| Revision as of 01:47, 1 December 2006 view sourceSteel (talk | contribs)20,265 edits Oversight← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:24, 1 December 2006 view source Elalan (talk | contribs)1,334 edits →OversightNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| ], ] and ].<br>Cheers, Essjay. -- ] 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | ], ] and ].<br>Cheers, Essjay. -- ] 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Elalan's checkuser == | |||
| :Can you please answer these questions. I think you missed them when archiving. ] 02:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am just an interested party. However, while I understand the need for privacy, your response didn't explain ''at all'' why you came to your conclusion. No usable biographical or geographical information on the user need be released. A comment such as "IPs are within the same geographical area" could hardly be seen as giving anything away, and yet it would give the user accused of sockpuppetry at least some explanation for the "likely" conclusion. I also understand that checkuser is "not the DNA of the Wiki-world", as you put it. However, a "likely" checkuser result would generally be considered a slam dunk in the case for sockpuppetry, and I'm not sure that such a determination should be made without at least ''some'' explanation. <sub>└</sub> <sup>''']'''</sup> / <sub>''<font color="black">]</font>''</sub> <sup>┐</sup> 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Essjay with this varying degrees of probability as you claim, do you have <b> verifiable yet significant statistical evidence </b> to conclude thats its "Likely" and it "Looks like a classic case of editing at home with one account and at school with another" based on past checkuser cases. A simple yes or no to this question would suffice. If its a yes, can you please present evidence of statistics to support your claim. If its no, is it not safe to conclude your comment is <b> mere speculation on your part, without supporting statistical evidence </b>. ] 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:24, 1 December 2006
User talk:Essjay/Top User:Essjay/Talk TOC
Mediation Work
I'm interested in doing work mediating (I have some experiance with mediation from when I was in law school), but am unsure how to go about volunteering. Any advice you could give would be appreciated. Thanks, JCO312 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's pretty easy really; we accept offers from non-Committee members to assist with cases, and are currently backlogged, so it's a great time to get involved. I'd suggest starting with reading the various mediation pages (there is a list of links on RFM that would make a good start) to give you an idea of our scope and our process; you could also read through some of the current cases to get an idea for how the product end works. Once you have a feel for what we do, look at the cases that are currently unassigned (you'll find them in the box on the side of RFM) and pick out one that you would feel comfortable mediating, and put an offer on the mediation page to begin. At that point, you pretty much take it from there; I don't really do a lot of oversight over mediators unless something comes up that requires I look in on it. If you have questions, feel free to ask! Essjay (Talk) 01:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Spellchecking
Ah, I wasn't even aware of who had written it, I was just doing my normal "proofreading" sweep. So, no worries, I'm sure you'd do the same for me! And if nothing else, when someone finds typos in my work, it tells me that at least they're reading it <grin>. I've found the pages very informative -- thanks for taking the time to write them! --Elonka 19:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I love it when people proofread for me; for some reason, I see it fairly easily in other's writing, but tend to miss it in my own. And yes, glad to see someone is reading all those pages! Essjay (Talk) 01:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Tropical Cyclones
Sorry, but the person possessing the info was on IRC, and no oversighters were around. We didn't know that someone else had requested oversight. Bastiq▼e 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Oversight
Special:Contributions/69.46.28.198, Special:Contributions/208.53.138.234 and Special:Contributions/66.246.220.165.
Cheers, Essjay. -- Steel 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Elalan's checkuser
- Can you please answer these questions. I think you missed them when archiving. Elalan 02:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am just an interested party. However, while I understand the need for privacy, your response didn't explain at all why you came to your conclusion. No usable biographical or geographical information on the user need be released. A comment such as "IPs are within the same geographical area" could hardly be seen as giving anything away, and yet it would give the user accused of sockpuppetry at least some explanation for the "likely" conclusion. I also understand that checkuser is "not the DNA of the Wiki-world", as you put it. However, a "likely" checkuser result would generally be considered a slam dunk in the case for sockpuppetry, and I'm not sure that such a determination should be made without at least some explanation. └ / talk 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Essjay with this varying degrees of probability as you claim, do you have verifiable yet significant statistical evidence to conclude thats its "Likely" and it "Looks like a classic case of editing at home with one account and at school with another" based on past checkuser cases. A simple yes or no to this question would suffice. If its a yes, can you please present evidence of statistics to support your claim. If its no, is it not safe to conclude your comment is mere speculation on your part, without supporting statistical evidence . Elalan 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am just an interested party. However, while I understand the need for privacy, your response didn't explain at all why you came to your conclusion. No usable biographical or geographical information on the user need be released. A comment such as "IPs are within the same geographical area" could hardly be seen as giving anything away, and yet it would give the user accused of sockpuppetry at least some explanation for the "likely" conclusion. I also understand that checkuser is "not the DNA of the Wiki-world", as you put it. However, a "likely" checkuser result would generally be considered a slam dunk in the case for sockpuppetry, and I'm not sure that such a determination should be made without at least some explanation. └ / talk 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)