User:Essjay/Archives/24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Happyjoe

User:Happyjoe seems to be spamming other editors at random, including JoanneB and me. I've never even heard of Big Spring, TX. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Drop the IP's he's using on WP:AIV and link to User:Happyjoe requesting further blocks and they'll take care of it for you! :-) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the WP:AIV link. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

He's asked for a chance to prove he's changed, and I advocate giving it to him, as long as he gives up open proxies and such. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin-action counter

re: your idea of creating an admin counter, like the edit counter... Well, what do you know, the query is faster than I thought. It looks like it's very feasible, but will take a bit of work to output the bar graph, etc. Bug me again sometime if I forget about it, it's probably a good idea (I know I haven't doing CSD-duty as often as I should be...). --Interiot 05:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the edit counter [1] to include some breakdown of admin actions. Is this sort of what you had in mind? Do you have any suggestions otherwise?

Also, it does slow the edit counter down a little, especially for people like Curps [2], though it's interesting nonetheless to be able to see the monthly graph for Curps. --Interiot 19:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't wait to go see! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eldon hoke

Lir made a post about this here and maybe you might want to respond on there, I don't know. Anyway, I thought I'd say my opinion on it (I can't on his talk page since its protected).

I agree with you that finding out an IP address is wrong, and you shouldn't be doing it. I mean, why would someone want to do it? It seemed like in this case it was likely to attack them in some way, perhaps to figure out that the editor who made the post was really (insert real name here), or from a certain company or something like that. Or it might have been that they already have an IP address for someone who did something on another site and was trying to figure out if it was the same person.

I for one don't consider IP addresses to be private. The whole mess with CheckUser is something that I disagree with strongly. In my opinion all admins should be able to see IP addresses of all users. That way any CheckUser bits can be more transparent, rather than having to "trust" people with CheckUser access, which of course is just asking for abuses of power to happen. Its silly. They are not private. Your IP address is shown all over the internet, everywhere you go. And the thing is that most people share an IP with others, either with several logged in at the same time on the same IP or else it cycles through. It seems that with my current system I get about 10,000 different IP addresses to cycle through, and of course if Wikipedia admins feel the need to ban all 10,000 then you've also got rid of a big section of your users too. I sign my name, and really you never should have banned me to begin with. I've never been disruptive and I am not trying to hurt the Wikipedia. But anyway that's beside the point.

So this guy I think should have got a warning first. You didn't warn him. Warn him, tell him to knock it off, and make it very explicit. If he continues, then ban him. One warning would do. Perhaps even consider the ban that is imposed now as that warning, and then unban him and if he tries it again then permaban. How does that sound?

Anyway, feel free to post on the forum. Your posts are always welcome. User:Zordrac 17:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I just happened to be perusing some contributions and stumbled upon Zordrac's message here. I would like to state that I do apologize, but Igor declared "martial law" on the forums and exercized his admin powers there to ban ten seperate users, yourself included. I can lift that ban, but, having discussed things with Igor, he has agreed to allow me to do so (and not reverse me) if I wait until twelve hours from when he notified me (so at about 11:00 AM PST). I apologize for the inconvienence if you were planning on expediently replying to Zordrac's post. (We will be moving the forum to a seperate server soon to avoid these kerflops, among other things). --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's all over now. Igor has finished his rant, all admins and moderators have been removed, and the forum is now locked down. We've moved it to a seperate server, and it is now hosted at http://wikipediareview.com. Just in case you are interested. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 13:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; why exactly was I banned? Was it some sort of retribution or something? On the subject of EH (more for Zordrac and anyone else who may be interested), he was permablocked after two users made it expressly clear to him that IP information is not given out, and he opted to ignore us (I even linked him to the privacy policy for heaven's sake!) and make some sort of strange rant about how I had no clue of what I was talking about. He was trolling around for information that he wasn't going to get, and he was being abusive in the process; he wasn't doing anything productive, and there was no reason to let him keep harassing people. I don't really consider Lir to be an authority on when blocks are or aren't justified, so I'm not too concerned. As far as the WR forum goes, I just have a bit of fun seeing what is said about me; given that most of the extremely vocal critics are banned from Wikipedia, I have a hard time taking it serious: It's kinda like Satan yelling at God that he's a big bully. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Drink

