User talk:Essjay

Dabljuh redux

Just FYI, he also edited yesterday from 195.158.167.131, which is in Germany. I'd be interested to know if that intersects with Socafan's IPs. Thanks. Nandesuka 12:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Stick it on RFCU and I'll take a look. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:193.170.53.9

I'm sorry, I was given to believe that this was clearly blocked due to an open proxy issue, and not existing vandalism. I would assume had there been vandalism that someone would have put it on the talk page. Furthermore, I did check the user contributions and at ready glance discerned that the source exhibited contributive tendencies.

Since the request was from a legitimate source (Vienna University) via OTRS and I noted legitimate contributions from the source, I felt it was all right to unblock without consulting you—Especially given the preponderance of admin blocks due to open proxies of late. I apologize if I "stepped" on you in any way, and will assuredly consult you in the future. Bastique▼^parler _voir 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not vanadlism from the IP, it was vandalism and sockpuppetry from user accounts using the IP; the only way to know who is using an IP is to check it with checkuser. It's no longer my problem; he can sockpuppet until hell freezes over. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please apologize for revealing users' location without their approval

and promise not to ever do this again. Socafan 23:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You apparently have no idea what you're talking about. The Foundation's privacy policy allows information on the general location of an individual to be released; saying "He's coming from Germany" or "He's editing from Switzerland" is perfectly within policy. I suggest that the next time you call someone out, you get your facts straight before you make a total fool of yourself. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There was absolutely no need to infringe on other users' privacy. Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Please show me where in the policy it is indicated you are allowed to reveal where users edit from. Privacy policy says: Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym. When using a pseudonym, your IP address will not be available to the public. Socafan 10:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's technically in the Checkuser policy, though I think you are correct that it is contradictory to the privacy policy, which is probably more important. I reccomend taking it up on the Checkuser talk page, not with Essjay. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 11:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot access that page as another admin blocked me without any basis. The policy you cite reads: Even if the user is committing abuse, it's best not to reveal personal information if possible. - I did not commit any abuse.

If you're in any doubt, give no detail. Both these principles were violated. Socafan 23:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:IRC stuff

Hello again. Well, we've basically finished the bot so if you could push an okay through for the nick "wiki_bot" (that's an underscore "_", not a space " "), that would be fantastic. Thanks.--Orgullomoore 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've memo'd lilo to let him know I'm fine with it; that's usually all it takes, but if there are any hangups, let me know and I'll see if I can catch him online. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive 9

Hi Essjay,

Would it be possible to delete my real name heading in archive 9, so it dosent pop up on search engines. I would really appreciate this. Very sorry to bother you again with this.

Thanks. Marlon Fire Thunder 22:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that he means this. Prodego ^talk 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer

I think I mentioned IP-blocking him before, but having just had to add another sockfarm RFCU, I noticed in the archive that you had considered a partial rangeblock in April. Any chance of reconsideration? It seems that LB has chaned his MO recently, and is loading up on accounts before he vandalizes multiple pages, instead of hacking away at just one page with one account (mainly because it's protected). MSJapan 03:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not touching a rangeblock of Lightbringer; he uses a very popular ISP, and every time I rangeblock it, I get dozens of angry emails, and at least a few legal and/or death threats. It's like rangeblocking AOL to stop a Willy on Wheels; far easier to clean up the mess than deal with the collateral damage. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. MSJapan 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

ForestH2.

