Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 19:43, 30 November 2006 (Spellchecking - No worries. :)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Jews for Jesus

Hi Essjay. Regarding the mediation on this article. I understand you've been busy, but I think you made a bad mistake closing this mediation. The mediation was filed a long time ago, and the parties agreed to it. Then there was a huge pause, because nobody from the Mediation Committee responded. Meanwhile the parties waited for something to happen. Eventually we found out you were on Wikibreak, so we contacted another committee member. That member marked the request as 'accepted', but then did nothing else. Nobody in the dispute has much idea what is supposed to happen next, so we waited to be contacted by the committee. Nothing happened. Then you came along and closed the mediation. What exactly were we supposed to have done in the meantime?

Can I strongly suggest that you re-open the mediation. If someone tells us what the next step is we'll be happy to do it. DJ Clayworth 04:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As strange as it may sound, the reason the mediation was closed is because nothing happened. The Guide to accepted cases addresses this issue: Acceptance of cases on RFM is only a preliminary step, where we certify that the policies of the Committee have been met by the request, it is not a guarantee of mediation. Individual mediators, like individual parties to a mediation, are free to decide which cases to participate in; if a case is not taken up by a mediator within thirty days (roughly), it is closed as stale. In these situations, if the issue is still in need of mediation (you might be surprised by the number that have been resolved on thier own by the time a mediator takes it up or the thirty days runs), and all the parties are still willing, we ask that you file a new request; this indicates for us that there is still an issue needing resolution, and the parties are still agreeable to mediation (like the status of the dispute, willingness to participate in mediation can change a lot over the course of thirty days, and a new request will certify that there is still willingness to mediate.)

Unfortunately at this time, the Committee is down to a handfull of active mediators, and so it's even more the case that not all cases will end up being mediated. My advice, if you are all still interested in the process, would be to file a new request, and once accepted, look out in the community for someone you all can agree on to assist in the process, and ask that person to take the role of mediator; we're always open to the idea of "guest" or "special" mediators, especially when we are shorthanded. Essjay (Talk) 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So this was basically because no mediator followed up after the mediation was accepted? OK, I guess we can live with that. I know you guys are busy, and thanks for being there. I think we're going to try some unofficial resolution procedures first (though the last person who tried to mediate simply got his suggestions reverted by one of the parties). DJ Clayworth 15:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. My feeling on the matter is that it's much better to close off cases that have had no mediator involvement within 30 days, rather than let the parties languish three or four months (as was done in the past) before finally saying "Oh, nobody's doing anything with this." Informal resolutions are a good route; they're often faster and better staffed. ;) Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Essjay bot archive limit for ANI

This should be lowered to 200KB at most. Even 300KB is too high and, because it archives all conversations by date regardless of whether it will afterwards exceed 300KB, we end up with, for example, a 380KB archive at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive148. —Centrx→talk • 08:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bring it up on the talk page of AN; if there is consensus to change it, I'll be happy to do so. Essjay (Talk) 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Was there consensus to have it be 300KB or 400KB in the first place? Article talk pages are typically archived around 130KB and below. When people retargetted the archival of ANI to new pages manually, it was usually done around 150KB-200KB, though it was a few times completely forgotten and let up 600KB, for example. What were the reasons people thought it should be changed, both from the old practice and from the practice common with other sorts of pages, rather than having it take a long time to load? —Centrx→talk • 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That was some months ago, I was involved in the discussion. Basically, it balances the size problem against the problem of having loads and loads of archives. At the time, the talk volume on the page would create two new archives per week at a 300kb limit; 4 archives per week would give us 200 new archives per year, which seems like a lot :) Can you tell if we are talking less these days? Thatcher131 23:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher is absolutely right; it was discussed and decided to be a good middle ground. If there is widespread sentiment that the archives are too large, then it should be no problem to get others to sign on to a proposal to shrink them. If nobody else really considers it a problem, then there isn't much cause to change. Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Easyjay

Is this an impostor of you? I marked it as such a few months back, just wondering... ~ Flameviper 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not me; although I wrote the Doppleganger policy, I really never got in to creating many. Good catch! Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What to do when a participant edits an RfM page?

Hi, Essjay. I've just filed an RfC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and Elonka (talk · contribs) (one of the disputants in the matter) edited the "Issues to be mediated" section, instead of adding it at "Additional issues to be mediated". What's the correct course of action now? I don't want to jeopardize the case's chances of being accepted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Several of the editors have now edited the RfM page, and there's a dispute over wording of one of the questions. How can we salvage this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away in the real world for a couple of days; when users edit the wrong section, the best policy is to tell them, nicely, that they should be editing thier own section. The best way for that to happen is for one of us (Mediation Committee members) to do so; unfortunately, we can be a bit slow. I'll take a look at the page and see what I can do to sort it out. Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bogun.jpg

You delete image commons:Image:Bogun.jpg, please restore it.

• Source - http://www.zsu.zp.ua/euk/img/Bohun.jpg
• Creator - Madeevskiy
• Date of creation - 1884
• License - {{PD-art}}
• description - uk:Я.Мадеєвський. Іван Богун. Літографія. 1884 р.