Cheers! Rob Church (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Star

On this page, Wikipedia:Personal user awards, this link doesn't work.evrik 15:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's because the "CCW" was moved from the Wikipedia: space into my userspace after some Catholic users complained; it has since been returned to what it originally was, a silly little page in my userspace that makes no claims of being a cult or a wikichurch. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you look at this page, please? evrik 17:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Cameronian

Welcome back. This is a reminder about the User:Cameronian who had stated he was a member of the Mediation/Dispute committee. He has since stated he is part of the Member Advocate group. Over the weekend he has put in a request for mediation at the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Article. He represented to a new user that he could weigh in with authority on a content dispute. Unfortunately, he did not follow a mediation protocol and did not act in accordance with advocacy protocol either. Could you look back at his talk page and coment on appropriate protocols? Thanks, Steve Kd4ttc 16:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Since he's not a Mediation Committee member, I don't have any authority to "do" anything; my only involvement has been to make sure that it was clear he wasn't a MC member. I'd suggest going to the coordinator of the WP:MEDCAB or WP:AMA, depending on which he was working with at the time. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Food for thought

Copied from my talk (user talk:pschemp)

Essjay, I got this note, thought it might be interesting, but I'm not involved with Rex071404 so I'm not sure what to do with it. Thanks. psch e mp | talk 16:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be considered whether Happyjoe (talk • contribs) might be Rex071404 (talk • contribs). I wouldn't ordinarily suggest such a thing, but there's three things that make me suspect it:

Rex's old signature, as seen here, includes a little doodle-face whose image file is "Happyjoe.jpg";
Happyjoe picked me (as well as many others) to complain to about his account being "unjustly blocked" over a "misunderstanding". I'm not an administrator; why would he have picked me, a party so far uninvolved in anything involving him, and ask me to do something I can't do? The theory "because he knows who I am from run-ins under another name, thinks I'm an administrator, and thinks he'll be putting one over on me if he gets me to unblock this account" seems rather plausible to me.
Frankly, a look at Happyjoe's style in this RFC, including describing a block due to a user-conduct RFC as a "mistake" that should be "fixed", reminds me a great deal of Rex.

There's nothing there that's proof, only things that are suggestive; however, I offer it as a possibility to be considered. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yikes; sounds to me like a CheckUser is in order: Post a request with a link to the evidence at WP:RFCU. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

You might be interested in this, and anything you could do to help with this mess would be appreciated. Thanks...Keith 23:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, controversey out the yingyang! I'm staying as far away from both as I can! :-) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block this guy

User:65.11.191.8 is giving me some real trouble. Not only is he a vandal, he keeps annoying me! If you can, block him. Thanks. The Republican 03:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Report it on WP:AIV when he is activly vandalizing, and an administrator who is online at the time will look into it. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My final good-byes

Hello Essjay. I came to tell all my friends, yes, that means you, that I am leaving Wikipedia. Thank you for being so kind to me during my stay on Wikipedia. I hope to speak with you again someday. Moe e 06:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you go, but I know how much a good rest can do. I hope you'll decide to come back to us when your ready. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sure

sorry.i'll remeber that.--Tan DX 07:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mediation : ja macrons

I'd be willing to take on the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Japanese Macrons case, if there's noone else interested in it. +sj + 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

By all means, have at it! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote weekly news?

