that I didn't block any of them, so I'm not the person to be talking to: The blocking admin is the one you need to discuss the matter with. If you're concerned about the evidence, I'd suggest asking the users who filed the RFCU, as they are the ones who noticed the main evidence: Editing pattern. My point has been, and remains, that my only job here is to check the technical evidence and report on it, and that report was, is, and remains that the technical evidence is consistent with these users being the same person. Essjay (Talk) 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toolserver development suggestion/request

Essjay, I just noticed that you updated your Wikibooks user page and thought I'd ask you something about the toolserver (since I saw that you are a toolserver developer). Would it be possible to create a toolserver script which acts like Special:Whatlinkshere but indexes interwiki links as well? I've gotten frustrated lately because I've wished I could do that, but to no avail as far as I know. --Iamunknown 06:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a tool that did the same thing as Special:Linksearch before it was implemented; I took it down because the new tool was quicker. I'll check and see if that is something that can be done with the code I have. Essjay (Talk) 07:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Wolfington -Please help

Essjay, I just noticed that the article about me was tagged with an advert banner again. Would you mind viewing the page to help me? Thank you Essjay. Seanwolfington 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean: I've left a note on the talk page of your article with a few suggestions; specifically, I've suggested that they draft up a list of things they would like to see sources for and any other questions they have for you. In general, we try to be very careful about having verifiable third-party sources for any information included here, so they are concerned that some of the information doesn't have any sources to back it up. If you'll give them a day or two to draft that up, then provide sources for anything that needs them (remembering that online sources, especially news agencies and the like are usually best), everything should be fine. If you have any questions for me, please don't hesitate to ask. (I'm copying this to your talk page so you'll see it sooner; if you have further need of me, please let me know on my talk page.) Essjay (Talk) 07:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for moving that ban request, didn't take notice to the dates till half way through preping the post. Didn't really know where it'd go anyway, now I know! Thanks agin.Virek 09:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :) Essjay (Talk) 09:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Essjay

I can't find my comments in your archive, so I have no idea if you responded to me.

Your archive system is as confusing as the current mediation process :( I am sure you can find everything fine, but I couldn't find my comments.

I was wondering on my case if you, or someone else can look at this:

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company

Should Terrorific (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) less than 13 edits on wikipedia, Ekun (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 3 edits on wiipedia, Leaders100 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who never edited the Firestone or Bridgestone page and hasn't edited wikipedia since 12 September 2006, be a part of this mediation?

Mobile 01, a new user added these three users, reason:

The following 3 editors have been included here as representation from the Project Japan, these 3 editors deal mainly with Japanese History and Corporations and are suitably qualified to offer opinion on the merging of a Japanese and American company history.

I originally deleted these three users and then ask you if this is okay, and explained why on her talk page, but she added these three users back.

Everyone else has agreed to the mediation, except for these three inactive and new users. Travb (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The archive of our previous conversation is at [[6]]; the system is a bit complex, but that's what happens when you have 2080 individual sections to keep up with. ;) The parties to a mediation should be those who are involved in the dispute; there are occasionally ancillary parties (who have edited something for a while, but moved on) who are included for the sake of completeness, but unless the parties are actually involved, they should not be included. The comment about "offering opinion" suggests that they are witnesses, more than participants, which is not appropriate for mediation, but that's just based on first look. If you believe the parties are not actually part of the dispute, then I recommend placing a note to that effect on the talk page of the request, and leaving a small note on the request page at the bottom that says "I have left a comment on the talk page, please check there when reviewing this request." Essjay (Talk) 06:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for all of your hard work and your prompt response to my inquiries. I really appreciate your time on this case. Looks like the mediation failed, and was closed by another administrator. All is not lost though, I learned a little more about wikipedia :)

2080 individual sections? My God. I have no idea what that actually means :), but it sounds difficult and complex.

I don't think I could ever be an admin or an administrator for certain sections, it would feel too much like real work :) Hats off too you for dedication as a volunteer. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome; being able to help others is what keeps me coming back each day. :) Basically, the 2080 sections is 52 separate archives of 40 posts each, and represents 2 years (in 3 days) of having users stop by here. Adminship can certainly seem like a job, but in the end, it's worth it. :) Essjay (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Icon?

Good morning (GMT time); may I enquire as to what the new icon is about ("...Essjay is the current essjay on Wikipedia - David Gerard...") - quite mysterious :P Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit of humor, like the Queen of Checkuser one. :) It started when I was assigned oversight; I was rather surprised that I was included, and said so to one of the Arbitrators (especially since they didn't tell me I'd been given it; I was checking to see if anyone had gotten it yet, as many people were doing, and found myself on the list!). His (humorous) response was along the lines of "Of course you did; it was a simple decision: all the WP:OFFICE personnel (Jimbo & Danny), all the Arbitrators, and all the Essjays." From there sprang an in-joke that "Essjay" isn't my username so much as it is a Wikipedia position, like Arbitrator or bureaucrat. About two weeks ago, someone poked me with the quote from David, where he said "essjay is now a job title" followed by the line I've quoted. I found it funny, so I included it in the list. Essjay (Talk) 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:P hilarious :) well, your groups description does sort of stick right out on the user list ;) regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That it does! ;) Essjay (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pwned!

