Jump to content

User talk:Essjay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cometstyles (talk | contribs) at 03:16, 4 March 2007 (Retiring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Congrats

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

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

Peeing

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

You're welcome to copy it over if you like, but I'd really rather keep the version in my userspace, and here's why: When something's in your userspace, you maintain control over it, so it never ends up saying something you didn't intend it to. I've seen it happen, at least a couple of times, that someone writes something (either in their userspace and it's moved to the projectspace, or directly in the projectspace) and it is later changed to the point that it no longer matches thier original intent, yet, because they started it, and in many cases, have the greatest number of contributions to it, they are identified as the "primary author." I'd rather make sure that any essay's I'm identified as primary author of stay safely where I can make sure they say what I intended them to. Essjay (Talk) 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the userspace is free for anyone to edit. ;P Navou banter / contribs 12:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you remove my RfA?

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

Essjay, hope you don't mind but to avoid opposes continuing before you could deal with this I explained to Wandalstouring that if he was sure he should withdraw on the RfA page. He did so, I then closed and delisted the RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wandalstouring. I know non-crat RfA closes are under some discussion at the moment but it seemed an uncontroversial matter. WjBscribe 12:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he withdrew, then there is really nothing controversial about it; had you made the decision to end it, that would have been controversial, but just cleaning up after a candidate withdrawal isn't, so nothing to worry about. Essjay (Talk) 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook

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

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

Archiving

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

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

Thanks muchly :) Congrats on becoming an arbitrator - it's about time :) Martinp23 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please

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

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

OTRS

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

Hmmmm; I'm really not active with OTRS anymore, and I don't have the ability to add anyone. I'll poke around to see who the active OTRS admins are and let you know. Essjay (Talk) 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm told that Bastique and Jredmond are the ones you seek. Essjay (Talk) 00:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Prodego talk 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHU

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

Regards,

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

Sorry, there is controversy regarding that page at this time, and I have elected not to be active there until the controversy is over. Essjay (Talk) 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know.  ~Steptrip 01:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not sure I can say there's any discernible consensus that's been formed, the controversy/discussion seems to have died down - approaching 24 hours with no edits to the discussion now. I'm sorry to see that controversy seems to be trying to follow you around recently, I certainly don't think you deserve it, your contributions to Wikipedia are too valuable to lose. Obviously, your decision to return to CHU is your own, I just hope you agree that the controversy is dying down and return soon to the great work you do there. Thanks, and don't let the detractors get you down - they obviously don't understand your reasoning, and have no desire to do so. —Krellis (Talk) 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Errors, New Error Page

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

Is it the "Wikipedia (or Wikimedia) is experiencing an error" page? I get it every once in a while, but usually a click of the back button and a resubmission solves it. If that is the one, and it's just intermittent, I wouldn't worry about it. If it's a different one, let me know what it says, and I'll poke around and see if I can find anything out. Essjay (Talk) 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clicking the back button and resubmitting works for me, too. It's a Wikipedia error page (it has error in about 25 of different languages on the top of the page). The thing that caught my eye, however, was that... I started editing four months ago, and now, over 2000 edits later, I had never got this error page... until today. Maybe I was just lucky? Again, just curious... In any event, thanks for your response. KatalavenoTC 04:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

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

I've closed it; for some reason, I thought it was closing tomorrow morning. Essjay (Talk) 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, I'll never get thoroughly used to UTC. - Taxman Talk 03:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use a neat little to-do list that sends me an instant message when tasks are due, and it makes it really easy to catch things quickly; I've been adding RFAs to it lately, but I think in converting from UTC to local time, I completely messed that one up. Essjay (Talk) 04:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I caught that in your congrats message, you'd inadvertently linked to the candidates earlier RfA rather than the current one; I mention it only to remind, in case there's another 2nd nomination closing anytime soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, thanks; I use the PAGENAMEE magic word for that (so the log links work too). Since the person knows where the RFA was, I could probably just delink that. Essjay (Talk) 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Josette Sheeran Shiner

Sure, as long as there is consensus to do so; just propose it on the talk page, get agreement for it, and settle on how old posts should be before being archived, what the archive scheme should be, and how big the archives should get in KB before the next one is created. Essjay (Talk) 14:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied this and posed those points on the article's talk page... Smee 14:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Talk Page

Essjay, I am sorry for deleting this comment on your talk page, because I thought it was a personal attack against you. I didn't know that you had a personal philosophy about people not deleting comments from your talk page, even if it is a NPA or trolling. Hope to work with you soon! Real96 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker article