Week in review :-) One sentence per week would be cool. +sj +

Oooh, I was away half of last week, but I'll dig something up! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still waiting

Essjay, instead of providing a link evidencing your claim of content deletion by the original invisible anon, it is quite odd that you responded by diverting attention from your own actions, which consisted of deleting his noticeboard complaint and blocking the user hastily. It was assumed that you had performed at least a cursory investigation of the matter in good faith, which is why the only possible conclusion was that you had made some sort of decision in favor with those whose behavior prompted the notice board posting that you deleted for unknown reasons. However, it now appears that you were not involved at all in the situation, other than mistakenly deleting the user's valid notice board posting, then summarily blocking him, and then lashing out when asked for evidence of transgressions other than your own. Again, could you please provide the link to the alleged content deletion? Ombudsman 02:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my response to TIA (which can be found in archive 22), I was mistaken in believing he had deleted the post; instead, he added formatting marked, which caused it to be highlighted in my diff view as though it had been removed. I apologized, and given that there isn't much that can be done about it now, consider the matter closed. As I said there, I don't expect for a moment that my apology will be accepted by TIA or any of his buddies, yourself included, but I have offered it. At this point, I am left wondering how the situation will be further exacerbated. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanatory mea culpa; your apology is accepted. Since there are several admins who clearly have been among the several editors who have been harassing the original invisible anon, it was disconcerting to see another admin apparently acting in concert with those editors who have engaged in wholesale deletions of content, across a broad rnge of medical articles, while goading the original invisible anon mercilessly. Carry on, and get back to having fun now! Ombudsman 03:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is why I stay out of content disputes, and, for the most part away from articles altogether; there is just nothing to be gained from it. By the way, encourage TIA to register an account; he'll find he attracts a lot less admin attention, as we watch anon edits a lot closer. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be most obliged for a link to the apology referred to above. I have seen no apology. My enquiry here [[3]] seemed to me to have gone unanswered. There are numerous matters which go unexplained:-

the simultaneous deletion of text from my talk page by User:Essjay, a matter also noted in the same enquiry [[4]]
this was contemporaneous with multiple attempts (one still ongoing) [[5]] to have my talk page deleted, none of which do any of the protagonists any credit.
then the summary deletion of my User page [[6]], contrary to policy and which again has gone unanswered [[7]], [[8]].
and here is one example of the approach from the top at Wikipedia [[9]] which is less than encouraging.

I think the foregoing examples will suffice. I am on record as saying I will consider registering when there is good evidence that Admins and others apply Wikipedia policies properly or even at all.

^Talk - The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 06:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It was included with the rest of my replies here. See the text shortly under "Line 75." Or, you can look in Archive 22. I repeat again: I was mistaken in believing the content had been deleted, and apologize for having made the mistake. I remain concerned that the first assumption of all involved was that a mass conspiracy was being orchestrated. There is no cabal. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for making an comment

I'd just like to take a moment to thank you, Essjay for making an comment in my request for adminship. Seeing some very valid concerns, I've pulled the RfA until some of the concerns can be addressed. Thanks for your comments, I'll use them to help better myself -- Tawker 02:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Practice

I'll take the French Turn article if it's not too much trouble. Cheers.Thesocialistesq 04:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Done! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks..

Thanks for the help and the links to get started. Hope to contribute more often now.-- Square 21:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Hello I have a question for yah. Are you sure you got the right person when you said this?--->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.103.192.6? Thnks!,L337p4wn

Well, it was over a month ago, so I don't remember exactly what the situation was, but I assume it was in relation to this diff, given that I rolled it back here. I assume since you're asking that it was you logged out? Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

I award you this amphibian with fins for working so hard to get rid of the strange things on Wikipedia.
—pschemp 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Montgomery

SJ, could you delete the redirect page John Montgomery (pioneer) so that I can move John Montgomery (early American) to it? Thanks! Mattbrundage 18:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you link me to where this has been discussed; there are issues with moving pages over redirects if it hasn't been discussed. If not, please make a talk page posting (on the talk page of the article to be moved) and give it a few days to see if anyone objects. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perceived legal action threath

