Jump to content

Talk:Essjay controversy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Ahem: this is not the fourm for this
Edeans (talk | contribs)
1,034 edits
Line 823: Line 823:
Pardon me, but did anyone happen to notice '''THE TOTALLY FREAKIN’ HUGE ELEPHANT STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM?? HELLO??''' The greater part of the whole Essjay scandal '''is not''' about Essjay and what he did (although that was certainly bad enough). The really scandalous part is how Essjay was dealt with, and not dealt with, at the highest levels of Wikipedia. I shall explain, since it would appear (*sigh*) that explanation is actually required.
Pardon me, but did anyone happen to notice '''THE TOTALLY FREAKIN’ HUGE ELEPHANT STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM?? HELLO??''' The greater part of the whole Essjay scandal '''is not''' about Essjay and what he did (although that was certainly bad enough). The really scandalous part is how Essjay was dealt with, and not dealt with, at the highest levels of Wikipedia. I shall explain, since it would appear (*sigh*) that explanation is actually required.


It is simply not credible that an elaborate false CV would be created for '''any''' legitimate purpose. The only possible exception that I could see would be for matters involving national security (Will ''this'' be the next Essay whopper? Tune in tomorrow!). You do not fabricate a false CV to protect your anonymity. You fabricate a false CV to perpetrate a fraud–to gain material advantages you otherwise could not obtain, or would not obtain until significantly later. This is exactly, and unsurprisingly, what happened.
It is simply not credible that an elaborate false CV would be created for '''any''' legitimate purpose. The only possible exception that I could see would be for matters involving national security (Will ''this'' be the next Essjay whopper? Tune in tomorrow!). You do not fabricate a false CV to protect your anonymity. You fabricate a false CV to perpetrate a fraud–to gain material advantages you otherwise could not obtain, or would not obtain until significantly later. This is exactly, and unsurprisingly, what happened.


The truly scandalous thing here is that not only was Essjay given a paid position at Wikia after self-exposing his fraud (while incidently creating a few new misrepresentations along the way), but that he was also rewarded several weeks later with a promotion to ArbCom here at Wikipedia! It was not until it was obvious to even the most obtuse that this whole thing was going to blow up into a huge shitstorm in the mainstream media that “God-King” Jimbo finally gave Essay/Ryan Jordan/Whatever-His-Name-Really-Is the ol’ heave ho. It would appear, accordingly, that either Jimmy Wales is one of the biggest pollyannas that ever lived, or he is just as morally oblivious as Essjay himself, if not more so.
The truly scandalous thing here is that not only was Essjay given a paid position at Wikia after self-exposing his fraud (while incidently creating a few new misrepresentations along the way), but that he was also rewarded several weeks later with a promotion to ArbCom here at Wikipedia! It was not until it was obvious to even the most obtuse that this whole thing was going to blow up into a huge shitstorm in the mainstream media that “God-King” Jimbo finally gave Essjay/Ryan Jordan/Whatever-His-Name-Really-Is the ol’ heave ho. It would appear, accordingly, that either Jimmy Wales is one of the biggest pollyannas that ever lived, or he is just as morally oblivious as Essjay himself, if not more so.


If after reading this you cannot understand why I am so throughly disgusted, then I pity you. I truly do. [[User:Edeans|Edeans]] 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If after reading this you cannot understand why I am so throughly disgusted, then I pity you. I truly do. [[User:Edeans|Edeans]] 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:42, 11 March 2007

Did You Know An entry from Essjay controversy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 07 March, 2007.

Proposed changes to Wikipedia as a result

The result of this scandal is the most important part. WAS 4.250 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Move this section to article space? Views please. luke 03:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section does not belong in the article. Adding them is a blatant self reference at this point, without external sources. Most of these are in discussion phase and are nowhere near consensus; perhaps once consensus is reached, one or more of them might fit into the "See Also" section, and/or an external source will write about them and they can be included in the article. Risker 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Yes avoid self-reference, but what if the article is at least 50% navel-gazing? It's an attempt partly to take a long hard look at what happened and to draw the appropriate conclusions from history. Is it REALLY encyclopedic otherwise?--luke 04:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC) //p.s. Just to add that Jimmy Wales refers to the process of debate within Wikipedia in his radio interview on WAMU 88.5 FM American University Radio - The Kojo Nnamdi Show for Thursday March 8, 2007 - luke[reply]
Well, slowly but surely the navel-gazing sections of this article are being weeded out. Wales himself is a notable person, and media discussion can be used as a reference in the article proper (there is a section about outcomes of the controversy). The issue of whether or not this entire episode is notable is still open for debate, but this article having recently survived AFD, the current focus is on making it a high quality article rather than warring over whether or not it should be here at all. Risker 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay's response

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that all references used have to be from external and reliable sources (see discussion above - "Essjays accusation of unethical journalistic practices perpetrated by Stacy Schiff"). The quote used in the Essjays response section is taken from Essjays User Talk page history (which is not an external source) which is referenced at the bottom of the article. My question therefore is, should this be kept? And, if the answer to this is Yes, then should something about Essjays accusations towards Schiff also be mentioned, as those accusations were made in the same source. That is, if we include the verifiable quote from Essjay apologising for the incident, should we not also include the verifiable quote by Essjay accusing Schiff of unethical journalistic practices in relation to the article? Malbolge 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the justification is that quoting Essjay's apology is a proper use of primary sourcing since it is verifiable that he said that, it is significant and has earned news coverage, and the quote can be given without editorializing. The allegations towards Schiff have not been covered in the media to my knowledge. So including them would be undue weight because the media weight for Schiff allegations is 0. --tjstrf talk 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The compensation allegation has been discussed at length on this page. Here's what I said about it yesterday. Oh and this too, which addresses citing it. Gwen Gale 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to harp on about this... I'm just trying to understand the policy for what can and can not be used as a reliable source. In previous discussion it has been said that Essjays user talk page is not a reliable source... "if you can't find a verifiable, published secondary source reporting Essjay's claim about having been offered compensation, you can't include it in the article, the end" where the exact words. Now... Essjays talk page are not 'a verifiable, published secondary source', in relation to the accusations of unethical practices. But what makes them a verifiable and reliable source for Essjays apology? If one source makes two claims, are those two claims not both equally verifiable? Malbolge 20:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If one source makes two claims, are those two claims not both equally verifiable?"
No. The impact of the claim, as well as the relevance to the subject, have effects here as well. The burden of evidence for Wikipedia to report there being unethical practices conducted by a journalist, or even the allegation of such practices, especially when it is both very minor to the article subject and when no news story has picked up on it, is much higher than that for uninterpreted quotes that are on public record and highly relevant to the situation at hand. --tjstrf talk 21:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay's response and apologies is a well known and documented fact. Its all over the news, press, and on TV for goodness sake. QuackGuru TALK 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true that just like the rest of the content get a citation for it from a reliable source. It is wrong to have a cross namespace link to his on wiki response. (→Netscott) 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. Read the additional reference from an outside source. No wikilawering please. QuackGuru TALK 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A message appearing in the comments area of a newspaper story does not a reliable source make. Get your act together QuackGuru or stop trying to reintroduce this content. (→Netscott) 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read that other source and didn't see a trace of Essjay's apology. Am I blind then? Could be, it's late. Was the reference misplaced? Please do find an independent source for this, I've seen some flash by in my wanderings and we can put it in straight off. This isn't wikilawyering, it's being keen about implementing helpful WP policy for reasons nobody has to go on about. Gwen Gale 23:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the entire page from this reference. http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/10241/53/ It is an exact quote. I said no wikilawering. QuackGuru TALK 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you mean this part:

Have your say! Get a WireTalker account to add your comments to this article.
Login now to add your comment.