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

The comment above appears to be by Daniel Brandt. His motivations aside, you should probably be made aware that there's a discussion about this going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales#The New Yorker quotes you (also triggered by Mr. Brandt). I have a great deal of respect for your work on Wikipeda, Essjay, and I think it's important that you respond to this matter. Did you misrepresent yourself on your user page and/or to the New Yorker reporter? Can you explain this? If this was a simple error of judgment, you would do well to acknowledge it.
Respectfully yours, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have; there was a considerable discussion right here on this page, triggered by Mr. Brandt and his Wikipedia Review cronies, and I made myself quite clear on the subject. I consider the matter closed, and see no reason to repeat myself every few weeks when someone else finds out about it "for the first time." Jimmy has made his support for me known, the people who actually know me have made thier support known, and that is good enough for me. Essjay (Talk) 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only just found the previous discussions in your archives. I now understand the reasons behind your "disinformation". That said, given the New Yorker's correction of its story, it is likely that more people will be discovering this in the near future, and to a newcomer's eye it doesn't look good. It is also an unfortunate truth that the New Yorker correction will damage the reputation of Wikipedia, unless it is answered clearly and forcefully. (Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?) The New Yorker correction doesn't provide any context for the apparent misrepresentation. I think it's important for the sake of Wikipedia that you provide that context, preferably somewhere more easily accessible than your archives. This goes beyond your own reputation and affects that of Wikipedia as a whole. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my place to make a public statement on this; anything I say at this point is going to be repeatable in the press, so the best thing for me is to say nothing at all. Wikimedia has it's own press team, and Wikia has a PR firm; when I receive communications relating to the press, I refer them to the appropriate press division (in this case, Wikia's PR firm made my response to The New Yorker). At this point, my role is to say "No comment." Essjay (Talk) 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, and in assumption Mr. Jordan meant m:Communications committee with "Wikimedia press team", I, a member of that committee speaking here in an individual basis, understand it is not our role to act as his spokesperson and will never make "his response" to anyone as well responses of any other users. I hope Mr. Jordan meant something else, and never expected Wikimedia Foundation to make his response in any way; it is simply unacceptable. --Aphaia 02:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is getting more media attention for some reason. Freakonomics Blog Killerdark 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No comment. :) Essjay (Talk) 00:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay, to be honest, I find your lack of transparency on this troubling. Why can't you post on a subpage an essay or statement that summarizes your position as to why you gave one identity to a journalists who you (I assume) corresponded with personally, instead of having us hunt through the edit history and archives to divine what the situation is. Also, I think to shrug it off on Wikipedia's press team and Wikia's PR is disingenuous -- Wikipedia is a community made of its members who act on their own accord. If there is an issue with the actions or edits of an individual, the individual is responsible. That's how Wikipedia can maintain safe harbor as a forum and why Seigenthaler and Fuzzy Zoeller have to look for the individuals in question, and not the Wikimedia Foundation office. Putting the burden of your (NPOV: discrepancy | POV: deception) on the backs of the Wikipedia press team I think is unfair to the rest of your peers, to put it mildly. (I had to take a 30 second timeout to prevent writing something I would regret.) -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything I say now is likely to be repeated in the press. The press teams are trained in making statements that should be repeated in the press; I am not. It is best for Wikipedia that I not say something about this that then is repeated all over the world, making the situation far worse. I'm afraid I have to stick to "No comment." Essjay (Talk) 03:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay, you're probably being advised by the PR folks not to comment, but I hope that you and they can craft a reply early tomorrow (Thursday). This story is only going to spread, and with the current information at large it will reflect badly on you, Wikipedia, and Jimbo. A story in the press which includes your account of events is better for you and for Wikipedia than a story which presents only the New Yorker's correction, or even the information that can be gleaned from your archives. Also, I have to agree with Fuzheado — you have already presented yourself to the press as a representative of Wikipedia. It's not fair to your fellow Wikipedians to back out now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay & Josh, It's hit Metafilter, so the volume of inquiries is going to skyrocket. And you're way behind the curve in formulating a response. If you've got stuff in archive to represent your position, get in front of this, and post linkage. At this point you're in Damage Control, and listening to the PR Flacks whenever they get back to you isn't going to do YOUR reputation any good. Mikelieman 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a real disgrace. I hope you understand how you are shitting all over the thousands of people who have made real effort to turn Wikipedia into a credible source of information and not a place for freaks like you to enact their misguided fantasies. It's a sad, sad day for Wikipedia and all it stood for... And no, MichaelBillington, it doesn't matter how many times you revert it -- that's the sad reality and you cannot change it by simply erasing it from Wikipedia, you know.--131.246.137.16 12:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just comical. "...repeated all over the world." My, we do think highly of ourselves don't we? Like any of this actually matters. Who's the troll now? Lying troll even. I'm laughing heartily that this made slashdot as an actual "news" story. Pfft. Singingjim (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

But of course

this explains everything [4]. Thatcher131 07:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it does! Essjay (Talk) 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Let's Get This Straight...

Speaking as a top award-winning particle physicist, race car driver, neurosurgeon, and rock star, I have a few questions... You're 24 now, and you where at one time an account manager with a Fortune 20 company? For How long? Let's just say a year for the sake of argument. But before that, you where a paralegal for five years? I'm just trying to do the math on this. You became a paralegal at 18 or 19? So, you must have started school for this licensed trade at what? 16? Ok...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.22.200.64 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This was indeed discussed in IRC when this first broke, and a few questions floated around about your current story. While I have nothing to say about this whole mess, I do hope that you at least issue a statement about this matter (not the age, the whole professor thing), in the interests of the Wiki. Cheers. – Chacor 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is there a rodeo here or do I smell BS Atomic1fire 01:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am 24, I worked for the company for 5 or 6 months, and left it to work for Wikia. I started as a paralegal at 18, and didn't study for it at all; it's not a licensed trade in Kentucky, you merely have to be under the supervision of a licensed attorney. SCR 3.130(5.3) I worked directly for attorneys for three years, and went freelance after that. Essjay (Talk) 14:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And please enlighten us Essjay as to why we are supposed to believe any of that? You say you "worked directly for attorneys for three years" just like you have four college degrees? Once you are gone, redistributing your workload will be trivial. However, your damage to Wikipedia will be impossible to repair. 206.13.74.249 1 March 2007

