User talk:Essjay

Essjay

Please Help!!! I am trying to file an arbitration request but the system is not recognizing the title of the page I am entering "Webster University".

Over the past 2 weeks or so, I have been having problems with a few of your administrators, but Mel Etitis seems to be the main culprit. I have put more than a year of work into the Webster University wiki page, adding new sections, and changing it from a stub page to a nice University page. However, administrator Mel Etitis has been engaging in overzealous editing. Each time I fill out the page, he vandalizes the page and deletes all of my work with little sensible explanation. Just because he is an administrator, does that give him the right to vandalize pages at will?

His last comment regarding his vandalism, says that my work was not cited. But it WAS cited. My University page followed the same blueprint of the other University pages that are on wikipedia. I got all the ideas for how to build the page from other University/College pages...in terms of format, etc. Everything that needed to be cited WAS cited.

When he deleted the page earlier, I was told that all of the sections had to be re-written because SOME of the material came from the commentary on the University's website... information that is almost impossible not to duplicate if you are talking about the same institution....some info will overlap....so I used some of the unformation. But to satisfy your administrator, I went back and rewrote the entire page. NOW he is trying to find something else wrong. Some of the information provided, comes from my own experiences at the University.

I don't understand this administrators fixation with deleting THIS particular University page. I don't see him destroying other University pages. He seems to be fixated on this particular one. Yet he knows nothing about the institution. Editing has turned into harassment by the wiki admin.

When I tried to communicate on his talk page, HE DELETES THE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS THAT I LEFT FOR HIM.

Is this the proper behavior of a wiki administrator?

I would like to file for arbitration on this issue. I also request that the Webster University page be open to me and that it be locked from other editors and admins for at least 6 months, so that I can build a nice wiki page for the University. I have already spent more than a year working on the page, and that work has already been erased by your administrator. I would hate to see my efforts (& time) wasted. It would take me some time to rebuild everything.

I know all of the wiki administrators are all buddies, and the chance of getting a fair shake is slim to none. But I wanted to at least try, just to test how fair and square wikipedia really is.

I plan to blog on the subject of wikipedia, once this process is over.... on the problems regarding the wiki culture. I have already moved the Webster wiki project to a better wiki platform, but I wanted to see if I could reconstitute the page here and see if this arbitration process actually works.

Thanks -- JohnShaft1987

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.119.88 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Help with research

Hello Essjay,

I wondered if you were still willing to help with some research. I've a few questions about the Wikipedia mediaiton process that you might be able to answer. If you'd still like to take part, please let me know.

Many thanks

Matt
MattB2 08:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure; I'm heading to bed at the moment, as it's 12:40AM and I have to be in a meeting at 9AM, but if you'd like to post some questions here or email me, I'd be happy to arrange everything. Essjay (Talk) 08:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I've just two questions for you (answer as little or as much as you like), and then, depending on you response, I might have a couple of follow-up ones for you.

1) What do you think makes a dispute suitable for mediation?

2) What makes a good mediator?

Many thanks

Matt

MattB2 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Status & Skins

Hiya! I am wondering if I can get the same code that you have for editing your user interface only I just need the status part. I would like to have a status box on my page yet I don't want to constantly have to go to the page and update it. Thanks in advance! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Essjay/statuschanger.js and then User:Essjay/Status and User:Essjay/StatusTemplate are what you're looking for. :) Essjay (Talk) 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation requests

Well, the thing is, the Renameuser extension already does that, but the query is disabled, as miser mode is enabled on MediaWiki. The way I read the code, though, I think it can be enabled separately from other expensive queries, so the person to ask would be Brion. Sadly, I barely have the time to keep up with homework nowadays, and my Internet access was royally screwed by my ISP after they decided to FUBAR an upgrade to my building's cable, so I do not know when I can contact him to ask him about it directly. The best bet would be to ask at VPT or at a mailing list, but I think I would need more details about what is going to happen, when, and how many requests we are talking about. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oy...I was hoping since you're around them more often that you could do so a bit more delicately; I fear I may well be stabbed if I bring this up. ;) Essjay (Talk) 02:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for both your organized userpage and your monobook WikiSkin. Meteoroid (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so very much; you even put it in my gallery for me! How sweet! Essjay (Talk) 02:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Olivierd

I'm a bit surprised that discussion on this is still going on, and that you're still making accusations against Benio76 et al. (albeit quickly archived).[1] After she approached me, I took the trouble to look into it, and it seemed clear that, not only was the checkuser result misleading in this case, but there were inadequate grounds for it having been made in the first place (no voting irregularities, etc. just a similar pattern of editing, which is certainly not sufficient for such a check). Having discussed the matter with other admins at WP:AN/I, and with the original blocking admin, all three accounts were unblocked (two by me, one by another admin).

It's worth pointing out too that e-mails sent to you requesting a rethink of a decision, even if there are several of them, don't count as "spam". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have been put to trouble; the appropriate person to have raised the issue with was the blocking admin, not me. My responsiblity, and my involvement, in the matter was to report on the state of the technical evidence available, and that is what I have done, repeatedly. The technical evidence has not changed, and neither has my report; the user's grievance is not with me, but with the blocking administrator, as that was the person who bore the responsibility for deciding how to resolve the matter.

The results of a checkuser investigation are merely one portion of a greater picture that must be evaluated by the blocking administrator; the report was not misleading, it accurately reflected the state of the technical evidence, which confirmed a connection between the users. The decision on what type of connection exists is not for me to decide; per the Arbitration Committee, however, Wikipedia policy does not distinguish between one user with two accounts and two users who coordinate thier activities to disrupt Wikipedia.

As for the propriety of the check, I disagree; checkuser is not limited to cases of voting irregularity or block evasion, it is appropriate whenever a pattern of disruption is observed, and such a pattern was laid out in the request for checkuser.

We also disagree on the definition of spam; since the blocking admin was the appropriate individual to contact, I count numerous emails and talk page postings continuing to argue the matter with the wrong person to be spam. That may be influenced, however, by the large number of such email I receive: surprisingly enough, nearly every checkusered user emails to inform me of his or her innocence and/or offer a brilliantly graphic explanation of how they would like to exact thier revenge on me and/or my family. (I could share highlights if you're interested; I get five or six each week that are quite inventive in thier ideas on torture.) Perhaps my skepticism with the 150 emails I get each day comes from two years and 10,000 checkuser's worth of death threats (~10 a week), torture monologues (~5 a week), and legal threats (~40-50 week), added on top of the remainder that are only generally belligerent and filled with personal attacks. With the myriad of venues available to blocked users, including contacting the blocking admin, unblock-en-l, editing thier talk page, emailing the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo (who unsurprisingly gets several thousand emails each day; I don't think I saw him ever stop going through emails today), I feel I'm justified in answering clearly on my talk page and archiving the emails. Essjay (Talk) 03:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're famous on Slashdot today

As a Louisvillian, I was pleased to find out via Slashdot (and then here) that you live near Louisville. And why aren't you a member of WikiProject Louisville?  :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate the response. :-) Per your message, I should be looking here, correct? I just want to make sure I'm looking at the right page and not assume anything. --Silverhand^Talk 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's it! Essjay (Talk) 23:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)