Comments
Essjay's Response Soon After The Contro
Written by News Reporter on 2007-03-09 16:20:28

Followed by Essjay's apology? Again that is not a reliable source. Get your act together. (→Netscott) 23:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'k, AGFin or whatever here, closest I can find to an independent source for his apology is this but... it's a ZDnet blog and IMO does not cut it. Gwen Gale 00:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. That's not a personal blog and the writer is under the auspices of ZDNet so really there shouldn't be any problems on the passability of that blog as a source. Well done on your part Gwen Gale. Cheers. (→Netscott) 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, any kind of editorial control by a reliable publisher should be enough here to support a quote which in itself is uncontroversially known to have appeared on WP ('n as I said, it's gettin late for me). Gwen Gale 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first discovery

Daniel Brandt himself has said that he didn't discover it; the discovery was first made by a poster on Wikipedia Review. Brandt was just the one to confront Essjay about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source for this? Otherwise, we are stuck with the secondary source brought :( -- Avi 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
top of [1] "2. His Wikia user page was noticed in January. The details at the bottom of the page are sharply at odds with his Wikipedia user page, and set off alarms for researchers at The Wikipedia Review." He's referring to this, where Somey first spotted it on January 11. 142.157.19.40 17:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling change

Resolved

I have reverted a change "honourable"->"honorable". Although the editor's rationale (US English for US topics) is perfectly logical, this is a direct quote, word-for-word, from a source. We should retain the original spelling. 131.111.8.99 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should always be quoted as they are. Honourable is hardly a spelling mistake, SqueakBox 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, never ever alter a quote, no matter how mangled, never mind the spelling here's ok. Gwen Gale 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(sic) could be added to an obvious typo, eg EssJay, but honourable is not a typo. Nor is it true, as the edit summary implied, that British people cant spell, SqueakBox 19:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling is correct if you are English and wrong if you are American, period. Please invest in a dictionary, they are wonderful things. --Tom 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Invest in adictionary? What one of those horrible paper things that gives you eye strain. Given the number of free online dictionaries this would be a rather pointless waste of money, methinks. Investing in an American dictionary wouldnt be any good for a Brit anyway as you'd never be able to find the word you were looking for, SqueakBox 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... I don't agree with that at all (and I own several dictionaries), but the source now uses "honorable". Not sure if it was edited or just misquoted to begin with, but it should now stay at "honorable". —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you crack one of those dictionaries open and read it and get back to us unless its an English/British one of course :) Anyways, is this really what Wikipedia has come to? Awesome! --Tom 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the hostility and personal attacks? Calling people "thick" who disagree with you isn't cool, dude. Not sure what gave you that impression, but it's wrong. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an American dictionary, shall I keep going? Gwen Gale 19:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making my point! Did you read the link? Man people are thick. --Tom 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what are you talking about? Gwen Gale 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the link, in the examples they use "honorable". That seems to be a "universal" dictionary which is pretty cool. It gives the spelling in like 15 different languages. Anyways, I am just fooling around and mean no harm or offense. Please have a pleasent day. ps my spelling SUCKS so I am the last person who should be having this conversation, cheers! --Tom 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told it's not at all wrong if you're an American. Perhaps inappropriate for an American publication, perhaps affected for an American but no matter, quotes should never be altered, it's the road to chavel, I mean, someone tweaks it here, then someone else tweaks it 10 years later, then again 50 years later and after awhile it's got aught to do with what was said to begin with. Gwen Gale 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source does seem to say "honorable". Am I missing something? WjBscribe 19:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see was originally sourced from a British article.... WjBscribe 19:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to quote the source verbatim whatever the spelling is, this US/UK thing is a red herring, SqueakBox 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOS, "..with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic." (and one can be sure vice-versa). No matter, I've swapped out the source so that the quote corresponds to an American spelling. (→Netscott) 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldnt be acceptable to change the spelling in a quote merely to follow alleged guidelines that I am sure dont encourage changing quotes, SqueakBox 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read other comments. The source now reads "honorable". Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What an absurd discussion topic this is. Wales said a word out loud that is represented as "honorable" in the English he uses. I'm glad someone found a US source that spells the word the way he and Essjay do, so we can put this to rest. Moncrief 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm> This article is about a controversy. It is not about Essjay or his spelling. </sarcasm> Risker 19:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this discussion deserves its own Wiki article. Anybody want to start it :) --Tom 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the wikipedia way and wikipedia is doing wonders for UK/US relations as a result of dealing with tricky spelling and naming issues, SqueakBox 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Conservapædia, they wouldn't have this problem.  ;-) Anville 20:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are conservapedia an internationmal encyclopedia, strictly a (US) national one, SqueakBox 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha now I am being thick :) What's funny? Gwen Gale 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, uhm, I read the link. Oo! Aye, they sound so very keen on American spellings, wonder if they have a clue about the etymologies though, all that political wankering over them on both sides of the pond way back when. Gwen Gale 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are only arguing about a US/UK spelling - does that mean we are now close to concensus on this article ;) - Munta 20:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD LORD. What a long, vehement discussion about a single letter! 131.111.8.98 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this all a bit non-U? <ducks> .. dave souza, talk 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my talk page in a tick for a tale about s 'n z then :) Gwen Gale 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we transfer the huge list of news sources to the talk page?

Resolved

I've just printed the article as it exists now, and the list of media mentions is almost as long as the article itself. Since the article is still being actively edited, I wouldn't want to delete any of the news sources just yet, but it is really weighing down the page. Can we move that list over here to the talk page for now? Risker 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in the absence of any comments telling me NOT to do it, I am going to move the non-referenced news sources over to this page in about an hour. If anyone has a concern about it, please say so now. Risker 03:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"weighing down the page" <-- what does that mean? --JWSchmidt 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons - they just take up a huge amount of space. I know it's very analog, but a lot of people print Wikipedia pages. Secondly,and now more importantly - these external links, many of which are already included in the references, are not adding anything to the article right now. People included them in the earlier development period of the article, as made sense at the time; however, now that things are slowing down, and more of these sources have been mined for their useful information, having them on the page gives them undue weight. I cannot think of another article that has this many external links.Risker 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to external caches

I know there's some discussion above which is related to the matter, but why is it necessary to link to external caches and screenshots of external caches of Wikipedia content in order to cite Wikipedia? The rule about not making references to Wikipedia makes sense if you're using Wikipedia articles to back up other Wikipedia articles, but when the article itself concerns Wikipedia, linking to Wikipedia pages would seem to be very sensible. Linking to caches of Wikipedia pages just before they're not hosted on wikipedia.org seems rather like we're trying to find a loophole in the rule about self-references, rather than just stating that it doesn't apply on this situation. They're no more verifiable than an oldid of the original pages, considering they're just a copy of them.

The whole thing just seems like trying to say that an original newspaper article isn't acceptable, but a photocopy of that same article somehow becomes so? I think we should just link to the oldids rather than do it in such a roundabout way.. if you believe that we should never cite Wikipedia, even in a story about Wikipedia, then it wouldn't make sense to support citing a copy of Wikipedia anyway. -- Mithent 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The thing is that Essjay user page, and the history of that page, have been deleted, so we cannot link to them. Thus the caches and the images of the caches are the next best thing. I agree with you that "when the article itself concerns Wikipedia, linking to Wikipedia pages is very sensible," but unless an admin chooses to undelete Essjay's user page (no hope for that at present), that is not an option, unfortunately. 131.111.8.97 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too have asked for it several times. When a mistake as big as that is made, the evidence--all the evidence--should be preserved intact. DGG 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the deletion of his history, given his m:Right to vanish. As a wiki, we need to respect that. As an encyclopedia, we also have an obligation to document this. Hard to be of two minds about it, which is why is has prompted so much discussion. -- Kendrick7talk 04:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am inclined to remove all of those "primary sources" currently posted if they are not specifically and directly referred to in the article; even then, there are secondary sources for much of this now, which should be used instead. The absence of those links will not affect the accuracy or quality of the article. Risker 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay "retired" from wikipedia?

Resolved

"In March 2007, Jordan announced his retirement from Wikipedia."

He was asked to resign. Is, "retired" the best way to describe it? It sounds like an unnecessary euphemism IMO. Malamockq 02:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing Wikia and Wikipedia, methinks. It is meaningless to ask someone to resign from Wikipedia. --Gwern (contribs) 02:35 10 March 2007 (GMT)
"Wales asked for Jordan's resignation from both his volunteer roles on Wikipedia and his paid job as Community Manager at Wikia."
""In March 2007, Jordan announced his retirement from Wikipedia.""
Direct quotes from the text. Malamockq 02:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his user page says he has retired. Somewhere around here there is a "resigned" template too, so it is reasonable to assume there was a conscious decision in which term to use. Risker 03:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo asked Essjay to resign from his positions of trust within the community. Essjay could have continued as an editor (without being an administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, arbitrator, etc.), but chose not to and to retire (the account, at least) instead. They refer to two different things. Resign from positions of trust, retire as an editor entirely. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved

- or at least finished

Hi guys! It really sad that the guy actually a 'con'. You can be a 'con' of yourself but never be a 'con' of credentials..it will lower the image of wikipedia..che 05:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He might have lied, but he was not a "con". -- Ned Scott 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News sources - Moved from article to talk page here

In the absence of opposition here [2], I have moved the News sources section from the article to the talk page. This way, they are still available for editing purposes but do not clutter the article itself. Please note that information from several of these news sources is already included in the article proper, and has been appropriately referenced.