:-/

Greetings... I'm sorry but I must take this back: edit 65682140 -- I feel a bit cheated, lying to wikipedians to get ahead is one thing... but lying to the media... that's another. You have irreparably destroyed trust in the wikipedia administration, shame on you. Mineralè 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny! 131.22.200.64 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it

Always knew you were lying scum, with your backing up certain users on a certain medical article to enforce status-quo cultural POV in contradiction to medical fact and human rights. You're scum, and you're the reason why this is my first wikipedia edit in 6 months. You disgust me.

I even talked to jimbo about these, i warned him about you and some others. This source is crap. 12.226.103.252 14:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a good writer with web knowledge in Louisville, KY

Hello Essjay,

I noticed an article referring to you (http://slashdot.org/articles/07/03/01/1313251.shtml). What most caught my eye was that you were a) a caring person, b) facile with the web and with wikipedia, c) articulate and d) in Louisville, KY (where I am).

I am involved in project that requires a good writer with encyclopedic range.

www.implicity.org/tour1.htm

www.childrenofthecode.org

I am planning on distilling the essence of over 100 interviews, over 3000 paper page equivalents, into a book. I need someone to help me write it who has an interest that spans 3500 years of history, an understanding of the web, and most importantly a deep care for humanity as a whole.

Credentials are less important than the quality of production.

Perhaps this won't interest you. Perhaps you know someone else that it might?

I wish you all the best in weathering whatever storms may come at Wikipedia...

Be you well,

David Boulton davidaboulton@gmail.com

Slashdot

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Slashdot_again - you made the front page. Well done. Just as a precaution, I've protected the three pages they linked directly to, as you don't seem to be around - I figure if you want them to remain unprotected (can't think why, but stull) you can do so when you get back on. Proto ► 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response

I would like to clear up an oversight on my part. I was, until this morning, under the impression that in my initial post on this subject (in response to a question from Dev920 made some weeks ago) I had made an apology for anyone who felt they were hurt by my decision to use misinformation. In speaking to various different people, including Jimbo, I did make it known that I was sorry that anyone felt hurt by my actions, and I believed I had done so in my initial statement. On re-reading that, I find I did not; it was a rather lengthy statement I had been thinking about for some time, and I seem to have left out a rather critical element of it. So, I rectify that now, with further apologies that it was not included originally, as I pointed people back to that statement in the belief it was complete.

I *am* sorry if anyone in the Wikipedia community has been hurt by my decision to use disinformation to protect myself. I'm not sorry that I protected myself; I believed, and continue to believe, that I was right to protect myself, in light of the problems encountered on the internet in these trying times. I have spoken to all of my close friends here about this, and have heard resoundingly that they understand my position, and they support me. Jimbo and many others in Wikipedia's hierarchy have made their support known as well. I'm also sorry the New Yorker chose to print what they did about me; there seems to be a belief that I knew they were going to print it, and that is not the case. I spoke with Stacy Shiff for over eight hours; in that time, she asked me about a variety of subjects related to Wikipedia and I gave her much to write on. (Those who know me will know I am rarely ever brief in my comments.) That she chose to focus on two rather trivial reverts to Justin Timberlake and what my userpage said came as a complete surprise to me; it was, quite honestly, my impression that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be, and that in the absence of any confirmation, no respectible publication would print it. I did not have an advance copy of the article, and indeed, didn't even get the complimentary print copy that others were given when it was published; I asked Stacy to send it to the Foundation for thier use instead. Further, she made several offers to compensate me for my time, and my response was that if she truly felt the need to do so, she should donate to the Foundation instead.

For two years, I have poured my life into making this site a better place. That many people feel hurt by my decision pains me greatly, and to them I am genuinely sorry. To the stalkers, the trolls, and the vandals, I am not sorry; they are abusive, hateful people, and they have done far worse things than those whole of the Wikipedia Community, myself included, have ever thought about doing. Now, I am going back to what I have always done: Making Wikipedia a better place. (In the immediate present, I'm going to bed, as I've been up for quite a long time.) Tonight, I will be back to my normal routine: Blocking vandals, closing RFAs, tending to the mailing lists, etc. I have no intention of going anywhere, because to do so would be to let the vandals, trolls, and stalkers win.

I have no doubt that others will continue to debate this matter; I have no intention to say anything further, as I have made my statement complete. If anyone needs me, look where the work of keeping the encyclopedia running is being done, and you'll probably find me there. Essjay (Talk) 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: How much did this reporter offer to pay you? I'm curious because she's a prize-winning journalists and as I DO have a degree in journalism myself, I know it's considered unethical in the biz for reporters to pay for interviews. But, then again, we all know it's not a very ethical world, now, is it, professor. --Jayzel 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from the rest of Wikipedia

I refactored discussion following Essjay's comment because it deserves and needs to stand on its own --Durin 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Essjay. – Chacor 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a bloody liar is what you are..