Dear Essjay:

I am sure glad I got you to pay attention. I certainly did not threaten, or intend to threaten, or attempt to threaten, anyone on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I responded to Chris-o's premature deletions of my factual additions, topped with his assertion that I should start a blog, with a, once again, truthfull assertion -- I am not a blogger. You see, right now we have a situation in which Wikipedia is used by Chris-o to support a terrorist group, namely, the KLA. At the same time, whenever I attempt to properly cite facts to indicate that KLA is, in fact, a terrorist group, he deletes my contributions. He refuses to help me to prepare an agreed statement to indicate KLA's actions that amount to forced expulsions, ethnic cleansing, and perhaps even Genocide against the minorities of Kosovo. You see, the threat is to Chris-o's false representations of the KLA, a State Department listed terrorist group. In the United States, we have a right to free speech in a public forum. I attempted to inform Chris-o that his actions are unacceptable on Wikipedia, since they chill my right to free speech. I also attempted to tell him that I want to take this dispute to a next (Wikipedia) level (please see discussion). Above all, I appreciate your actions in good faith, and I respectfully request that we take this dispute to the next level -- official mediation, or arbitration. Please understand my position, too -- did anyone ever do to you what Chris-o did to me, i.e. delete your contributions just because s/he is hurt by the truth? My position, therefore, is that we need to refer this case to competent (wikipedia) authorities, since Chris-o does not listen to me, refuses to co-operate, calls me a propagandist, etc. just because I cite bbc.co.uk's reports of KLA's crimes. I am anxiously awaiting your reply, and thank you for the warning. I regret that someone would perceive my statement as a threat of legal action, which it was not. My reference is to the Constitution of the United States, which allows for free speech in a public forum. Respectfully yours, 1liberator 03:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think this is a public forum? --maru (talk) contribs 03:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Great question, maru -- it's the legal definition that counts. Wikipedia invites people to contribute, people do actually contribute, so like any college board, newspaper, national tv, etc. wikipedia is a public forum, for U.S. Constitutional purposes as they relate to the First Amendment. Yours, 1liberator 03:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not so sure those are valid analogies- supposedly broadcast TV is possible because of a grant to the corporations of scare airwaaves from the people, as represented by the duly appointed government, and colleges are frequently heavily funded by federal and state funds, and newspapers serve the public interest; Wikipedia is only minimally funded by the government (if if receives any grants at all), and makes use of no granted public common resources. The contributions are strictly voluntary and while it is true that the general public can contribute, this is still a private non-governmental organization and project- which merely accepts contributions from a limited subset of the general population. I'm not aware of any interpretations of theFirst Amendment which are so broad as to cover Wikipedia; a better analogy might be books and publishers- books are written by a subset of the general population with a minimum of governmental funding and usage of public common resources, and yet authors do not have to allow their opponents equal time in their works, and there are quite a few restrictions on what can be published. --maru (talk) contribs 03:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not right to free speech on Wikipedia: See Wikipedia:Free Speech, which I wrote personally for just these occasions. Wikipedia is a private website, hosted on private servers, funded by private donations, and run by a private not-for-profit Foundation. We exercise full control over who may participate on our site, and can restrict speech in any way we see fit. As a general rule, we invite contributors from all points of view to contribute respectfully, but no contributor has a right to edit here. Having been over this time and time again with our legal time, I can assure you, the right simply does not exist.

Additionally, editors who invoke the non-existent right to free speech are generally taken in a very dim light. Why? Because, individuals who act in good faith rarely need to appeal to a non-existent right to free speech to defend thier contributions; other contributors will be more than happy to do so without being bullied into it with cries of foul over non-existant rights.