News sources

February 28 2007
March 1 2007
March 2 2007
March 5 2007
March 6 2007
March 7 2007
March 8, 2007
March 9, 2007
March 11, 2007
  • Essjay's response in his own words on his talk page at 16:06, 1 March 2007 Wikipedian time. My response Retrieved on 2007-03-07.

Please note that this is a cross namespace link and needs to stay out of the article. Guidelines say doing this is wrong. (→Netscott) 05:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think such links are probably OK given the subject of this article. That guideline seems to be more intended to cover self-references as in "this Wikipedia article" or references to the site interface, or links to non-article pages that aren't formatted as external links, which they should be so they still point back here if the site is mirrored and only the articles are copied – Qxz 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to polciy [sic] the internal link is O.K. because their is no specific policy against using this internal link. QuackGuru TALK 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will put the internal link back it since there is no specific rule against it. QuackGuru TALK 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is not outright forbidden by policy, does not mean it isn't subject to normal editorial decision making. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audio and video

Primary sources

It is time to get rid of any primary sources that are not directly referenced in the articles. Many of them have made their way into the media now so we have secondary sources, and several of them are unrelated to the article as it is currently written. I realise this may be contentious, so I am putting it here first before deleting anything. Risker 06:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, move them to talk (or a talk subpage) along with the uncited news articles. --tjstrf talk 07:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Gwen Gale 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see a point in keeping the primary sources that are uncited in news articles, and I will remove them. Risker 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Thanks, someone else beat me to it. Risker 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing primary sources makes sense. As time goes by more and more of these details can be properly gotten from reliable sources so there's really not much need for them. (→Netscott) 16:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they were a tolerable cheat to begin with, I didn't think they were needed, never mind they provided a big docking target of self-referentiality for this article's critics. Gwen Gale 16:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage images and photo

With the article in its current, fully supported and un-self referential context, I don't understand the need for Essjay's userpage images (never mind their sourcing is a bit thin, that's not what I'm wondering about). Comments anyone? Gwen Gale 15:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is. They show in context the claims made in the article. Illustrations are as good for this as words.DGG 16:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a link to them would make more sense, as they are an illustration of words. In the thumbnail view they tell you nothing. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a link would be more helpful and less self-referential. Gwen Gale 16:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are they illustrating? The userpage image doesn't support a thing - no credentials on it. The Wikia page has nothing to do with the article, which is about his editing on Wikipedia. And the photo is gratuitous. Risker 16:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the gallery as both superfluous and too thinly sourced (if at all). If someone wants to put in external links to these images (not to Wikipedia project pages, however) I'm ok with that but can't speak for other editors. Gwen Gale 16:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gwen Gale's removal. (→Netscott) 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - Agree - I was never that comfortable about the inclusion of the photo. As far as the screenshots are concerned, I'm not bothered if they are in but I don't think they add to the article so might as well be removed. Munta 17:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with removing the screenshots- they should be treated as source and not part of the article (which they add nothing to...). WjBscribe 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal as well. I was thinking of doing it myself, but Gwen was braver than I. Thanks, Gwen. :) ElinorD (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted removal of images

It has already been discussed the pictures were useful and many contributors wanted the pictures in the article. Please do not remove again when people expressed to keep. No wikilawering. QuackGuru TALK 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I've been WP:Wikilawyering? Gwen Gale 19:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather disagreeable to see that term used so loosely. Such usage isn't very civil. (→Netscott) 19:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quack, consensus can change, as it seems to be doing. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people who wanted the images in the article have NOT expressed change in keeping. Consensus was reached to keep images. Thier [sic] consensus has NOT changed. Can we say wikilawering?! QuackGuru TALK 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we'd been through this already. -- Kendrick7talk 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, see this → WP:CCC. (→Netscott) 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically: WP:CCC#Consensus_can_change. (→Netscott) 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no I agree with that. I just don't forsee any consensus forming here. -- Kendrick7talk 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

END OF DISCUSSION on IMAGE REMOVAL!

The folks trying to get the screenshots removed are making some of the most asinine wikilawyering arguments I have ever heard.

The screenshots are referenced to DEAD LINKS. One is right now in Google cache HERE. Now, from What to do when a reference link goes dead:

  • If you cannot find the page on the Internet Archive, remember that you can often find recently deleted pages in Google's cache. They will not be there long, and it is no use linking to them, but this may let you find the content, which can be useful in finding an equivalent page elsewhere on the Internet and linking to that.

However, The other is not in Google cache. Now again from What to do when a reference link goes dead:

  • If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced.

End of discussion!

C.m.jones 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is easy to verify the screenshots. Just get an e-mail from someone at the Foundation who will verify them. Then we file this e-mail appropriately for others to view for all time to come. We do this with other agencies, we can do it with Wikimedia. Johntex\talk 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous, we have long-standing precedent that images have much less in the way of verifiability that is required. Otherwise we could never have users upload images of locations where they personally took the photographs (for example). Let's not wikilawyer about this. JoshuaZ 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm going to ask this question again, broadly now: Is anyone saying I've been WP:Wikilawyering about these screenshots/images? Gwen Gale 19:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No jones, not the end of the discussion, we discuss forever and consensus can change. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not me, Gwen Gale. The removal of these images is an editorial decision. The presence of these images is not supported by the text of the article itself, therefore they should not be there. Essjay's image (whether his or not) has nothing to do with the subject of the article. An image of his user page that doesn't have the controversial credentials on it is probably worse than no image of the user page at all. Risker 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, truth be told I was mostly asking C.m.Jones and QuackGuru, who have both used the term, Gwen Gale 19:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not worry to much Gwen, I for one don't take those allegations seriously. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, what are you all afraid of. You know, letting the images stay up and letting a discussion about it go on for a week or so??? What;s the big huge rush?? (No-brainer inferred answer already taken). C.m.jones 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have any relevant information, it is an editorial decision. Consensus can change at whatever speed the editors manage to change it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My worry is self-reference along with pileon. If the article breaks WP policy it can be attacked by editors who want it erased. If it seems like it carries unsupported, negative PoV about Essjay, the article loses credibility and hence is less helpful to readers looking for a supported, verifiable take. Gwen Gale 19:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mob Attack

The next step might be to report this incident to the noticeboard. Again, many contribtors [sic] expressed to keep images. Their consensus has NOT changed. QuackGuru TALK 19:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save for the fact that it might waste folks' time I'd say by all means head on over to WP:AN or WP:ANI and make a report. (→Netscott) 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a input from uninvolved people will settle this, but I think they will tell you that consensus can change. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey QuackGuru, to nick the words of a widely known arbcomm member, I would think long and hard before taking this to the admin noticeboard. Gwen Gale 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice.... back to protection. Come on folks... (→Netscott) 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's face it, this article has had a very rapid evolution. As it has progressed, and more and more reliable sources have been identified, the need for such stop-gap measures as those images, the primary sources, and the mountain of external links has decreased. They are no longer helpful to the article. Risker 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, so too. Gwen Gale 19:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeance as well over here. (→Netscott) 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another Munta 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the notion that repeating the mantra concensus can change is really going to cause it to happen. -- Kendrick7talk 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I don't wanna sound like an echo here or anything but I agree with that too. I based my rm'l of the screenshots on WP policy against self-reference along with concerns about NPoV. Gwen Gale 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Consensus has changed". That much is clear from recent discussions. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* it, echo that. Gwen Gale 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then we are back to where we were before, WP:NPOV and WP:SELF. So: Who's POV these pictures represent? Answer: no ones that I can tell. What part of WP:SELF applies to these screenshots? It doesn't; we're allowed to have articles about wikipedia, so of course we can have articles containing screenshots of wikipedia. -- Kendrick7talk 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick image survey

The following content is under discussion:

Here's where it looks like we stand of the folks voicing themselves in this image discussion:

Is this right? (→Netscott) 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks right to me. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forgot JoshuaZ, he takes Saturdays off I believe. -- Kendrick7talk 20:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about previous discussion (of which User:JoshuaZ was a part of), I'm talking about this one. (→Netscott) 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a cup of tea, I keep coming back to the idea that these images are now superfluous to the article; they just aren't all that pertinent[3]. The user page image, in particular, is a version that does not include the much-discussed credentials and thus fails to support the information in the article. I think we need to be absolutely clear why each of those images should be in the article - those of you who feel they should stay, please give your reasoning based on policy/guidelines so that we can reach a consensus. Risker 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus. Therefore a keep. QuackGuru TALK 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quack, you cannot just say there is no consensus and expect that to change anything. The consensus is clear, deal with it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really should refamiliarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kendrick7talk 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It actually does contain the crendentials; it doesn't mention the exact degrees he claimed to have. -- Kendrick7talk 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The false credentials are fully described and cited from independent sources in the article text. Why is a picture of text so helpful? (my question is sincere) Gwen Gale 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru, I think the message we are being given by this block is that it is time for us to sit back as a group of interested editors and make some editing decisions based on the current, evolved status of the article. The last time we had a discussion about the images was two days ago, and there have been dramatic changes and a ton of new reliable sources since then. It's entirely reasonable that we look at the article as a whole and see what is missing and what no longer needs to be there. Risker 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My rational for keeping is still WP:ENC; these could be of interest in 100 years, maybe not. I'm pressed to a good reason to exclude them. -- Kendrick7talk 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC) btw, can someone archive the talk page? my comp is giving up the ghost[reply]
I'd like to see more input here then. Meanwhile I'm asking protection be lifted, I'm indifferent as to whether the images are tucked onto the bottom of the article while we try to stabilize it and find out what the consensus truly is. Thanks. Gwen Gale 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've lifted protection, but if the edit warring continues it will have to go right back on. Please discuss before making any further changes. Thanks. Trebor 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha way to go QuackGuru, thanks for talking about it before leaping in to put the images back. :) So leave 'em in for now and let's see what others have to say. Gwen Gale 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I save remove them. Munta 21:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think they should be removed, what changed, why are they back? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for protection to be removed and QuackGuru leapt through the window of opportunity to restore the images and revert a bunch of other stuff too. Gwen Gale 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote KEEP the damn images. Say no to censorship. --Jayzel 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the letter again

Resolved

Aside from the webcite link, has anyone else seen a reference to this letter in any of the dozens of media reports? If not, doesn't this become more or less self-reference? Risker 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Guardian article which is cited as support and even includes a quote:
"There was a letter sent to a professor, in which his phony credentials were used as part of an endorsement of Wikipedia's value and accuracy: "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia." Later, describing fooling magazines, he bragged about "doing a good job playing the part".
I had checked the bragging statement a few minutes ago and I remembered having seen the letter referred to also. Gwen Gale 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks, I'd missed that. Risker 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru's reverts

Resolved

QuakGuru has also reverted back to the ragged, PoV, bloggy factoring scheme. I don't think that's a very helpful reaction to the lifting of protection. Gwen Gale 21:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely inclined to revert User:QuackGuru's problematic changes but I'm holding off in the interest of seeing the article not become locked again. (→Netscott) 22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be reverted, it is a step backwards. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the factoring and structure but have left the images in. QuackGuru, please heed the need for other input ok? Gwen Gale 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really disappointed in you User:QuackGuru for just leaping ahead without discussing. You still have not provided a rationale for including each of these images. We need to discuss this; much as I hate edit warring, these images are all problematic and we need to have a better reason for having them there than "there's no rule against it." Keeping anything in this article that is not supported by reliable, outside sources makes it a target for AfD. Risker 22:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Gwen Gale 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, User:QuackGuru has reverted all the way back again. Is this bordering on true 3rr or what? Gwen Gale 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given User:QuackGuru's inappropriate editing behavior I'm now thinking that the article's come off of protection too soon. (→Netscott) 22:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have organized the article. The other version was clutter and hard to read. QuackGuru TALK 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last diff looked mostly cosmetic to me. -- Kendrick7talk 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those "cosmetics" turn it into a bloggy, strident mess. If you can't see that, there's not much more I can say. Gwen Gale 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't see the part Risker just rm'd. Yeah, that is kinda bloggy. -- Kendrick7talk 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The headings have all been reverted back to versions that were improved upon some time ago. I concur that protection came off too soon; there was insufficient discussion prior to unprotection to warrant the change. Risker 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was assuming good faith, but the edit warring has continued. Not much choice but to reprotect. Trebor 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The internal link is a historical event. It is the offical "My response" from Essjay himself in its entirety. QuackGuru TALK 22:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the response on the "internal link" (which should have a clearer name) and feel strongly that it should be included. Someone learning of the user Essjay and his actions would want to see how he presented himself on his talk page, I imagine--I know I did. Especially telling is comment #17 on his talk page, where someone who was burned by a content-specific decision attacks him and his fake credentials. These types of real responses are extremely important. 100DashSix 22:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essjay's response in his own words on his talk page at 16:06, 1 March 2007 Wikipedian time. My response Retrieved on 2007-03-07. < Please add this link to article.

I suggest the internal link be put back in the article. People who are not familiar with this event may want to read it. The "My response" is of historical significance. QuackGuru TALK 23:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Mr. Ryan [sic] was a friend,... Why is there a [sic] here? QuackGuru TALK 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's Mr Jordan. Wales wasn't familiar with his true name yet, I guess. Gwen Gale 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Great work. QuackGuru TALK 22:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, I think you have been wholly disruptive, heedless and uncivil. Meanwhile this mangled and re-protected article speaks loudly as a witness to your skill as a Wikipedia editor. Gwen Gale 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While normally it's adviseable to discuss contributions and not contributors on article talk pages I agree with Gwen Gale here. (→Netscott) 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have politely asked QuackGuru to return to this talk page and explain the editorial judgement he used in the edits he made. Unfortunately, he seems to have viewed my request as an ad hominem attack. I am at a loss as to what the appropriate next steps would be. Risker 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the correct course of action would be the undo changes made against consensus and enforce 3RR. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair enough to me - QuackGuru seems uninterested in discussing consensus so I think there is little other alternative Munta 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The behaviour was clearly willfull and there's no evidence it'll stop. Gwen Gale 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in discussing the topic in the above subsection, and would very much like to hear why that information should not be included in this article. 100DashSix 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100DashSix, there are several arguments against including this link. From my own perspective, the primary one is that it is original research; the entirety of this statement has not been published by a reliable, secondary source. Sections of it have been published now, and are included in the article proper. Removing the link at this point is part of the process of cleaning up an article that is getting close to a stable version. Risker 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I understand that another source has not duplicated his talk page, but I do not see how the linked information is somehow more unsubstantiated than, say, a link to a zdnet blog that does not cite from where it retrieved the included quote (http://blogs.zdnet.com/keen/?p=108, reference #11 in the current article, used to avoid 'original research').
It is, from my perspective as a relative newcomer to this topic, easy to perceive this omission as a deliberate attempt to hide unflattering information. The linked information is not obtainable without visiting Essjay's retired user page, visiting this page's retired discussion, and finding an italicized link at the bottom regarding "last revision before departure." Is anyone here familiar with: "[the plans] were on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on it saying "beware of the leopard" ?" 100DashSix 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, we share the same literary taste. ;) This is a particularly thorny issue, because under other circumstances, links to people's user pages are not permitted in articles. If we are going to go against that practice, then we have to have a very clearly articulated, well thought out, logical reason to do so. "Because it's hard to find otherwise" isn't quite there yet. Risker 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about, "Because those who read this article for the first time will be left with the question: he sounds like a jerk, but how can I tell?" Should we not let them answer this question by linking the page? Perhaps this is not a good reason, in which case I hope someone else will come up with a convincing one, as I feel it should be included, but lack the knowledge of Wikipedian arguments to convince those familiar with the system of rules and conventions. 100DashSix 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (P.S. And glad you like Douglas Adams.)[reply]

