User talk:Essjay: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:51, 1 March 2007

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

Congrats

Congratulations on the promotion to Arbitrator. You will make a great addition to the Committee. G e o. Talk to me 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Essjay (Talk) 23:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peeing

Hello Essjay. What do you think of moving User:Essjay/Never pee in the sandbox to Meta? It describes a tendency that is common on many wikis, not just on the English Wikipedia. A copy with {{mirrored}} could be left here, to benefit from the shortcut. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:53:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to copy it over if you like, but I'd really rather keep the version in my userspace, and here's why: When something's in your userspace, you maintain control over it, so it never ends up saying something you didn't intend it to. I've seen it happen, at least a couple of times, that someone writes something (either in their userspace and it's moved to the projectspace, or directly in the projectspace) and it is later changed to the point that it no longer matches thier original intent, yet, because they started it, and in many cases, have the greatest number of contributions to it, they are identified as the "primary author." I'd rather make sure that any essay's I'm identified as primary author of stay safely where I can make sure they say what I intended them to. Essjay (Talk) 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Thatcher131's request, I have created this section for you

I wonder if you have looked at the facts in this case of mine: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_User:GordonWatts

I'm not the only one who thinks I have a case. Since I last posted, many new people have posted in my support!

Besides having over 4,500 edits with no major discipline or major problems, I now note that Thatcher131 suggested that: "I think a rebuttal to the votes of the arbitrators is a reasonable addition, but can you do something about the rest? If your main concern is that there was insufficient agreeement to constitute consensus, a link to the discussion and a brief recap should be sufficient; I would normally expect the arbitrators to follow significant links and verify them as part of their determination. Thatcher131 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)" [1][reply]

I hope you do as Thatcher suggests and follow the links! I know I have posted a lot, but several statements by other editors were well-over 500 words, so please indulge me if I go a little over too: I'm being falsely accused!

To grant Thatcher's request, I have created a new section for you:

1.4.3.2 Rebuttal to the votes of the Arbitrators
- 1.4.3.2.1 -No Consensus existed to support Guy's admin action-
- 1.4.3.2.2 -These editors support my claims of innocence-
- 1.4.3.2.3 -These editors desire ArbCom intervention-
[2]

If you mess up, it isn't my fault: I've done my part, and I have little to add to the somewhat lengthy ArbCom page in my matter.

--GordonWatts 06:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements on RFAR are for showing us that there is a case to be heard. They are not for making every last point of your case; if they were, we would have no need of evidence pages. Your statement passed 2300 words at one point; we don't need 2300 words worth of why we should open a case. Chosing to end with "If you mess up, it isn't my fault" doesn't particularly encourage me to believe that the community was wrong in their actions. Essjay (Talk) 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you remove my RfA?

I could possibly do that myself, but since I found no guidelines on removing a RfA just wanted to be careful and not create a 'mess'. The reasons are firstly, it doesn't seem to have any chance to succeed and secondly, I don't like the way pro and contra develop. Wandalstouring 11:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay, hope you don't mind but to avoid opposes continuing before you could deal with this I explained to Wandalstouring that if he was sure he should withdraw on the RfA page. He did so, I then closed and delisted the RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wandalstouring. I know non-crat RfA closes are under some discussion at the moment but it seemed an uncontroversial matter. WjBscribe 12:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he withdrew, then there is really nothing controversial about it; had you made the decision to end it, that would have been controversial, but just cleaning up after a candidate withdrawal isn't, so nothing to worry about. Essjay (Talk) 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take that link down

Just a heads up -- there's an old link on your user page that says, "I was mentioned several times in an article about Wikipedia in The New Yorker." You may want to take it down now. The editor of The New Yorker appendeded a note to the article that says you're a liar. 68.89.128.115 15:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above appears to be by Daniel Brandt. His motivations aside, you should probably be made aware that there's a discussion about this going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales#The New Yorker quotes you (also triggered by Mr. Brandt). I have a great deal of respect for your work on Wikipeda, Essjay, and I think it's important that you respond to this matter. Did you misrepresent yourself on your user page and/or to the New Yorker reporter? Can you explain this? If this was a simple error of judgment, you would do well to acknowledge it.