To respond to your question regarding mediation and/or arbitration, you are welcome to file a request for either. Neither the Arbitration Committee or the Mediation Committee "reaches out and grabs" disputes, rather, we wait for individuals to come to us and request assistance. Be aware of the difference between the two: Mediation is a joint effort, requires the agreement and cooperation of both parties, and provides no judgments, orders, or final resolutions that are enforced; the parties work together, come to a solution, and then enforce the solution by continuing to abide by it. Arbitration, on the other hand, is binding, and works much like a court. Cases are accepted by the committee, evidence is heard, and decisions are issued and enforced. Sanctions are levied against any party involved in any sort of actions against policy, and may be levied against parties who were involved in the dispute but not directly involved in the request. Arbitration takes many months to comme to fruition. Finally, the Arbitration Committee only hears requests based on violations of policy; they do not handle content disputes, and will not issue a ruling as to whether a given version is the "correct" one or not. There must be specific allegations of serious violations of Wikipedia policy, backed up by clear evidence thereof.

I hope this will help you in resolving your dispute. You may also wish to consider a Request for Comment, which allows both parties to air their views and seek outside input.

If there is anything further I can help you with, please let me know. And take my strongest encouragement to let the free speech argument go, as it only serves to hurt your perception in the eyes of the community. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You've got mail

as requested -- Tawker 05:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] little bird, little bird....

...on the cinammon tree... -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testing.

-) Jude(talk,contribs) 05:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'll mediate East Sea (disambig)

I'm happy to mediate Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation). There is little on how to conduct the mediation process on the pages I have seen so I hope you will be able to give me a pointer in the right direction. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 07:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is deliberately very little instruction; we expect those accepted to the cocmmittee to posess the requisite experience/ability to engage in mediation, and do not provide training as such. This isn't to say one must be a professional mediator; rather, candidates should have some real-life or Wikipedia experience in dispute resolution. For the most part, mediators are welcome to conduct mediations as they see fit, observing the main groundrule: Our job is always facilitation, never judgement. We do not ever insert our own views or judgements; we do not hear evidence or issue rulings as to how the dispute should be resolved. We only facilitate peaceful, productive discussion between the parties, who come to thier own resolution and enforce it by thier mutual committment to abide by the solution they have reached.

With that said, you are welcome to take the East Sea case; just put a note at the very bottom that you're willing to take it, and I'll assign you. You should contact all the parties to let them know you have been assigned, and to handle any setup you need, i.e., statements from the parties, etc. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Thank you :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, you deserved it! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dear [almost] randonly selected administrator

Hello SJ: Imagine my surprise when I signed in a few minutes ago and discovered that I no longer had a user page. It should have been User:Carptrash, but it ain't. I still seem to have my watchlist, my talk and probably everything else, but no user page? Any ideas? PS I am going to leave this note with 3 admins, just in case #1, and/or #2 are on vacation or involved in something more compelling than my little issue. Carptrash 23:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

a variety of folks, Good, Better and Best, have cured what ever ailed me. Somethng to do with a need to "purge." life is good. Carptrash 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad to here it was taken care of. If there is anything I can do for you in the future, let me know. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abstract nonsense

There is a cute anecdote at the bottom...thought the wittyness might bring a little smile to your face :-) --HappyCamper 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:-D Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFAR

You've been named as a party in an arbitration request by an IP (which I've since blocked for ban evasion), just FYI. IP in question is User:Queeran, just for posterity. NSL E _(T+C) at 01:53 UTC (2006-03-08)

Addendum, Tony Sidaway has removed the request as trollish, which it (probably) was. ;) NSL E _(T+C) at 04:13 UTC (2006-03-08)

Yay, my first RfAr by troll! :-D *Goes to add to list of awards* Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, your two cents requested here? NSL E _(T+C) at 09:01 UTC (2006-03-08)

I'm trying to stay away from WR for the time being; no reason to provoke the trolls. Additionally, the Queeran deal is a strange situation, so I'd rather keep my comments on it in-house. I will say I'm suprised he didn't accuse us of being homophobes in addition to being racist; it would have been the perfect pair (ignoring, of course, that I'm gayer than Christmas). Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about RfM policy

