Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:47, 25 July 2006

User talk:Essjay/Top User:Essjay/Talk TOC

Questionable block

I think your block of User:CovenantD was highly questionable. I'm not sure it was appropriate, and I'm not sure discussion couldn't have resolved the problem better. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, to my eye that looked like severe punishment for speaking out of school. Can't see any disruption to the Misplaced Pages, maybe a few egos ruffled is all. I think the refusal to grant a check user is just as disruptive. Steve block Talk 19:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way; I'll suggest to Mackensen that since we're a disruptive presence at RfCU that we should set a self-enforced ban from the page. Granted, it means there won't be anybody running requested checkusers, but that's far preferable to our disruptive behavior. If adminstrators are going to back editors who berate checkusers instead of standing up for respectful treatment of those of us who work our asses of for this site, then they shall have what they deserve. Essjay (Talk) 03:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Its as if someone from wikitruth hacked the servers and started sending out subliminal messages of discord. The whole month of July has been screwy around here. Thatcher131 04:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite; I'm just tired of everybody expecting they can come dump on me and still have me go merrily on doing the things they want me to do. Declaring both Mackensen and I to be disruptive users when we spend hundreds of hours a month doing this was so far beyond what we deserve as to defy written expression. Essjay (Talk) 04:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No argument there. But I'm also referring to Socafan, and ConradD, and the move war over Israeli Apartheid (and Fred's proposal to ban the editors involved for one month per move), and Homey's bizzarre attempt to hide a self-check (after which he has apparently left), and El C blocking Kelly Martin over some kind of secret list, and 28 pending cases at RFAR, and on and on. If I may pretend to be a sociologist, I would say that idiocy on wikipedia is in a positive-feedback loop, but with sufficient lag time that it normally dampens itself harmlessly. With half the english language wikipedians on summer break and full of free time, the lag time is cut so that the positive feedback idiocy loop never has a chance to peter out, resulting in an idiocy cascade effect which built up through June and is discharging in July. Either than, or the Solar Max. Thatcher131 04:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Who knows, you may be right. I think July is generally a memorable month for departures; didn't RickK leave last July? Essjay (Talk) 05:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you guys get some of the worst of it. The wierd feedback loop is in full effect on the wiki, and it invariably spills onto RFCU it seems. Kevin_b_er 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not my problem anymore. I've been talked into sticking with it several times, but it isn't happening this time. I imagine a month from now, when nobody's had any answer to any request, there will be a dramatic change in tone. Essjay (Talk) 05:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blimey. Essjay, I think you seriously need to step back and take a deep breath. Your response to me seems overblown, and if you think anyone is accusing you of disruptive editing then let me quickly disabuse you of that notion. The point I am trying to make is that the block was in my view unjustified. Are you prepared to discuss that point or not? If you can't see that all users should be treated the same, then I'm not sure what else to do here. The block was too strong, discussion would have settled the issue and I think there was crabbiness on all parts. CovenantD had clearly described himself new to the process, and so I think there was a clear case of WP:BITE here. Don't you think we all work our asses of for this site, or are you asking for preferential treatment? There is no cabal, no elite and no second class citizens. Steve block Talk 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't ask for preferential treatment; I do expect users to recognize that I'm not doing a job I get harassed for doing, and by extension, if they harass me, I won't do it anymore. If treating me nicely in order to keep me working at RFCU is asking for preferential treatment, and continuing to do RFCU in the face of growing harassment is just something I should accept, then I think I've made a damn good decision to not take part anymore.

I felt the comments were inappropriate, that they were incivil and bordered on personal attacks. I was leaving a comment along the lines of "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" when I was edit conflicted by his nasty response to Mackensen; at that point, I felt he'd had enough warning (I feel Mackensen's refusal was more than enough to say "Uhh, maybe I should stop and think about what I've said and consider apologizing") and I blocked him. There are hundreds of such blocks every day, and I bet if I go searching through your block log, I'll find plenty of them. I'm just wondering if you think calling me on this publicly, instead of emailing to say "I think you may have been over the top" was worth the message you ended up sending, which is: "I couldn't care less about the stuff you do, whether you keep doing it, or how many people are inconvenienced by me driving you not to do it anymore, this is so important that I have to publicly call you out on it and then rip on you on ANI without even the courtesy of telling you I'm doing it." Essjay (Talk) 11:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Trawl through my block logs, Essjay, I don't mind . I didn't email you as I tend to do everything on wiki, I apologise if that is the wrong way to do things. I still don't see his reply to Mackensen as out of line given Mackensen's comment, in fact I think it's justifiable. I don't think Mackensen's comment was offering the warning you believe it was, it seemed more likely to inflame the situation that act as a warning. Telling people you're not goin to do something because they've insulted you isn't best practise if it isn't 100% clear a personal insult was levelled. I don't see there being a personal insult being levelled, rather frustration at the system. As to what messages I'm sending, I'm happy to let my words, actions and edits speak for themselves. This was never about ripping you, this was about asking whether this was a questionable block. I apologise for the fact that this has caused you offence; that was never my intention. I was simply looking to see if this was a justified block. Steve block Talk 11:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There really isn't anywhere further to go with this: I feel the block was justified, and quite a few people have agreed with me. You and several others disagree. Perhaps that was why the blocking policy used to say "These blocks are almost always controversial." Neither the block nor the damage that has been done to my desire to handle RfCU can be undone, and spending more time with each of us continuing to say "I'm in the right here" is only keeping us from doing something productive. Essjay (Talk) 12:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, I'm not sitting here saying I was right, perhaps that's where the problem lies. All I wanted to do was to ask you to consider the block. As you have now done so, the matter, on my part, is done. Once again, I apologise for the way this turned out, and I will certainly consider your advice to question blocks via email in the future, I'm sorry that didn't occur to me in this instance. To be perfectly honest, I don't blame you for stepping down from RfCU, but please don't stop enjoying Misplaced Pages on my account. Steve block Talk 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

EssjayBot

There appears to be a slight glitch in it, as it's doing "Sandbox talk)" instead of "Sandbox talk". Thought you might like to tweak it. :-) Jude (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, I'll check into it straight away. Essjay (Talk) 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

Could you please check if I am right or the user Subhash is right on the article Gujarat Riots.I believe this user is weasling heavily on this and all other articles.

As the articles concern Hindu and Muslim religious groups it is preferable to have some neutral person mediate.

Last change http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=65659661&oldid=65658313 Lkadvani 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Meta

What is the code for a Meta userbox.Geo. 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A Meta userbox? Like the one on my userpage that says "This user is an administrator on Meta"? It's at User:Essjay/Userbox template and User:Essjay/Sister Project Box. Otherwise, you'll have to point me to an example. Essjay (Talk) 07:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant, is there a existing box that identifies a user as a meta user?

If so, where is the template? Geo. 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That I don't know; I don't use any userbox templates. You could check Misplaced Pages:Userbox. Essjay (Talk) 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

New Yorker

Pretty cool. Thatcher131 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. ;) Essjay (Talk) 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, rather cool. And a rather good article generally.--Wisden17 17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I did eight hours of interviews for it...I'm glad I got a mention or two. ;D Essjay (Talk) 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Eight hours, Essjay, you must be a slow speaker! How did they initially contact you, was it an initial press inquiry which then got forwarded to you via OTRS?--Wisden17 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, a special request; they talked to several people who mentioned me, and it went from there. Essjay (Talk) 17:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Now the truth is out; you were set up by your fellow editors! Seriously, they chose well when they chose to interview you. We could not ask for a better representative. KillerChihuahua 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)