You're a bloody liar is what you are.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.9.213.10 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Strong support. Just wanted to express my 100% support for everything you do around here. I think you were totally entitled to protect your identity. Don't let all the fuss get you down! WjBscribe 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay, having personally witnessed so many examples of stalking and threats (of death and otherwise) on Wikipedia in my time editing here I can fully comprehend inclinations for editors (and particularly administrators) to dissemble their personas on Wikipedia. Your response here is very enlightening and gives a fuller picture of how this chapter in your Wikipedia story unfolded. Having read your and Dev920's prior exchange I too had the impression that the knowledge of your dissembling was common. It is unfortunate that you did not have an opportunity to read a copy of The New Yorker story prior to its publication but I'm sure that you would have set the record straight from the get go. As well it is a bit surprising to read that such details weren't either confirmed with you or otherwise. Here's to looking forward to a potential quick end to this chapter of your involvement with the project. Sincerely, (→Netscott) 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me get this straight: you created a pseudonymous (thanks, Jimbo) identity to protect yourself from the evil people on the internet. Okay, fine. But where in your response do you address why you created so many (or such grandly) fictitious credentials? Your fake identity, frankly, is a little fat. Bloated. The degree (literally) to which you inflated your reputation (to protect yourself!) definitely IS a problem, and I think belies some rather unethical ambition and intentional obfuscation. I believe you didn't enter into it cleanly to protect yourself - I believe you also entered into it (or entered it in) to inflate your reputation, to lend undeserved credence to your edits and opinions, etc. In other words: nice try, but with some elementary scrutiny, you still appear to be a lying ass. But don't worry - I don't intend to hurt you or stalk you or anything. I'm just sayin'. Snackycakes 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? A little dissembling would have been "ok" then? This isn't the proper forum to debate this but Snackycakes (a user I've never even heard of before in two years of editing here) your criticism is unduly harsh in my view. (→Netscott) 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't claim to be a major player in the Wikipedia universe, or handle more Spam than Hormel, but I have faithfully attempted to contribute to the project for the past six months. Essjay, and the Wikipedia community's defense of him, have completely soured me on spending any more time trying to improve the site. Snackycakes 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it really matter? So long as the work he's done is good (and it has been) that's all that matters. A userpage is a userpage, he can write what he likes there. Did you know that I'm a talking cheetah named Boris, with a Masters Degree in Computer Science? I wrote it here, doesn't mean it's true. So long as the work is good, it's all that matters clearly. Majorly (o rly?) 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose what really matters is that in Wikipedia people take these things at face value. All of these articles are written by random people, yet we take them in stride. Essjay could've created any number of other identities for himself, ones that did not imply that he was an extremely educated individual. I've personally never gotten involved with the wikipedia politics, but I imagine it must've given some weight to whatever he was saying if he could pretend he was knowledgeable - it's just human nature. Had he said he was simply a tow truck driver in New Jersey, or a store owner in Vancouver or an account manager in a Fortune 1000 company, his identity would still have been protected, but he would not be inviting people to attribute to him expertise he doesn't have. Pseudonym or not, I thought Wikipedia was aiming to be an internet-repository-of-information, not an elaborate MUD. The problem is not that he made up a past, the problem is that his embellishments might have given him undue credit, all the while rising to a significant community position. As for his current identity, there might be some problems with that as well. hif 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The particular question you link to about the current identity is addressed above. —Krellis (Talk) 17:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have high regard for your work on Wikipedia, and absolutely 100% support Wikipedians protecting their identity. This can be done without faking credentials, such as a Ph.D. Something less than a Ph.D. would be okay and you can say you live somewhere other than Kentucky, and change up other details. But, these fabrications were way excessive. Sorry to say, it will be a while before I (and many others here) can trust you again. I think it would be prudent for you to step down from Arbcom. At present, there is no way I'd be comfortable coming to Arbcom with any matter. For the benefit of people working on articles and other things, it's important that we have a comfortable editing environment, which includes trust in arbcom and others in "high" positions. I only wish the best for you, but it would be prudent for you to step back and give us time for this all to shake out and regain confidence. Regards.--Aude (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute support of all the good work you've done for Wikipedia. I fully understand wanting to keep yourself anonymous, and while I may not have done it in the same way, I support what you did, and think your contributions speak for themselves. —Krellis (Talk) 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less than nil support! I don't even know where to start! Softwarehistorian 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on your work on Wikipedia. However, may I recommend you that, for the time being, recuse yourself from the Arbitration Board since your trust as been called into question. SYSS Mouse 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banned You need to get banned from wikipedia for using fake credentials to promote your religious ideas on wikipedia. There should be a committee formed to review your past edits to make sure that they are not biased. 72.209.65.29 18:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)wikiuser[reply]
    No. PTO 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any evidence that Essjay was trying to promote a religious agenda. That's not the point. And a call for banning is seriously disproportionate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Come on, people. Does it matter who Essjay claims he is in the real world? All that matters here is that he has contributed huge amounts of his time into this website. His work thus far has earned my trust, and an incident such as this will not ruin it. Shame on all of the people who think that Essjay is trying to blow himself up. PTO 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reading some of the comments below has given me a new perspective and has changed my mind. PTO 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: - Here is a suggestion, you could contact Stacy Schiff from The New Yorker and ask to have a small follow-up piece, to explain the reasoning behind your motivations... Smee 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately, Stacy appears to have published Essjay's details without actually asking him to confirm their truthfulness; rather careless. She has also been badgered by Daniel Brandt, who contacted the New Yorker, Schiff's agent, and Schiff's book publisher about this, so I suspect she would not be enthusiastic about a followup. Thatcher131 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zero Support or Sympathy Essjay is a liar. How can anyone trust his edits? 206.13.74.249 1 March 2007
  • Comment: Essjay, thank you for your apology and for your years of hard work on Wikipedia. Thank you also for addressing the matter of the New Yorker report — although in hindsight it would have been better to mention the false persona at some point during the eight-hour interview. Your assumption "that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be, and that in the absence of any confirmation, no respectible publication would print it" has unfortunately resulted in damage to the public reputation of Wikipedia.
    Your statement also does not address why you felt the need, in "using disinformation to protect" yourself, to create a persona with high credentials. Doing this in the real world is considered academic fraud, and although the expectations of the online world are often lower, pretending to have credentials you don't have is still morally suspect. I don't want to keep pressing you for more and more apologies, but it would be nice if you could address this aspect of the issue.