Does the RfM policy require that articles accepted for mediation not be edited? Or does this only apply to the text posted to the RfM pages? I am currently involved in a dispute with RadioKirk and I made edits to the article involved in the dispute after my RfM was accepted. I did this under the impression that article editing was acceptable and that editing the request itself was not. I did not intend to violate RfM policy and would like to know if I unintentionally did so (as I fear that RadioKirk may be attempting to use scare tactics in an effort to harass me about the issue). Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. -- backburner001 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Editors may continue to edit articles involved in mediation while the mediation is ongoing; if it were otherwise, the article would be protected. It would not be out of the question for a condition of the mediation to be that both editors stop editing it, but it is not required. Mediation is a cooperative effort, and does not involve complex procedure; it is, for the most part, what the editors agree to in consultation with the mediator. Either editor may withdraw at any point, and may continue to edit the article while the mediation is ongoing; of course, continuing the actions that led to the mediation may make mediation less successful, but is not a violation of any policy.

It is not the responsibility of any party to a mediation to quote mediation policy to the others; there is no place for wikilawyering in mediation. If there are issues, it should be brought to the attention of the mediator, who will take the necessary action. If a mediator has not yet be assigned, it should be brought to my attention, and I will handle it.

Since you didn't mention the specific case, I don't know whether a mediator has been assigned or not; if one has, please bring this to the attention of the mediator, if not, let me know, and I will look into the matter. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 18:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and the prompt response. The case involves the Punk'd reference in the Lindsay Lohan article. An editor has not yet been assigned. I discovered after posting my above comment that RadioKirk commented on this matter on Voice_of_All's talk page and stated the supposed restriction of editing articles under mediation was not a written rule. However, on my talk page, RadioKirk insisted that such rule exists and refused to provide a link to such a rule when I asked him. I find this kind of behavior deceptive and harassing and I'm having difficulty resolving the content dispute as a result of it. I would still like to make an attempt to have the dispute mediated, but behavior like this makes such mediation a very difficult task. If you could look into this matter and offer advice on how to proceed from here, I would be very appreciative. -- backburner001 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The stated "insistence" is incorrect. On Talk:Lindsay Lohan (not on User_talk:backburner001, by the way), I stated, "The instant data is the subject of the RfM and may not be altered during the process." Why not? Because it is vandalism and I will revert it. The answer to the unanswered question should be obvious: "You requested a mediator, now respect all six editors who signed an agreement to mediate (not counting the user who, indicentally, was the bringer of the RfM) and back off and let the mediation proceed."

Notice also that the user found and invoked template:Exclusion-Section—a convenient excuse to impose the stated intention that "this reference must be removed until it suits me." Upon reversion of the vandalism, the template was restored, this time with the data intact, probably to avert WP:3RR. I have since created template:Inclusion-Section in an effort to insure the subject of the RfM remains intact (as it was at the time the RfM was filed) and within the purview of the mediator.

Finally, there can be no one-sided harassment if indeed this is a two-sided edit war (I maintain that the user's "war" is of its own making and the actual "harassment" is to Lindsay Lohan specifically and to Wikipedia in general). This user will find consequences to its actions—as I will mine—and no amount of spin-doctoring will stop them. Radio Kirk talk to me 21:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to "preserve" anything, and certainly no need to edit war over doing so. Mediators are smart enough to look in the history of the article, we don't need the parties to cause more conflict in the name of assisting us.