Hi, Essjay. I'm so sorry to bother you. I really want to request blocked indefinite for User:forestH2 because This user still bothers me, eventhough I said this user ForestH2 Stop nicely. This user disrupts my own page, and still bother me. Well, It's sadden. I didn't do bad things to him, that means I'm innocent. This user's edit are highly uncivil, inappropriate. This user already made edit war(Basically, He simply going against 3rr Policies) on last week. This user still edits my own page in negative way. Like this userUser:ForestH2 did on articleHarry Potter and the Half Blood Prince(Film). This user doesn't put time when He send somebody message, He still doesn't listen to someone'a advice/Suggestion. Just nothing good for him. This user User:ForestH2 didn't follow Wikipedia Policy of Editing, Civility. I personally do not accept the message that is abusive and uncivil. I have no idea why He has been bothering me in Wikipedia. This userUser:ForestH2 still poke one's nose where one is not wanted. I actually told him that This is non of your business, so please do not bother me. He still sends me message to bother me. That's big issue. How could you assist me on that? Please, Reply on my talk-page rather than answering on your talk-page, also Do not copy my message to my discussion's page, make same title to answer it. Please, It's very important problem. *~Daniel~* 03:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The best place to raise the issue is on Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, where other administrators can see it and look into it. I rarely get involved in disputes between users due to the other functions I have to perform; it's very difficult to handle checkuser, mediation, and other requests on an individual when I've been involved with handling conflicts between them and other users. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Revealing locations

I think that User:Socafan is a person who is very sensitive about privacy. Which is fair enough - some people are. It wasn't actually necessary to reveal the country they live in in order to say that check user was inconclusive. Had I been you, I think i would have actually apologised rather than insult themby basically saying "I am right, you are stupid" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Socafan#Please_apologize_for_revealing_users.27_location_without_their_approval ]. Anyway it's just something to think on. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I deal with almost every single checkuser request made on RFCU. I don't have the time to go searching for who is or isn't concerned about people knowing that they're one of 10 million people in a given country. I'm fairly screwed on any result I give with checkuser; if I try to say as little as possible, I spend a week answering followups because nobody believes me when I say "They're unrelated." If I say "This one is using [ISP] and that one is using [ISP]," I get complaints that I'm saying too much.

I try to tread a nice middle ground, where I reveal just enough to show that I really do know what I'm talking about, but not so much that I make it possible to actually identify anyone. Far from someone stopping by to say "Why, you're spending 100 hours or more a month running checkusers for us, thank you for doing that!", I get nothing but constant complaints and quite a few legal, death, and combination legal/death threats. For the most part, I ignore them, because the people making them have no clue what they're talking about.

Yesterday, I arrive at my talk page to find a complaint from a user who is totally clueless, and used his 75th edit to Wikipedia to tell me that I was wrong and demand that I apologize for doing what the checkuser policy specifically allows: "Revealing the country is generally not personally identifiable." Today, I arrive to find that an Arbitrator agrees with him.

As I've said many, many times before: If I'm not doing my job to the community's satisfaction, then I shouldn't be doing it. So, I won't. No more checkusers from me until I have ESP and can forsee and prevent potential complaints. Someone may want to let Mackensen know that there will be a very large backlog shortly. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoooooooa calm down a minute! Of course your work is appreciated, and you are certainly doing it to my satisfaction. If my tone was overly harsh then I apologise. I did not in anyway mean to critisise you for revealing the info. I was simply suggesting that you dealt with the complaint afterwards in a less offhand way. I can see that you are stressed, I didn't want to add to it, sorry. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Essjay please, I'm nearly begging here. Please do not stop making checkusers. The entire checkuser system will probably collapse without you handling requests. The work you do here is absolutely invaluable & we are really very thankful for it. I request you not to quit, we really need you. Thanks --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 06:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those 1% of cases where I really can't say anything that will be helpful, so I'm just not going to say anything at all. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that a user ignorant of the rule of the benefit of the doubt and who has a history of blocks, even for vandalism, apparently nearly exclusively handles such a sensitive topic as checkuser. Socafan 16:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediaton Committee

Hi Essjay, just to say I'm going to be taking the Sathya Sai Baba 2 mediation, and that also I had an e-mail from one of the people involved with the Hunger Project RfM. I said I'd be happy to take that case once this other one has finished. I was going to accept the Hunger Project's RfM, but just wanted to check that there were no problems with it (I couldn't see any, but just want to double check). Oh, and sounds like you're having fun with RFCU! Do you think you ought to file a RfM! --Wisden17 12:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)