    This affair does not erase the good work you have done for Wikipedia, but it does affect the trust that the Wikipedia community has placed in you. I'm not going to presume to tell you what you should do, but I hope that you will consider what you have done, its effects, and how best to proceed from here with thought and prayer. It's Lent — perhaps it would be fitting to withdraw into the desert for a time, and return at Easter? Just a thought. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • disappointment. it's alright to be anonymous, just pick a name like "Wikijoedoe" and no-one will blame you. Also, it's silly to blame Wikipedia for this, because, while we have policy on verifiability for content, we have no such policy regarding statements users make about themselves, so that's not an issue. A Wikipedia admin that is caught lying about his credentials like this is still rendering the project a disservice. We have no way of enforcing this, but I strongly feel it should be a matter of honour among bona fide editors to not lie about their identity. You can be anonymous all you like, just don't make up bullshit like that, it hurts Wikipedia. At least speaking as someone who spends a lot of time trying to raise Wikipedia's academic credibility, this is somewhat of a stab in the back. I also feel that at we need a policy of real-life identities revealed, or at least revealed to the board, for arbitrators. Arbitrators wield quite a lot of power in the wikiverse, and it will not do to expose ourselves to such hiccups on that level. dab (𒁳) 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimi non carborundum. Corvus cornix 19:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - (why are we voting for fsck's sake?) Wikipedia is not based on credentials. It never was. It does not matter what your credentials are when you edit here. Therefore, it doesn't matter a whit what someone says they do in real life. I see no proof at all of this damaging wikipedia's reputation. No harm has been done to the project. We've never required people to be truthful about their personal details, and we shouldn't because credentials don't mean a damn thing on Wikipedia. We need our articles to be truthful and sourced, but that's it. If people can't tell the difference between an article and the people who edit them, they have issues. pschemp | talk 19:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • maybe because we knows this, just like we know it means bugger all if some anon inserts a claim that Siegenthaler is a killer, but the public will still see the headline "high WP functionary caught lying through his teeth" -- lying about your identity is not an RfArable offense to be sure, in the community, but just like Siegenthaler gave us semiprotection, there could be a lesson here. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Credentials may not mean a damn thing on Wikipedia, but they do mean something in the real world, and Essjay used these credentials in the real world, in the letter. He also failed to prevent them from being used in the New Yorker piece. To use Catholic terminology, the latter may be considered a sin of omission, but the former is a sin of commission. Creating a false identity online is one thing. Perpetuating that false identity in the real world is another. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "credentials don't mean a damn thing on Wikipedia" then why did Essjay find it necessary to lie about his credentials? 206.13.74.249 1 March 2007
    • While assigning any problems that our readers may have with us to their own "issues" is convenient, it's entirely facile. As encyclopedia editors we are all aware of the role sources play; Essjay's conduct gives people additional reason to doubt the intellectual integrity and honesty of those who edit Wikipedia. Sources created by people who lack intellectual integrity and honesty we tend to view as unreliable. The fact that Jimbo endorsed this dishonesty as not a problem exacerbates the issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Sources created"? We don't create sources. We use sources and cite them so others can look them up and verify them. It is that easy to check on anyone's edits. And Josiah, what goes on in the real world is not the same as what goes on in Wikipedia. You are correct, it is an entirely different thing, hence why it makes no difference to Essjay's record of work here. He had no control over what that reporter printed. Acting like he did is silliness. Again I say, there is no evidence of him abusing any position or tool here on wikipedia. And on wikipedia is what matters. pschemp | talk 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, we create a source. If verifiability were all that mattered, we wouldn't need an NPOV policy. For instance an article might provide a sourced claim that someone was indicted on a criminal charge. If we want to be taken seriously, people should trust us to also include, if applicable, the fact that he was later acquitted. Mentioning the indictment but not the acquittal can easily be verified, but is intellectually dishonest.
        • While an collection of facts with no organization or structure may be useful, it is not an encyclopedia; in organizing and structuring facts, we ought to display intellectual honesty. Now I don't think anyone's saying that Essjay's intellectual honesty with regard to writing on Wikipedia is in question, but his integrity in general has (rightly) been impeached due to his dishonest interactions with outside parties. While not on Wikipedia, these interactions were in regard to Wikipedia and many will read him as speaking for the project. The image portrayed to the world is that the organization and selection of facts on Wikipedia is done by people who do not value honesty or intellectual integrity. Now perhaps you believe Wikipedia need not worry about the public's valuation of our work. To me, this seems to seriously devalue what we are doing, making the project into an entity that exists only for its own amusement. But the goals of the project appear to include having our work used and distributed to enhance the human body of knowledge. Things that make the public question our intellectual integrity are bad because our work is used and does good in the world only to the extent that outside parties consider it useful. "The encyclopedia written by pathological liars" isn't useful, it isn't a public image we should be seeking out, and we should be concerned at events that move our image in that direction. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unable to support I for one would love to express my support for you - because while I would have counseled you to avoid ANY misrepresentation to the press (in favor of a 'no comment', or a willingness to terminate the interview) since one cannot control the message of a free press, I understand your reasons for wanting to avoid the RL wackos. Unfortunately, your decision to employ misinformation didn't inspire you to avoid speaking with the press, and the result is a notable stain on WP's credibility. I wish you well regardless. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to say I respected your work without knowing of your claims to credentials, so nothing's changed and I still respect you for your work. Without making any claim to knowledge about Roman Catholicism, my memory is that confession is considered to clear sins: in this instance confession is appropriate, episode over as far as your work here is concerned. In my opinion. Wikipedia is only as authoritative as the references that are cited, subject to checking that the references aren't misrepresented, and I've not seen any more being claimed. In contrast the NewYorker journalist makes an outright assertion about the credentials of an anon – without even the let out of "claims the credentials". From any rational viewpoint they've god a much bigger credibility problem with this than Wikipedia has. We can't expect the press or slashdot to live up to Wikipedia's ideals, but we can respect contributors for what they do, and not what's on their userpages. Good luck with all this, .. dave souza, talk 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malum. --131.111.8.98 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Disappointed - First of all, what is most shocking about your behavior is that your work in Wikipedia has demonstrated your intelligence and objective ability to increase the overall quality of this project. Someone who has demonstrated such professionalism committing an act of not only misrepresenting them-self, but of grandiose academic stature, baffles logic.
    You're "reasons" for the deception are in no way adequate nor justifiable. There are many ways to "protect yourself" without fabricating an academic background, particularly where truth about such background is extremely important as in one of the most referenced encyclopedias in history. A five minute consultation with an internet security expert would have shown there are numerous and easy methods to conceal an identity that would have nothing to do with lying about your scholastic accomplishments. A pseudonym, as Jimbo put it, is one thing, but a pseudonym that creates false stature has nothing to do with protection but everything to do with deceit.