Okay, as there seems to be consensus against protection, I'll unprotect again (and probably could have judged this better from the start). User:QuackGuru is on a warning that any further reverts without discussion will result in a block. I'll ask again that any edits be made with at least a modicum of consensus on this page, and that if you disagree with the edit please discuss instead of reverting. Thanks. Trebor 23:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I propose reverting back to this revision by Doug Bell. Gwen Gale 23:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That version is cluttered and hard to follow when reading. I organized each section for flow and easy reading. It was merely cosmetic. QuackGuru TALK 23:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the choice between the two versions, the Doug Bell one is easier to read from my perspective. Having said that, perhaps we need to compare the two indices to figure out where the middle ground lays, and what information needs to go into which section to better organize the contents and identify what we still need to add. Risker 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I compare Doug's reivision that with the current article[4] the only substantial difference is the image gallery and a few section titles. What's this argument about exactly? (Speaking of section titles, does anyone have an idea for a better name for the "proposed solutions in the coming months" section? It sounds ackward.) --tjstrf talk 23:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, with the re-factoring you and I have done since the lift that's about all there is left. Gwen Gale 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So do we have consensus to kill/keep the images yet? --tjstrf talk 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rm them please, WP:SELF, WP:NPOV (undue weight). Gwen Gale 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the images should be removed, I like the wording by Doug Bell that Gwen suggested. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that they should be removed because nobody has yet justified why they should stay in. Having said that, the article has already been protected once on this issue today, and I am not exactly sure we have consensus yet. Risker 23:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above sections of talk suggest tipping towards removal of at least the screen shots... with Doug Bell holding out on the photo shot. With User:C.m.jones and User:QuackGuru out of reverts for today I doubt an edit war would recommence though. (→Netscott) 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because I see a consensus to remove the images. I suppose there is no harm in waiting though. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my earlier survey of today's discussion I'm seeing 75% in favor of removing the screenshots and 25% in favor of keeping them.... User:tjstrf's view would secure a general consensus about this right now though with a support for removal. (→Netscott) 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them. Doug Bell is welcome to give his reasoning as to why the photo is more relevant than the screenshots, but since he never explained himself it's hard to see why he says that. --tjstrf talk 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think the first two images should be kept. Unless I am very much mistaken, they serve as the sole record of how this user chose to present himself on his own user page, and this information is directly relevant to the topic; it is a record of his personality that is otherwise lost due to his "retired" status. I imagine that a first time reader of this article would find a direct copy of his words worthwhile. 100DashSix 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sole record? The article text handles that rather pithily with full support from independent, reliable sources. Why is his personality notable? I thought it was agreed that this article wasn't about Essjay, but about the Essjay controversy. Only my thoughts, mind :) Gwen Gale 00:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, which referenced article has a direct copy of his user page on Wikipedia and Wikia? Perhaps the scope of this article is smaller than what I think it is or should be, but I'd like to see archived information about this person's dishonest actions; these actions constitute the true controversy, not the fact that a news outlet caught him. 100DashSix 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SELF. Anyway the scope of the article is as the title says. I don't think a snap of his userpage adds a thing and yes, the article puts it rather starkly that he was dishonest about his academic background. Gwen Gale 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I accept your argument that this article is only about him as a person insofar as his dishonest credentials. I submit, then, that the information about him personally (only regarding his involvement with Wikipedia, edits he made, people he interacted with and how they feel) is interesting in and of itself and deserves content-space somewhere. Also, this information has direct relevance to criticisms & support of Wikipedia and consequently should not be lost or hidden. 100DashSix 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I so do agree that project space information about the Essjay controversy mustn't be dropped down the memory hole. So put it up on a free blog or web-page somewhere, it's GFDL, after all and meanwhile let's work to preserve those project pages. The article however, is in the encyclopedia space and is built under very clear policies as to citation, NPOV and narrative. Gwen Gale 01:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SELF doesn't apply. -- Kendrick7talk 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're gonna have to disagree on that then :) Gwen Gale 00:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly doesn't apply, see WP:SELF#Writing_about_Wikipedia_itself. Feel free to continue being wrong, and I will feel free to continue restoring the images. -- Kendrick7talk 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, RE:100-6) Then link to it from your userpage or something. Essjay is not himself a notable individual outside of Wikipedia, except for his starting a messy PR fiasco, so neither is his userpage. --tjstrf talk 00:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These images are directly related to the Essay controversy, which is the topic of the article. -- Kendrick7talk 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick7, exactly how do essentially unreadable thumbnails of userpages help this article? The WP user page does not include the credentials that caused the uproar (except the professorial claim)-and those are already discussed and better sourced in the article. The Wikia userpage tells even less - and again the information is better sourced in the article. Risker 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:SELF does apply, as this self reference is not needed as a primary source to confirm information in the text, which can be supported by secondary sources. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with User:HighInBC. Besides the primary source question, Wikipedia in general is not considered a reliable source. (→Netscott) 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, they pass WP:V. -- Kendrick7talk 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do pass WP:V IMO (my worries are strictly sr and pileon). Gwen Gale 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is not the only one thing to consider, there is relevance, and self reference to consider too. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might be able to convince me they are irrelevant. Go on. -- Kendrick7talk 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blockquotes

Now this might be a nitpick but those blockquotes seems awfully over-dramatic to me. Wales and Essjay aren't Charlotte Bronte and Karl Popper, for example. Why not straight quotes like, uhm, a text? Gwen Gale 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think quotes that are too long and included in text are ugly. Put 'em in a block quote just for style. (This is just me voicing personal preference, I have nothing to back it up other than "I think long quotes look prettier as block quotes") --Dookama 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But two sentences are not "long". According the the Chicago Manual of Style, Section 11.12, block quotes are usually reserved for >100 words or eight lines of text. There are other exceptions, but the quotations here do not seem to fil those requirements either. My opinion is that both gramatically and æsthetically speaking, these {{cquote}} tags for tiny excerpts are improper. -- Avi 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is A News Worthy Story About How Wikipedians Are Editing the Essjay Controversy Article.

Serious Questions:

Currently the quotes are gone from the "Wales response" and "Essjay's response" and there is an abnormally huge Reactions section. I could fix the clutter and improve the article. First, the quotes should be put back in the article. Second, the reactions section should be divided into two sections because it is undue weight to have such a long section. Third, someone recently changed a sentence that is now factually false in the Essjay letter's section. Fourth, a link to the offical "My response" of Essjay is of historical significance that belongs in the article. Fifth, many editors already wanted the images to stay in the article. Sixth, this is becoming a story within a story. Some editors want to delete the article. Since deletion is not possible. Then, they want to make the article cluttered, unreadable, and short as possible. Removing the images and the internal link is just some examples to shorten the article. The huge reactions section is just one example of clutter and improper structuring. I do not know what is the next step forward in this kind of environment. Currently they are trying to suppress pictures of screenshots and images of Essjay's for no valid reason. A few minor cosmetic changes, organization, and direction will dramatically improve the article and flow of reading.

Any suggestions? QuackGuru TALK 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you are on the talk page! Good. Your overdramatization with this headline seems slightly disruptive but better than mindless non-discussion reverting. Which line is factually inaccurate? (→Netscott) 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Whoever is reading this: eyes in the sky above; notice the words above: disruptive and mindless) The first sentence of the Essjay's letter. Compare it now to the prior version earlier. QuackGuru TALK 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which line is factually inaccurate? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm tired or something but I'm not seeing a factual difference between the two versions myself. (→Netscott) 02:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify QG, are these 'your'questions or someone else's? Risker 02:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note the editor Risker has commented about the editor Q.G. and not about the article. Talk pages are for the betterment of articles.) Thanks for your replies above. Essjay's advocacy letter: The first line of the first sentence is confusing. QuackGuru has fixed a previous confusing sentence that had a reference. References must back up the sentence but more importantly as to not to cause a hint of confusion. Reconsider a rewrite to the dispute of the sentence. QuackGuru has many more questions as stated above that weren't responsed to. A response would be appreciated and noteworthy. A widespreadedness discussion about the body of the article is warranted. Many questions have not been appropriatly addressed. How will there be collaboration? Please tell us. QuackGuru TALK 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru, I asked whether these were your questions or someone else's, because if they are someone else's, it would be good to have that person join in this conversation directly. I apologize that my inquiry could have been perceived as a comment on you personally, as that was not my intent. While I do not necessarily agree with some of your positions, I respect you as an editor. Risker 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru, to whom are you addressing yourself when you make little notes like this: "(Note the editor Risker has commented about the editor Q.G. and not about the article. Talk pages are for the betterment of articles.) "? That strikes me as unecessary and uncivil. The way that you've titled this section of talk it is normal for editors to be wondering if you are asking questions on another's behalf. I wondered this myself. (→Netscott) 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many questions have been raised above without appropiate attention. Please consider answering the questions for the betterment of the article. Thank you QuackGuru TALK 03:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly answer my question: Whom are you addressing with such seemingly unecessary commentary? (→Netscott) 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I have reinserted the blockquote wikification as suggested by Dookama (the quotes were there, just part of the text). Risker 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took them out, see above section for why. -- Avi 04:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reviewed the quote from the advocacy letter. The quote within the article has not changed for some time, and is as referenced; only the introductory sentence has been modified. Risker 04:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The matter has not thoroughly been discussed on the talk page about the various aspects to the style and organization of this article. Many questions have been raised without any appropriate responses to the specific questions at hand. In this situation, when other editors have ignored questions, what is the next step to take. After discussion, on the talk page, then can editing begin to orgainize the sections in a resonable time appropiated. The edits speak for themselves. I did a good job of organizing the sections. Currently there is a huge reactions section. It is recommended to divide that section into to separate sections and put back the styling of the quotes to Wales' response and Essjay's response. I see nothing wrong with restoring the images. We (amomg many editors) do not understand the reason behind the image removal. For example, Mr. Wales has a picture of himself in an article about him. Their is a clear pattern among editors. I want to include information and organize the article. All my edits have been to organize and maintain accuracy. Addtionally, I removed the links under the references because that was clutter under the references. That was not a revert. There was a long list of links which has not been put back in the article. That affirms that edit. Someone added incorrect info to the article and I remove it and replaced it with a >fact<. Because of that effort it has been corrected now. That affirms that edit. I organized many sections. Although some of my organizations have been removed, but some still remain. That affirms organizing the sections. There is still some organizing left though. At the moment it seems a bit cluttered. Again a huge section under reactions is undue weight. I suggest to divide it into two headings. I still believe there can be an improvement for style and organization of sections. Any suggestions. Please comment to better the quality of this article. This is essential. Thank you. QuackGuru TALK 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not ignoring your comments, QG. I've taken the opportunity to review this whole page and ferreted out a couple of other issues that need to be addressed as well. I've grouped them together here: [5]. Can you please review this list and add in any issues that are not identified there? This might be an appropriate time to seek out opinions from "fresh eyes", and it would be easier for them to see what we know still needs to be resolved. Thanks. Risker 05:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has not been reached. The neutrality is now disputed. This article is in need of an expert to organize the sections for better flow of reading. Clearly, its "undue weight" to have such a long reactions section. Please divide the reactions section into two separate sections. QuackGuru TALK 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