[7] That brought to mind the scene where Kirk tells the infallible Nomad that he has mistaken James T. Kirk for Jackson Roykirk. Thatcher131 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I'm sure it's going to come up a lot, but I feel secure in the decisions I've made; unfortunately in our world, we have to protect ourselves, and often that means misleading the people we love along with those who want to do us harm. I remain assured, however, that those who are truly my friends will understand and support me; indeed, most of my very closest friends have already said exactly that. I remain available and willing to answer questions or hear anything any of my friends here feel they need to ask or tell me. Essjay (Talk) 16:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. You're still Essjay, just slightly more cool, if that's possible. Thatcher131 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Awww, what a nice thing to say. :) One nice thing about being "out" is that now I get to hang out with the rest of the cabal in real life; I had dinner tonight with Jimbo, Angela, Datrio, and Michael Davis. All I can say is, I love my job! Essjay (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjaybot III

Your bot seems to have malfunctioned on this diff: [8]. My comment was less than a day old, and yet it was archived anyway. I wonder if it's my unusual signature that confused the bot? --ais523 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was probably it; there really isn't anything I can do to fix it, as the bot is programmed to follow the recognized signature style for MediaWiki. Essjay (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username/usurpation question

Hello, I would like to ask for your advise:

I have been working on Wikipedia for several months now and initially registered with my regular web nick. By now I have become unexpectedly involved in a few matters (I guess Wikipedia tends to do that) and I have been thinking for a while about detaching my work here from my other web-based affairs, for privacy reasons. At first I was planning to get another account use it for work on a few fields/articles I haven't worked on previously and then, after putting the old account to rest, plus a month-long break or so, use it for all my Wikipedia edits. I guess while this would be an unoffensive form of sock-puppetry (at least I hope so), it could introduce a number of problems nonetheless. I recently came across WP:CHU and maybe just moving my main account would be much less of a hassle.

The problem is, I have already created the secondary account and made a few small edits, so simple moving or usurping wouldn't work anymore. Since I own both accounts, could the secondary account still be moved to a third (with a nick like Unused account #42) and my main account then moved to the second? Also, which course of action would you ultimately suggest? I hope you don't mind me leaving this message while not being logged in, since I haven't made up my mind yet. I will find your answer here. Thanks for your time :) - 87.122.11.124 01:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this is possible. The only reason why it is not possible to ursurp usernames with edits is because of the WP:GFDL, if they both belong to you and you explicitly state that on both of the user pages (in the individual accunts), then it is probably possible and could easily be done. Cbrown1023 talk 01:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have the password for both accounts, it is no problem at all. All you have to do is post your request on WP:CHU from your main account, and then confirm by editing there with the second account. We can then proceed with the rename, as there is demonstrated consent to do so. Essjay (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your New Yorker bio

(Removed post from banned user. Essjay (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

It's in the archive but he explained that it was disinformation. My question is how the New Yorker hasn't gotten its butt kicked for publishing it as fact without the slightest fact-checking. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did six hours of interviews with the reporter, and two with a fact checker, but I was really surprised that they were willing to do an interview with someone who they couldn't confirm; I can only assume that it is proof I was doing a good job playing the part. Essjay (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed post from banned user. Musical Linguist 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Essjay!

I didn't realize you were out of town. :) When you return, please feel free to continue the conversation you started on my talk page. Have a safe trip! --Silverhand^Talk 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hello,

I would appreciate your help, since I'm not a Wiki expert, and I'm finding your system pretty impenetrable.

May I state the problem.

A month ago a new UK political Party was registered, developing policies to appeal across the whole Left - Right spectrum. I was asked to create a Wiki page to display some helpful facts for folk who might happen across it.

We were amazed to discover that some unknown persons had already created a Wiki page. It contained inaccurate invective, and was clearly created by some other political group who wished to display our party in a very bad light before we had even got going.

I have tried to negotiate with several persons, and once or twice thought we had reached a compromise. However, they have resumed changing the content to their own disparaging version.

There seems to me to be a flaw in the Wiki principles permitting general editing of subjects like this.

If the page dealt with 'The mating habits of the 3-toed sloth', it is fine. If it deals with the factual content like name, date of registration, current officials, and policies - stated in neutral language, it does not seem correct to have persons with their own political agenda, to change it to a form which might dissuade millions of people from voting for the Party. The democratic process itself is endangered.

You will note that the Wiki page for the Labour Party has been locked to prevent this sort of abuse.

The page causing the problem is currently (and incorrectly) displayed as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Nationalist_Party

When I complained originally, whoever the other group are, did remove some of the more disgraceful comments, but it still leaves much to be desired.

I realise it is against Wiki principles to just keep reverting the text, and from the way they have replied on talk pages, I think there is little chance of compromise.

The view of our Chairman, is that if the page cannot be truthful, it should be removed. I am charged with resolving this issue, so I would be grateful for your assistance.

Please e-mail me if you wish at grasut@btinternet.com - I find your system is too complex to navigate. Otherwise, I shall have no idea how to receive your comments.

Sorry to bother you with this, but I think it is important to reach a solution. I have previously contacted one of your Admin folk 'Angela' - she directed me here (more or less).

Best Wishes,

Graham