    I'm sure you're familiar with the term charlatan. It is the guise you were operating under for a long time. With your alleged academic credentials, you automatically espoused the respect and authority that comes with those credentials by the public and your fellow editors. They came to you for your leaned advice and consulting. Those kind of credentials are the reasons the BBC, National Public Radio, the New York Times, documentarians, etc, choose specific persons to gain knowledge on a given subject. They're a respected authority on that subject. You have passed yourself off as someone who qualifies for that kind of respect. That respect is now gone.
    Routinely, if somebody applies for a job and falsifies an academic degree, the human resources person/department will run a check on those claims and ultimately, the person will be exposed as a liar and will not get the job. Sometimes public figures are "outed" for false claims on their resumés or personal biographies and that causes deep embarrassment for their superiors and colleagues alike; take a glance at the former FEMA chief Michael D. Brown article and scroll to "Accusations of false claims in Brown's credentials" and you'll see what I mean.
    You are young. 24. At best, this should viewed as a "youthful indiscretion." At worst, a fraud. As pointed out in the opening paragraph, you are a worthy contributor to this project. Due to the sympathy I have for you, instead of asking for a resignation, I strongly suggest an outright apology. Not a qualified "I was protecting myself... " statement, but stating you were wrong.
    It was a mistake.
    Period.
    While it won't redeem your credibility completely, it will salvage some respect that I think you are deserving of. --Oakshade 23:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'm getting caught up a public opinion tide, but it is now clear that even if you do give a real and heartfelt apology, your loss of credibility cannot be salvaged and your continued presence on this project only compromises the hard work already put in by earnest editors. It's time to leave. There is speculation that Ryan Jordan is not your real name and, if that's true, that is to your benefit when seeking employment in the future. --Oakshade 01:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's realization and there's rationalization. Unfortunately, you have done the latter; I do not feel you fully realize the impact of this incident. Most notably, the first two sentences of the second paragraph of your apology suggests that your regret extends to the fact that some people might be hurt by this rather than to the flagrant action itself. Wikipedia has enough trust issues as it is with people saying that because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, the content is not reliable. And then here we have you orchestrating a lie on your userpage, and using it as a tool in content debates (mentioned by others somewhere on this page) and, ironically enough, in responding to a letter about Wikipedia's credibility. To say that you still feel what you did was the right thing to do to protect yourself is either naive or selfish. Most (or at least many) on Wikipedia feel their privacy is paramount; I myself like a bit of privacy. But there is a very simple remedy to this issue: don't give people information. You don't need to make up phony credentials and mislead the community. Your insistence that this lie was the only solution is the naive. Although you state you had no knowledge beforehand of The New Yorker's choice to print the offending information, you did know after it was printed. Question: would you, one of Wikipedia's most trusted users, (a) tell The New Yorker, a respected publication, that it had told its readers something that was incorrect or (b) ignore it and hope that no one says anything? Clearly we know the answer to that. I fear you took that undesirable option (b) hoping you wouldn't have to stand the flack from the ensuing debacle. Regrettably, you have merely delayed the reaction by seven months and amplified the severity of the infraction due to your inability and unwillingness to do the right thing when you had the opportunity. As others have mentioned, I feel the best thing for you to do is to resign from one or more of your positions of authority on Wikipedia. This incident is not good for Wikipedia. This is not good for our publicity. This is not good for the people with honest credentials on their user pages who now will get second glances. This is not good for anyone, and I'm afraid the only reason you issued this apology is because you now understand this is not good for you. And that, dear Ryan, is the selfish. -- tariqabjotu 00:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disappointed. I've seen Essjay do many good things for Wikipedia over the years, and I am confident that he can continue to do good things in the future. But to lie so blatantly about something so important, and then to have so little remorse about it, this concerns me greatly. It's one thing to choose to remain anonymous, to make small exaggerations about one's accomplishments, or to establish an innocuous fictional identity to protect privacy. It's another to create detailed fraudulent credentials as a way of boosting credibility in an academic environment.[5] Essjay didn't make up an identity like, "Father of 4 in Ohio, working as an insurance salesman." He made up an identity that was designed to maximize credibility within this culture, and within subjects where he was editing. And further, he referred to that identity as a way of establishing his credentials to outside parties.[6][7] I am, frankly, appalled at this lack of judgment, and agree that EssJay should resign from ArbCom, especially considering that he never ran for the position, but was simply directly appointed by Jimbo. I am also greatly concerned that Jimbo seems unconcerned about this kind of fraud. I would have hoped that those who are at the core of the Wikipedia culture, would have a stronger moral center. When fraud is condoned by those in power, that attitude can pervade the entire community. Leaders set the tone in a culture, and that's why it is so important that they themselves project a high standard of ethical behavior. If Jimbo wants Wikipedia to have a reputation of intellectual integrity, then he must lead by example. To condone Essjay's fraud, and to further promote such an individual within the Wikipedia hierarchy, sends the wrong message. --Elonka 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Profoundly disappointed and saddened. I completely understand that there are contexts where one wishes to protect details of one's private life from being accessed by people of ill will; I feel the best tactic in such cases is some variation of simply saying "none of your business". Lying to the national media when representing Wikipedia seems to me entirely different. This is making me seriously question my own involvment in the project. I need to think about this more, but frankly it makes me feel sick. This feels like a kick in the teeth to Wikipedia and those working to improve it. -- Infrogmation 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is really much worse than a thousand vandals replacing articles with grade school profanities. They don't represent any position of supposed trust in the community. I'm taking a Wiki break. I'm ashamed at having been a Wikipedian. Ciao. -- Infrogmation 01:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-admin. If I had high status like this and tried to pull off something like this, I'd be outright banned. He should be helf to the same standards everyone else is, and more, since he is an admin (which shouldn't last much longer). Coolgamer 01:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much ado about nothing Jerry lavoie 02:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is a place on the internet where reasoned discussion and good references are supposed to be able to carry the day, without limitation based on who presents the argument. That you felt compelled to embue your fictious identity with all the trappings of traditional academic authority, and exploit that false authority to your own advantage, is a betrayal of one of the core values of Wikipedia. Dragons flight 08:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, sir, but I cannot support your actions in this affair. I can understand the need to create disinformation to protect one's identity. However, there is a difference between disinformation and resume stuffing. The identity you created serves to mislead others as to your credentials, and that's a big problem on a site that is having increasing problems with credibility and verifiable information. -- SwissCelt 09:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite... as I posted elsewhere:
“Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team... He was willing to describe his work... by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page.” [8]