q for Quackguru

What other editors disagree with the current consensus besides yourself and Dab? Please list them and diffs/links showing they oppose. - Denny 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the way

to deal with really controversial topics--and this one counts as such at least around here--is to rely on quotes--and the screen shots are essentially quotes. The article should be built around them.DGG 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not quotes from a reliable source. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting what the screenshots say (and using the screenshots as a source) is one thing. But what does including the screenshots achieve? They are not readable in the size they would appear in the article, so are just pictoral links. What does having them achieve? WjBscribe 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't quote what the screen shots say or use them as a source. That would be WP:OR. All we can do is present them as they existed as such. Of course, you realize these thumbs act as links the curious can click on and see a bigger version? -- Kendrick7talk 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's clarify exactly what this article is about

I'm afraid we are all getting trapped in the minutiae again, which is to be expected when many of us have been working on this article for a few days running. So let's step back and reaffirm exactly which article we are writing here.

What it is not: An article about Essjay and his actions. I think the point is widely conceded that Essjay should not have claimed credentials that he did not have, and that he used those non-existent credentials inappropriately.

What it is: An article about the resultant reaction to the discovery that Essjay had claimed credentials he did not have and had used them inappropriately. The issue is not that Essjay did something wrong, it is that his error created a firestorm of reaction, both inside and outside Wikipedia. It is this reaction that we are trying to document in this article.

Have I missed something here? Risker 02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, unless something has been reported by a reliable source, then we should not include it. Screenshots of wikipedia pages are not relevant unless a reliable source has featured the content. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again User:Risker (along with User:Gwen Gale) bringing clarity to the editing/discussion here. Totally agree... which explains why the "reactions" section is the size it is (at least up to this point). (→Netscott) 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to hear from some of the other editors who have also been working hard on this article. QuackGuru? DGG? It's important that we are heading in the same direction, or we will wind up with more edit warring and frustration. Your perspectives are important. Risker 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the nut graf here, is that he lied to the media about his credentials, claiming what was on his user page was true (gee, we should get a screenshot of that...) when in fact it wasn't. That was his cardinal sin, as a professor of theology might put it. So it is about that action, and what resulted from that action. -- Kendrick7talk 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the screen shot of the user page that is kicking around right now doesn't list any of the problematic credentials except the professorship. I could probably go for a screen shot of his user page on the day the article appeared, but that doesn't exist. And I have to tell you that I can't think of another page on Wikipedia where a screenshot like that would be considered acceptable - not for content reasons, but because it is barely identifiable, let alone legible, in the thumbnail size. Risker 03:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the nut graf, though. It should be reworked. Risker 03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, it is a good point that the shot doesn't exactly correspond with what the author of the article saw. Still thinking about that one.... -- Kendrick7talk 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues remaining to be resolved

Based on the active threads on the talk page right now, the following issues remain to be resolved in this article:

  • Lead section is weighted on the inciting activity rather than the controversy itself (identified by User:Kendrick7)
  • Reaction section should be refactored/split up, or may be too long (identified byUser:QuackGuru, splitting up supported by User:Risker)
  • Images of Essjay's Wikipedia user page, Wikia user page, and photo uploaded by Essjay continue to be an issue based on comments from several editors
  • Whether or not the full text of Essjay's post to his Wikipedia user talk page, dated 15:06 on 1 March 2007 and titled "My response" should be included in the article as a direct link to userspace, or if the quoted section of this post currently in the article is sufficient (identified by User:QuackGuru)

I think this is an accurate summary of the key issues to be addressed at this point. Is there anything else I have missed? Risker 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually perfectly happy with the lead as is. Not sure where we are on that one.... -- Kendrick7talk 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. OK, the new lead is rather more succinct. -- Kendrick7talk 06:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you were right on target there. After working on the same article for so long, it was easy for us to get some tunnel vision. Good to have a fresh set of eyes on board. Risker 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the user page screenshots

OK, so it seems that a majority of editors feel that the images of the screenshots of Essjay's Wikipedia and Wikia pages are inappopriate, for various reasons. I can understand that. But I feel that the ability to see Essjay's claimed identity in the context in which he presented it is useful for readers of the article. Some users have suggested that links to cached versions of these pages would be acceptable. One possible problem: the only site that I know of which has all of these screenshots is Daniel Brandt's Wikipedia Watch. It has screenshots of Essjay's user page from August 2005, during the period when it contained the degree claims, and his Wikia page from the period when he identified himself as Ryan Jordan, "a 24 year old guy from Kentucky". These seem to me to be two key visual elements of the story which readers may wish to see.

The question is whether it would be acceptable to link to Wikipedia Watch or not. Daniel Brandt does, but of course that article is perpetually on AfD and probably shouldn't be cited as an example. How do other editors feel about possibly adding external links to these two pages on Wikipedia Watch [6] [7]? Is this an acceptable compromise on the image/screenshot issue? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't be. Linking to cached versions is nothing but an indirect way of inserting the exact same self-reference, and linking to troll sites especially should be discouraged. --tjstrf talk 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is the running issue that screenshots can be modified (having had that happen to me in Real Life, I have no question about that), and Mr. Brandt and Wikipedia Watch are hardly impartial in this situation. Risker 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Hmmm...wonder if that means Daniel Brandt is notable? [reply]
I'd have to say I like this idea a bit less. (1) Daniel Brandt's site can be considered a reliable source? (2) Possible conflict of interest given that Brandt supposedly has been directly involved in all of this. (→Netscott) 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reply after several edit conflicts) I'm no fan of Brandt's, but I'm not sure that "troll site" is a particularly useful characterization. And I didn't think that self-reference was the problem, exactly — as Kendrick points out above, WP:SELF#Writing about Wikipedia itself indicates that self-reference in an article about Wikipedia is unavoidable and non-problematic.
The question I see is whether Wikipedia Watch can be considered a reliable and verifiable source. For most purposes, it almost certainly wouldn't be, but an argument can be made that for the subject of this article, the Essjay controversy, it may be considered a reliable source for the perspective of one participant in the affair. (Recall the definition of a reliable source, from WP:ATT#Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. ") Verifiability is more problematic: I happen to know (because I'm a Wikipedia admin, and can see the deleted content) that the screenshot of Essjay's Wikipedia is accurate and has not been altered, but a random reader of this article can't verify that. On the other hand, the standard for links to external sites are not quite the same as the standards for sources — many featured articles contain links to sites which provide additional information about their subjects, but which would not be acceptable sources for claims in the article.
I can see both sides on this one, but I do think that on balance these links would benefit the article, and their inclusion might be a compromise between those who support and those who oppose the inclusion of the screenshots as images. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to do all this. We already have the screenshots on the wikipedia. If people aren't happy with the thumbs nails we can always use the leading colon notation [[:like this]] to just link the the images themselves. -- Kendrick7talk 07:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we don't have the same screenshots. The Wikia one is only a partial page and does not include Essjay's credentials. The Wikipedia one is from March 2007. I'm not advocating a link to Wikipedia Watch, I just don't want to lose sight of what we do and don't have right now. Risker 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he didn't lie about his credential on Wikia? But OK, I looked at Brandt's screenshots. That was also published on Slashdot[8], though of course, the link is now dead. -- Kendrick7talk 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised lead