All this brings me to an interesting conclusion: The behavior of the parties does not represent that of parties interested in working together to come to a collaborative solution. Edit warring, characterizing other's edits as vandalism, and making hostile postures towards other parties is not the way to enter into a mediation; rather, it is the precursor to a long and nasty arbitration that leaves all involved far less satisfied than they would have been if they had simply made an effort to get along. The mediation is closed for lack of good faith on the part of the parties, and referred to arbitraion to consider the matters of harassment, edit warring, and vandalism. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 21:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Macrons

Essjay, I have looked over the mediation guidelines and all of the open cases. I am willing to take the Japanese Macrons case, if the parties are amenable to it. I have real life experience in dispute resolution from my management experience, and know nothing about Japanese spelling so I feel this would be a good match. Let me know what you think, psch e mp | talk 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By all means, go for it! I trust that you'll do a good job; just put a note on the mediation subpage saying you'll take it, and I'll assign you. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. psch e mp | talk 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with vandalism

Hello, Essjay. I see from your user page that you are an admin. Forgive me if this is not proper Wikipedia procedure, but is there some way to search for a link being added in vandalism, or some special text? Have noticed at several pages now the same "poem", usually prefaced by the same, "I see the love that you suppress... come back to me when your journey is done". This has been added to many non-poetry related pages, and I don't know if anybody's noticed. Same crazy link all the time: http://www.loveblender.com/1998february/heart/eyes1.html

I guess it's not that big a problem, but wanted to be helpful as this is my first week here (well, second day!). If this isn't correct procedure, please direct me to the right place, if you have time. Thanks!

Oh, maybe you can search the text people put in with edits! That would be a start, at least. Is vandalism always this bad here? Can't believe this. Okay. Thanks! Frederick. 63.153.203.187 01:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple ways to do this. First, the easy way, is to see if the same person added all the links. If most of what you have found has been done by the same username or IP address, then we can check the contributions for that account and find what else they have done. If the account varies, then we can run a google search on it and pull up the pages that way. If you'll provide me with a link to some of the instances you have found, I'll check it out.

Yes, this is an excellent way to get help; we're here to answer questions when needed. You could also post things like this to the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents, where multiple admins will investigate. You can report simpler matters (such as one single user blanking a bunch of pages) to Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism.

Glad to have you aboard! Oh, and consider registering a username, so your contributions will be easier for you and others to keep up with. You can read about benefits of registering here. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no:Fykocyanin?

The only change you made to the previous version of the Phycocyanin entry I made was an extra line and 'no:Fykocyanin' with [[]] around it. I was unsure of what this does. Additionally, on the history page for that article for your edit it says:

(cur) (last) 08:13, 1 March 2006 Mahlum m (no)

What does the (no) mean?

Thanks

~ Adria, SD

Ummm, I think you have the wrong person. I've never edited that page; see the page history. You seem to be looking for User:Mahlum; you should post your message on User talk:Mahlum. I am User:Essjay. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not modify my edits

I understand your Request. I will try to comply.

Please, it is uncivil to edit other people comunication to you. I have worked hard on the list.

If the process is not clear to me I appologize but don't delete my comments. Thank You. Zeq 11:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the information on the RfM page: Any request that includes additional information, particularly commentary, will have the additional information removed. Parties should adhere to the format strictly. In most situations, improperly formatted requests are simply rejected and delisted; I was being lenient in simply removing the incorrectly formatted entries. Please familiarize yourself with the procedure for making requests before doing so; I don't appreciate being accused of incivility when it is you who failed to familiarize yourself with procedure and you who failed take notice of the repeated boldtype notices on the page clearly stating that improperly formatted text would be removed. Any further non-complaint requests will be rejected with prejudice. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 12:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have worked on the mediation request for a long time. You have really blindsided me with deleting a list that was done in a painestaking work. It is all the evidence I had and there was no backup list in was it was presented in such sequential order. It took me now long time (not as long) to reconstruct it. I am not an attorney, not an advocate and not a native English speaker. I would like to ask for your help (or someone you can recomned) in reading the material and describing it in bullets points in the form that the way that the comittee would like to see it. So far I understand that you rejected mediation (which is really a request to help avoiding disputes) based on a completly formal technical argument. Thank you for your time to consider my request for help. Zeq 12:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said. I am not an attoeny and all "with prejudice" without prejudice" is not something I understand.