--Butko 07:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've not been active on Commons since August, and I've not been particularly active in deletion since mid-summer, so I'm guessing it was included in one of the "delete these images" categories that I cleared out. I'd advise asking User:Pfctdayelise, as she's far more active and always willing to help. Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser#Elalan

Hi Essjay, When you get a chance, can you please respond to statements made by myself and Trincomanb regarding your technical observations. Elalan 16:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation question

What's the best way to handle when someone listed under "Involved parties" doesn't want to take part in mediation because they don't care that much about the outcome, and would be fine with whatever result the mediation ended up with? Basically, they don't consider themself an "involved party". I assume this would be different than someone who disagrees with mediation. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...This isn't really something that has frequently come up. My general position is that if the other parties agree the individual can be excused, then it isn't any problem. If the other parties insist that the individual is an essential party, and he/she is unwilling to participate, then the mediation will be rejected for failure of parties to agree to mediate. Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

need some info

About renaming users. There's a regular old es: user who long time ago created an en: account. The account has 0 zarro cero edits. But he forgots the username long time ago as well. Would it be doable to rename that unused account to something else so he can create an account again with the same username? Thanks for the information -- Drini 19:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Right now, our policy is to only do renames where the user can prove control of the account. It's unfortunate as some users forget their passwords and lose out on their accounts, but it's really the only way to protect everyone. Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it

I very much like your new userpage format. Looks very nice.__Seadog 21:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Second that! One of the best userpages I've ever seen. —The Great Llama 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sunshine!

Hey Mr. Essjay, thanks for the kind and thoughtful note you left on my talk page. I'm glad to see you back in form, too! We've missed you!!! I should be officially back on here soon - I took a mini-wikibreak to go on vacation to Toronto. NickBurns 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and I'm glad to hear you'll soon be back with us! Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Elalan's checkuser

This user has asked me to comment on his behalf, insisting on not being Trincomanb. I told him that I trusted the checkuser, but he insisted, so I'm going to ask, since I'm not all that familiar with the checkuser process. How do you come to a conclusion that two users with different IPs are "likely" the same? Are they located in the same city? Are the edits made at never-intersecting times of day? If that's the reason for the "likely" decision, shouldn't such be noted in the checkuser? A comment that it "Looks like a classic case of editing at home with one account and at school with another" would not appear to sufficiently address the issue. _└  / _talk  15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you representing this individual, counselor, or are you merely asking as an interested party? If the former, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation's Counsel, Brad Patrick, who can be found at User:BradPatrick.

If the latter, please read the large green header of WP:RFCU which states "Responses will be brief in order to comply with Misplaced Pages privacy policy." We do not release checkuser data, and we do not reveal user's locations if we can avoid doing so; you see, there are internet stalkers and other "interested parties" who wander around looking for such things, and in the past, have found information like the name of the university an individual attends and the university-owned IP he/she is using are amazingly useful tools for harassment. If I were to say "The user is editing from 12.34.56.78, owned by Colgate University, and 87.65.43.21, a residential broadband IP in Hamilton, New York," then some "interested party" would only need to call up the dean's office at Colgate and be well on his way to causing a lot of needless problems. (If you think it doesn't happen, you'd be very, very wrong. It happens a lot.)

Finally, you seem to mistake the nature of checkuser results: This is not the DNA of the Wiki-world. Checkuser evidence is secondary evidence, used to strengthen or weaken an existing case of sockpuppetry. What decides whether users are determined to be sockpuppets or not is not the template we stick on RFCU, but the editing pattern they display. All we do at RFCU is to report whether, based on the technical evidence, there is probability of sockpuppetry (in varying degrees of probability, denoted by the various responses). It is then up to the larger community to make a decision based on all the evidence present. Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 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)

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)

Opus Dei

Hi! In a discussion of the neutrality of this article and in a review of the GA status of this article, a user has cited a mediation decision.

I've never had someone cite such decisions as binding. Should we consider such decisions as precident, even if we are not party to it? --CTSWyneken 17:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey CTSWyneken:

No, users should not be citing mediation decisions; they may state that a mediation took place, and that the parties decided on a resolution of x, but they should not cite such a decision as though it were binding on anyone, including the participants in the mediation.

A formal, quotable statement about the nature of Mediation Committee cases:

The Mediation Committee does not render decisions. The Mediation Committee does not provide binding resolution. The Mediation Committee provides voluntary, formal mediation whereby parties may come to a voluntary solution. Mediation is a process of facilitating discussion between parties in order to allow them to come to a solution that is agreeable to everyone involved; it is not intended to provide a binding resolution to any issue. (Misplaced Pages:Mediation, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Common Reasons for Rejection) Formal, binding resolution can only come from the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me say that again, in a non-quotable, informal manner, just to be sure I've been clear for those who may have the wrong idea:

So, no, please don't consider such "decisions" to be precedent and/or binding on anyone. Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)