Anyway I don't wanna put too keen an edge on it, but since WP solicits donations, this could be taken as fraud since Essjay was recommended by "a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and the New Yorker piece could have contributed to inducing someone to send a cash donation to WP. Gwen Gale 11:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment directly above yours. Thank you for proving my point. Jeffpw 11:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He misrepresented his academic background to a reporter from a major publication. Take it however you like. Gwen Gale 12:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not surprised my Essjay's response here. People who lack integrity are seldom able to comprehend how others can value it so highly. This revelation also makes Essay's advocay for anonymity, even on the part of checkusers being unknown to the board, much clearer. I am disapointed that people have had to take his position so seriously, when it is now obvious he simply was trying to protect his deception. I am surprised by the number of comments from people who seem to think there are several kinds of integrity and that integrity of how one portrays oneself is independent of the integrity of one's actions. This is not the case. If people currently believe Essjays actions as admin, b'crat, checkuser, etc. are all exemplary, I must insist they haven't been looked at closely enough. This is person who clearly makes decisions to protect his own personal "game" a priority over what would actually be best for this project. The full history of his actions can only be tainted by such a self-centered lack of integrity. He cannot continue as a checkuser at the very least. I suppose it is hard for many people to accept they have been duped; that their trust has been misplaced. However it must be done, it is no good to deny that this revelation important and pretend it does not have any bearing on whether Essjay can be trusted.--BirgitteSB 13:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Let us admit it fairly, as a business people should, We have had no end of a lesson: it will do us no end of good.
  • Comment I think I have to agree with the anonymous folks who are calling you a bloody liar. You need to own up to every lie you ever advanced on Wikipedia if you ever want to regain the respect of your fellow editors. I'm sure that the vast majority of your contributions to Wikipedia have been in good faith, but such prominent fraud shakes this project to its very core. Your user page must contain a confession of your faked credentials, as the first step in a long journey you must take to regain the trust of your fellow, honest editors. Matt Gies 19:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I don't know this person, but I know the story. Your decision to create a pseudonym on what is essentially an anonymous web site is perfectly understandable. The shoddy journalism is not your fault. Most journalists verify facts (this is coming from a former journalism instructor, of sorts... or am I?). Midnightdreary 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay Must Resign