If you are so keen on process, please provide help to people who do not understand the process. Thank you. Zeq 12:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You can retreive the list from the page history.
It does not require being an attorney or advocate; it requires following the detailed instructions provided repeatedly: in the page header, the guide to filing requests, the sample request, the sample of the template, and in the edit view of the template.
I would suggest contacting the AMA or Advocate Cabal; we do not provide advocacy to parties.
The request has not been rejected; the commentary that violated the policy stated in bold type was removed, just as the page indicated it would be. Had the request been rejected, it would have been removed completely from the RfM page.
Read the articles with prejudice and without prejudice. I linked them for a reason.
I have provided far more instruction and guide pages on how to file a request correctly than any other dispute resolution process on Wikipedia, including Requests for Arbitration. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I have been more than patient with individuals who could not be bothered to read the documentation provided and follow the correct format. No other request has involved such problems, so I am not inclined to believe it is a problem with the documentation provided. I suggest requesting an advocate, perhaps someone fluent in both English and your native language, who can help you understand what is required. I am recusing from any further involvement. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 12:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I will try to understand. Please give me some time to comply. Zeq 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

Can you point to anyone with more knowldge of the process who can help me format my request the way the comitee wants it ? Thank you. Zeq 12:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If you stopped editing my page every three seconds and causing me edit conflicts every time I try to save a response, you'd get a response. This is the first time I've ever had to protect my page in order to be able to respond. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 12:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

2. I want to appologize on the the fact that you were offended by my use of the words uncivil. I had no intention to offend you just to explain that it was VERY offending to me to see the list of issues (as I understood them) dispear when there is no backup copy.

I am looking for help to chenge the request format. If you can remond someone I 'll be very gratfull.

I have no idea why you had to protect your page. Just trying to comunicate with you. My English is not so good so I have to re-edit myself a lot. Zeq 12:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

All articles have history so that the correct attributation to the author can be made, as per the GFDL license. Hence there is a 'backup copy' of your list in the history of the article: [10]. Jude(talk,contribs) 13:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Am I actually supposed to be mediating East Sea (disambiguation)?

Essjay, I have been actively mediating Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation) for a number of days now and you seem to have ignored the fact that I have marked that I am taking on the task. Is there any reason for this? MyNameIsNotBob 13:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an absentminded professor who has to be reminded on occasion. I've been very busy the last few days. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 13:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faster than light was the block!

I was trying to see who to report the vandalising user to who made a vulgar remark regarding your adminship with a user name based on your's. But there it was, blocked before I could even report it. There are many eyes watching in this village. Steve Kd4ttc 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the cabal never sleeps! ;-) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Change to Requests for Mediation

Would it be possible to address the following point from Wikipedia:Mediation in the Requests for Mediation process?:

Disputant groups have to choose a representative from amongst them who may consult with the group during the process.

MyNameIsNotBob 08:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the relevant section to reflect our actual procedure. In practice, we don't always require this; mediation is a fairly elastic process, and can achieve positive results by different methods. The parties may choose to use a representative, or may all be involved. The mediator has the ability to require a spokesman if having everyone speak has become disruptive. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for this clarification. I'll leave it up to the parties to decide then. Thanks for your patience. MyNameIsNotBob 11:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, that's what I'm here for. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Block

Please block User:156.63.190.132 I have talked with the Adminastators and they agree that the vandalism needs to be stopped. They dont have the ability to track it.If you have a question please feel free to discuss this with me I ask for a two week ban if the vandalism doesnt stop, please continue with normal blocking policy thanks Betacommand 19:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please report block requests to WP:AIV or WP:AN/I. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This archive is full.
Messages should be archived in the currently active archive.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/s/User%7EEssjay_Archives_24_2ebd.html"