I have revised the lead to be more in keeping with the title of the article, that is, the focus on the controversy. I've left the citations blank for the various media right now, because I'd appreciate input from other editors on how many citations we would need to add for each one. The easy way would be to use references we already have in the article, and we certainly couldn't include all of the outlets that have referred to the story (which is over 100, if I remember correctly). Opinions? Risker 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Gwern is of the opinion they are not needed. Risker 06:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've already had to make some changes. "Jordan" appeared out of nowhere in the third paragraph after your changes, because he now wasn't identified until later in the article. The fact tags in the second paragraph were redundant at best, because the first paragraph already referred to media sources. There were even spacing problems between paragraphs. Gwern and I fixed these problems. Really, though, the new lede seems less informative than the old, and I almost did a complete revert. But I didn't want to set off another edit war. Casey Abell 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Casey Abell and Gwern for jumping in. I have no intention of reverting anyone, so feel free to make the changes you feel are appropriate, including reverting to the previous version if you feel that is best. The intention of my changes was to redirect focus on the controversy rather than the actions of an individual; however, I have no doubt my efforts can be improved upon. Risker 07:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comma placement

In English, commas go inside quotes in spite of logic. It's not "Essjay", it's "Essjay," which follows the standard punctuation convention. Many literate readers will tend to shake their heads at a comma placed outside quotation marks. Gwen Gale 10:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And many won't Glen 10:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That project page says it's ok in UK English but in truth it's more "tolerated" than "ok." Anyway I wanted to bring it up is all, it's not like I think my nitpicky change'll stick or anything :) Gwen Gale 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering about that the whole time I've been editing up here. I always thought it was inside, but having seen in incorrect so often, I was having serious doubts. Thanks for the tip. -- Kendrick7talk 11:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those wanting a reference, check CMS 6.8 :) -- Avi 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge with extreme prejudice

See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essjay and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essjay_controversy

whatever happened to "no self-reference"? Wikipedia:Recentism? WP:UNDUE? This article is pure omphaloskepsis. Speedy merge into Criticism of Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 13:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism may be a problem, but this also is an international story. No merge required, or warranted. Also, please read WP:SELF - articles about Wikipedia are not bad "self-references." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, do please cite any item of text in the article which is supported by a direct self-reference to Wikipedia's article space. I'll be happy to delete it myself. I thought they'd all been rm'd though. Thanks! Gwen Gale 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, anyway. The article is wholly sourced, has been widely documented in the media and stands on its own. Gwen Gale 13:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh, not self-reference then. Still a recentism, and way below Wikipedia:Notability requirements. Wikipedia does not, should not, and cannot cover every news headline, redirect and transwiki to wikinews then. 14:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge: Let this article mature and let the dust settle and then let's revisit the idea of deletion/merging. (→Netscott) 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:N recently? This is getting to be silly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No merge, clearly notable, don't see WP:UNDUE issues, we are fighting against self-references. That same issues would exist in the Criticism of Wikipedia, but it would be too large for it. This is fine, it just needs plenty of attention from people who uphold policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, this has made foreign-language international press, so clearly notable enough. – Chacor 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Charcor and HighIn, clearly notable enough to stand on its own, and much too long to be merged into the already overly long criticisms article. JoshuaZ 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the Criticism of Wikipedia article should be shaved down. Interesting to see though that the whole section about Larry Sanger and his blog - you remember, the one that didn't fly in this article - seems to be present in that article. Not sure why his comments are more important in that article than, say, the New Yorker's. Also interesting that someone managed to get a screenshot of Essjay's user page from an unknown date, but one that includes the disputed credentials on the front page, and that it was uploaded on March 3rd. Also interesting that several people have edited both articles. Striking my comment that failed to assume good faith. Risker 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Right now, I do think that this article is superior and considerably less "navel-gazing" than the entry in the Criticism of Wikipedia article, so would not be bothered to merge it for the reasons noted by HighInBC and Chacor and others. Risker 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the Press/Notability I think this ranks with the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy in terms of coverage/public interest. (→Netscott) 15:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No merge. Notability/public interest trumps other interests, keep independent. - Denny 15:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um, you cannot just claim it is notable. You'll have to show it is. Unless you do that, I would ask you not to remove the templates. It's not like I deleted the article: I placed these templates in good faith, and they should not be removed until the issue is resolved (as Netscott puts it, until the dust has settled). The article is categorized in "History of Wikipedia", "Scandals" and "Internet culture". I ask you, is it notable in the history of Wikipedia? Not yet at any rate, and "Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball". Does it qualify as a notable scandal (think Dreyfus or Abu Ghraib)? Don't make me laugh. Is it a notable part of Internet culture? Notability is not popularity: popular Internet fads may be the subject of few or no reliable sources and fail to be notable. I suggest we can branch the article off "Criticism of Wikipedia" once "Essjay" appears in hacker's jargon on similar. At this point, simply no case is being made as to why there should be an article on the topic except that it concerns Wikipedia (which is not a valid argument per "no self-references"). dab (𒁳) 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
e/cDbachmann, with all respect due you've had two people revert you with a third gesturing to do so (User:JoshuaZ who apparently hadn't seen that the tags were already removed). This is becoming disruptive (in particular given the strong evidence of consensus right here). Kindly self-revert before someone has to revert you again. (→Netscott) 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't just claim anything, I stated my opinion... which is backed by the AfDs and everyone's opinion. We have articles on Wikipedia also. This one is heavily sourced, and too big to merge I think, but no one person gets to make choices thankfully and have them stick (yours, mine). Everyone decides, but opinion seems to be to keep it seperate... - Denny 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on almost 300 articles now showing on a Google news search for Essjay, dealing with a widely reported scandal (Jimbo Wales' word for it) having to do with one of the world's highest traffic websites, Wikipedia. Gwen Gale 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The plethora of mainstream sources brought in the article about the event and fallout should more than adequately suffice for a reasonable claim for notability. The {{notability}} tag is not warranted; further discussion of notability needs to be handled through AfD, which should be on hold for now as well. -- Avi 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More I think about this, I believe the notability tag is a tactic of disruption and I would like a disinterested admin to have a look at it, thanks. Gwen Gale 16:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already gone... - Denny 16:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Meanwhile the merge tag remains. Consensus is so far is overwhelmingly against a merge. The article already survived two AfD attempts with overwhelming consensus to keep. Why is this tag still on the article? Gwen Gale 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let it stick for 24 hours, and then we'll remove it when the consensus is explicitly clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, we're in no rush; the article is solid as-is... - Denny 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if people re-add it repeatedly/ongoing (the notability one too) after consensus shows it to be unsupported, remove it then as disruption. - Denny 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A 24 hr window sounds ok to me. Gwen Gale 16:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to wait 24 hours... general consensus is clear on this. (→Netscott) 17:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there is plenty of consensus already, this has been demonstrated to be notable 10 times over. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be settled, but just so I'm on the record about this:

q for Dab

Also, question for Dab... but your logic in your reply to me we should delete/merge John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Agree/disagree? And why, compared to this article? I am curious as to how you differentiate the two and why, and future articles like this, of this nature. Note that WP is notable enough itself to generate these stories more and more with each passing year... - Denny 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, following his highly PoV logic, one might merge Jimbo Wales with Internet. Gwen Gale 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the Siegenthaler case is already notable for the history of Wikipedia. It has resulted in major new guidelines (BLP) and software updates (semiprotection). Once the "Essjay" case gives rise to similar consequences, I will admit it deserves its own article, but not before. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So by your logic articles on things related to Wikipedia should only be kept if they significantly alter/change how WP does things... and discard the policies we use for every other article? Why should Essjay get extra protections/provisions that other articles dont? - Denny 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
like what policies? My entire point is that this is unnotable off-WP. People who keep removing the {{notability}} tag without addressing my concerns are trolling in my book. dab (𒁳) 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for this? For the article

Gwen said: "dealing with a widely reported scandal (Jimbo Wales' word for it) having to do with one of the world's highest traffic websites, Wikipedia."