Respectfully yours, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have; there was a considerable discussion right here on this page, triggered by Mr. Brandt and his Wikipedia Review cronies, and I made myself quite clear on the subject. I consider the matter closed, and see no reason to repeat myself every few weeks when someone else finds out about it "for the first time." Jimmy has made his support for me known, the people who actually know me have made thier support known, and that is good enough for me. Essjay (Talk) 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only just found the previous discussions in your archives. I now understand the reasons behind your "disinformation". That said, given the New Yorker's correction of its story, it is likely that more people will be discovering this in the near future, and to a newcomer's eye it doesn't look good. It is also an unfortunate truth that the New Yorker correction will damage the reputation of Wikipedia, unless it is answered clearly and forcefully. (Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?) The New Yorker correction doesn't provide any context for the apparent misrepresentation. I think it's important for the sake of Wikipedia that you provide that context, preferably somewhere more easily accessible than your archives. This goes beyond your own reputation and affects that of Wikipedia as a whole. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my place to make a public statement on this; anything I say at this point is going to be repeatable in the press, so the best thing for me is to say nothing at all. Wikimedia has it's own press team, and Wikia has a PR firm; when I receive communications relating to the press, I refer them to the appropriate press division (in this case, Wikia's PR firm made my response to The New Yorker). At this point, my role is to say "No comment." Essjay (Talk) 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting more media attention for some reason. Freakonomics Blog Killerdark 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. :) Essjay (Talk) 00:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay, to be honest, I find your lack of transparency on this troubling. Why can't you post on a subpage an essay or statement that summarizes your position as to why you gave one identity to a journalists who you (I assume) corresponded with personally, instead of having us hunt through the edit history and archives to divine what the situation is. Also, I think to shrug it off on Wikipedia's press team and Wikia's PR is disingenuous -- Wikipedia is a community made of its members who act on their own accord. If there is an issue with the actions or edits of an individual, the individual is responsible. That's how Wikipedia can maintain safe harbor as a forum and why Seigenthaler and Fuzzy Zoeller have to look for the individuals in question, and not the Wikimedia Foundation office. Putting the burden of your (NPOV: discrepancy | POV: deception) on the backs of the Wikipedia press team I think is unfair to the rest of your peers, to put it mildly. (I had to take a 30 second timeout to prevent writing something I would regret.) -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I say now is likely to be repeated in the press. The press teams are trained in making statements that should be repeated in the press; I am not. It is best for Wikipedia that I not say something about this that then is repeated all over the world, making the situation far worse. I'm afraid I have to stick to "No comment." Essjay (Talk) 03:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook

Thanx, I'm using your MonoMonobook, but I don't want sysop etc tabs on it. how do I get rid of them. Also, I want to change text colour how do I do that? thanx a bunch Essjay, lovin your work... --Andrew Marsden 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking for User:Essjay/user/monobook.js. Also see my version, based heavily on Essjay's. Prodego ^talk 21:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Hi Essjay - I'd appreciate if you could re-enable the talk page archiving - hopefully the problems will be largely cleared up very soon, and i've got a temporary phone line for internet until then :). Thanks, Martinp23 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Essjay (Talk) 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Hello, could you please read this: [3] I do not belong in the Arbcom, I hope you understand and remove me from it. Thanks.Azerbaijani 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee has had this type of requests a number of times, and our response is this: If you have not been part of the dispute, then you won't be part of the remedies. Being listed as a party in an Arbitration case doesn't automatically mean you're going to be sanctioned. If you haven't done anything, then you have nothing to be concerned about. Essjay (Talk) 23:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

Hi Essjay, I hope you are still doing well. Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could do me a favor. I have been waiting in m:OTRS/volunteering since January 7. Could you expiate the process for me, I know you are a good person to contact for just about anything :-). My thanks if you can help me, Prodego ^talk 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm; I'm really not active with OTRS anymore, and I don't have the ability to add anyone. I'll poke around to see who the active OTRS admins are and let you know. Essjay (Talk) 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told that Bastique and Jredmond are the ones you seek. Essjay (Talk) 00:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Prodego ^talk 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHU

Can you take a look at this page, because since you have left, no usernames have been changed (as far as I can tell).

Regards,

~Step trip 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is controversy regarding that page at this time, and I have elected not to be active there until the controversy is over. Essjay (Talk) 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. ~Step trip 01:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Errors, New Error Page

Hi... I'm not sure why but I am guessing you might have an answer to my question: For the first time ever, starting today, I have started seeing a new error page, from time to time, when trying to edit. My guess is that the error page is new and/or something has changed with respect to the servers. Please do not think I am complaining; I am genuinely curious and wondering if you know anything about it. If not, do you know the best user to ask about it. Katalaveno^T_C 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the "Wikipedia (or Wikimedia) is experiencing an error" page? I get it every once in a while, but usually a click of the back button and a resubmission solves it. If that is the one, and it's just intermittent, I wouldn't worry about it. If it's a different one, let me know what it says, and I'll poke around and see if I can find anything out. Essjay (Talk) 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi Essjay, if you're still around, can you close Georgewilliamherbert's RfA? I'd close it as a clear success, but I did vote in it. I don't really consider that a conflict considering my comments, but I'd prefer if someone else closed it. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed it; for some reason, I thought it was closing tomorrow morning. Essjay (Talk) 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 ::::::: Essjay, to be honest, I find your lack of transparency on this troubling. Why can't you post on a subpage an essay or statement that summarizes your position as to why you gave one identity to a journalists who you (I assume) corresponded with personally, instead of having us hunt through the edit history and archives to divine what the situation is. Also, I think to shrug it off on Wikipedia's press team and Wikia's PR is disingenuous -- Wikipedia is a community made of its members who act on their own accord. If there is an issue with the actions or edits of an individual, the individual is responsible. That's how Wikipedia can maintain safe harbor as a forum and why Seigenthaler and Fuzzy Zoeller have to look for the individuals in question, and not the Wikimedia Foundation office. Putting the burden of your (NPOV: discrepancy | POV: deception) on the backs of the Wikipedia press team I think is unfair to the rest of your peers, to put it mildly. (I had to take a 30 second timeout to prevent writing something I would regret.) -- [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
+::::::::Anything I say now is likely to be repeated in the press. The press teams are trained in making statements that should be repeated in the press; I am not. It is best for Wikipedia that I not say something about this that then is repeated all over the world, making the situation far worse. I'm afraid I have to stick to "No comment." <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] [[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">(<small>Talk</small>)</font>]]</span> 03:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 == Monobook ==