User talk:Essjay

Essjay's EditCount is now back online!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)