Do we have a source for this? Would be good for the article. - Denny 16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this one then. Gwen Gale 16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing it in there... I wasn't able to find it on Google with some searches of Jimmy refering to it as that? No worries if it was a paraphrase, just got me thinking that having that with RS would be great to settle some of the semantic squabbling. - Denny 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add this one, citing WP as 9th most visited in US. Gwen Gale 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag

QuackGuru has thrown up a neutrality tag. With all due respect to good faith editors who may not agree with me, I believe this is disruption following the warnings Quack was given by an admin about his edits here yesterday. Gwen Gale 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. (→Netscott) 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for an explanation because, as far as I know, neutrality hasn't been raised as an issue yet. Trebor 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I would say the tag is less about neutrality, and more about not getting what he wants. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile what was Quack up to with this edit? Gwen Gale 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be errors occuring with MediaWiki judging by other edits on this talk page. (→Netscott) 17:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

I don't think anyone is blanking anything... my history/contribs lists are all screwed up somehow. anyone else seeing odd things? - Denny 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screen of my oddness... MediaWiki is definitely having problems. - Denny 17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, yes weird blankings are happening when I try to edit. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, so let's not jump to any conclusions about anyone's edits for the next little while. Very odd. Risker 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a second I was wondering why Gwen, Scott, and HBC were trolling me! :P somehow it blew away the preceding four edits and replaced it with the one that preceded mine. I'm almost expecting a random edit summary to appear saying "What am I looking at?" "Now, sir, you're looking at now." "When?" "Just now." - Denny 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also posted it to ANI... - Denny 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile when C.m.jones re-added the tags I could only grin wide :) Gwen Gale 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's happening at other pages too. See this post, which deleted a previous one, and which I fixed here. Perhaps people should be extra careful to check the diffs for their own edits as soon as they've made them, until this has been sorted out, because it's easier to replace eaten-up posts if you do it immediately! Or perhaps we should even stop posting for a while, and gather our thoughts together about what we want to post! ElinorD (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just a few minutes ago I saw a removal of a large swath of text by HighInBC with the edit summary 'blanking', and it was the last of several edits in a row by that editor. The edits are now gone. Anchoress 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh weird, now they're back in the history again. Anchoress 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and EXPERT tags

I completely agree with both tags. For the NPOV tag, a small group of abut 4 or 5 editors have apparently considered they WP:OWN this article and gone about bowdlerizing it. For the EXPERT tag, yes, an expert writer. Good gosh, this thing reads like it was written by a bunch of teenagers and like a hodge-podge of news stories rather than an encyclopedia article. See WP:FA?: (a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. - C.m.jones 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, does the word civility mean anything to you, or was this worded that way on purpose? (→Netscott) 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reply to C.m.jones: Codswallop. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Thank you. Gwen Gale 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Read the {{expert}} tag. "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" (emphasis added). If you believe the writing is poor, {{copyedit}} would be far more applicable, but I request some examples of where it can be improved before you add the tag. Trebor 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The {{copyedit}} connotes a few minor corrections and/or formatting. This article does not need minor but major re-writing work. C.m.jones 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not owning anything, we're discussing it. Concensus right now is just against these. 1. User:Gwen Gale, 2. User:HighInBC, 3. User:Avraham, 4. User talk:Trebor Rowntree, 5. User:DennyColt, 6. User:JoshuaZ, 7. User:Netscott, 8. User:Badlydrawnjeff, and 9. User:Risker all seem to be against the tags. Once consensus is achieved they can go in... if you are unhappy with something in the article, make suggestions here. Trying to edit war force tags onto the article against consensus is disruptive... - Denny 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10 - User:Munta - Munta 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The expert tag is not warranted by any stretch of the imagination. As for the NPOV tags, do you have any specific concerns? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C.m.jones, you previously made a complete revision of the article; that revision left us with the article protected because of disputes about its sudden and mass change. But during the protection, it seems you were unwilling to consider modification of the revision you had developed, despite the fact that several editors were providing you with commentary on it. If you are willing to incorporate that critique into the revision you developed, then we'd have something to talk about here. I don't think anyone is expecting this article to get anywhere near featured article level in just over a week, with all the new information that has come in since it was initiated. (and yes I would be against the tags if I could get a post in edgewise) Risker 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why, with some specific examples. At any rate, you can see the {{expert}} tag is inappropriate, as it suggests an expert on the subject, rather than in writing. Trebor 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the article needs it (I haven't read it in a bit), but what about: {{cleanup-rewrite}}? Anchoress 18:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's supported. Anyone, pls provide specific examples which can't be swiftly fixed, thanks. Gwen Gale 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{cleanup-rewrite}} along with {npov}} is better. C.m.jones 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific than "better," thanks. Gwen Gale 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be specific about the way in which this article fails NPOV? Issues cannot be resolved until they are identified. Risker 19:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C.m.jones, unless you take the time to explain on this article's talk page why you feel those tags are necessary, there is really nothing for other editors to "see and comment on" per your edit summary when you put the tags back on just now. Even I am finding this disruptive. Risker 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jones, Risker is right, explain what you mean or stop adding the tag. You are in violation of 3RR right now, I gave you a warning instead of a block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of article

This is a good idea, I appreciate the idea. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the only way. Let's get this to GA status, then aim for FA. that is the only reason we're here, isn't it...? Link to the peer review. - Denny 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be satisfied of the article can be kept within policy. But hey, FA is a noble goal. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review is a good idea. Thanks. Risker 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still too new and fluid IMO, but I've already posted that on the peer review page . -- Avi 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible page move

As this has mostly to do with Wikipedia, should this article be moved to Essjay Wikimedia controversy, in the same vein as John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy? --wL<speak·check> 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does fall more in line with the pattern established by John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. I don't know how many articles of this type there are, so I cannot tell if it is an exception or if it is the common naming convention. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with it if it said "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikimedia;" the notability derives from the controversy as it affected Wikipedia, not Wikimedia. Risker 19:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that title is a bit limiting myself. The Seigenthalere case revolved almost exclusively around what occured here on Wikipedia. The Essjay story involves The New Yorker, etc. I'm open to other titles though. (→Netscott) 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay credentials controversy or Essjay controversy or Essjay wiki controversy are all good, but I'd prefer them in the order listed. Lets not move it (again) yet though for at least a few weeks... - Denny 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first one. Why not boldness? --wL<speak·check> 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Disruption. Gwen Gale 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already gone through 3 or 4 moves.... let's not WP:BOLD this one again... let's come to consensus on a new title and go from there. (→Netscott) 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second Netscott. A little stability is needed, both in terms of the article, as well as media coverage. A few weeks will make a significant difference, IMO. -- Avi 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4pagemoves? I thought it was 2. Oh well, just as the peer review says, lets get this out of CE status, so we can deal with naming and encyclopedic copyedits. --wL<speak·check> 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem

Pardon me, but did anyone happen to notice THE TOTALLY FREAKIN’ HUGE ELEPHANT STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM?? HELLO?? The greater part of the whole Essjay scandal is not about Essjay and what he did (although that was certainly bad enough). The really scandalous part is how Essjay was dealt with, and not dealt with, at the highest levels of Wikipedia. I shall explain, since it would appear (*sigh*) that explanation is actually required.

It is simply not credible that an elaborate false CV would be created for any legitimate purpose. The only possible exception that I could see would be for matters involving national security (Will this be the next Essjay whopper? Tune in tomorrow!). You do not fabricate a false CV to protect your anonymity. You fabricate a false CV to perpetrate a fraud–to gain material advantages you otherwise could not obtain, or would not obtain until significantly later. This is exactly, and unsurprisingly, what happened.

The truly scandalous thing here is that not only was Essjay given a paid position at Wikia after self-exposing his fraud (while incidently creating a few new misrepresentations along the way), but that he was also rewarded several weeks later with a promotion to ArbCom here at Wikipedia! It was not until it was obvious to even the most obtuse that this whole thing was going to blow up into a huge shitstorm in the mainstream media that “God-King” Jimbo finally gave Essjay/Ryan Jordan/Whatever-His-Name-Really-Is the ol’ heave ho. It would appear, accordingly, that either Jimmy Wales is one of the biggest pollyannas that ever lived, or he is just as morally oblivious as Essjay himself, if not more so.

If after reading this you cannot understand why I am so throughly disgusted, then I pity you. I truly do. Edeans 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the forum to discuss this and frankly I'm not sure where on Wikipedia would be the place. You might try User talk:Jimbo Wales of Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. This talk space if for how we as editors can improve this article. Please read: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&oldid=114414012"