Essjay has openly lied about his credentials, not apologized for his lies, and instead rationalized them and excused his inexcusable behavior. Essjay represents what is wrong with Wikipedia; that people have no problem with gratuitous lying about themselves and their knowledge, and hide behind a false persona to escape judgment from other Wikipedians. I am disgusted and angry with Essjay and his actions, and he must resign immediately. If he was in any real academic institution or think-tank, and pulled this stunt, he would have been shown the door already. - MSTCrow 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He who is without sin, cast the first stone. PTO 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a cop-out that doesn't address the problem. You're attempting to tell us that nobody can ever have any kind of complaint or criticism because they're not perfect and "without sin". That's an unreasonable position and one that I'm willing to bet that you do not personally follow. Likwidshoe 02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else a administrator with false credentials uh no so lets stone em Atomic1fire 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not lied about my credentials, about who I am, or what I've accomplished. People must be held accountable. Senseless platitudes will not improve the sad state of Wikipedia. - MSTCrow 19:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo trusts him. Why don't you ask Jimbo to resign? You are missing the fact that someone's credentials don't matter on wikipedia. We don't care about degrees, nor should we. Equating wikipedia to an acadmic institution is just silliness. pschemp | talk 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we do care about trust. —Doug Bell talk 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trust based on on-wiki actions, not what reporters from the New Yorker say. Show me one place where his work on wiki was untrustworthy. pschemp | talk 20:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the parts where he used his supposed credentials to support his arguments? That is untrustworthy behavior. Likwidshoe 02:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay resigning? Resigning from what? He must be one of the most hardworking users there is, that would just be a bad thing to do. Majorly (o rly?) 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His log shows a bit under 250 actions a month. that does not however include oversight. There are admins who carry out that many actions a week. He does a fair bit of work yes but not that exceptional see [[9]].Over all solidly active but I'm not sure he falls into the hyper active set.Geni 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not this month no...but he's also working for Wikia. However, in the past he has been extremely active. pschemp | talk 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alf notes that he's on the deleters list next to Essjay and therefore should pull his finger out and resolves to delete the next five articles he comes across.
You go Alf!pschemp | talk 20:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that deletion list goes back to mid october. Going back through the log the peak level appears to be 250 a month. Hyper active would probably mean twice that although of course things are squewed somewhat by the activity levels of some admins.Geni 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's by far the most active bureaucrat, and the work he's done with checkuser is commendable – no one else really touches those areas. Without him would be a significant loss. Majorly (o rly?) 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. To me at least it doesn't really matter what he claims to be offline. He can say he's the lost grandson of Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia or a Tibetan monk so long as he does productive work here. --tjstrf talk 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what if he is a "hardworking user"? This isn't Essjay-pedia, this is a community-edited encyclopedia, and there is no reason why the community should allow him to keep special status when he has misrepresented the group and himself. Shoehorn 08:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia we decide ourselves if we want to use our real names or a made up, and that is an accepted policy. It is also up to the user what she/he want to reveal about themselves, but it must be true. I am talking about truth - not misinformation as user Essjay calls it.

He does not seem to understand that he has lied, and he does not seem to understand that this is bad for the community and Wikipedia at large. The proper action for user Essjay in my opinion is to resign as admin. Ulflarsen 12:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay and Wikipedia

It seems that some of the people here do not understand the huge role that Essjay plays in Wikipedia. Hell, when he takes wikibreaks, WP:CHU backlogs. He is essentially the only person who deals with that process. He is a very active RFA closer, closing most of the RFAs that I have watched in the last month or two. Making Essjay resign would be devastating to our internal proccesses! Essjay is one of our greatest assets. Why are people so keen on making him leave? PTO 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't care for all the good work he's done, that's why. Sad really. Majorly (o rly?) 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JIMBO ought to resign too - he has less integrity that Essjay for letting him stay. Lying about your credentials in any other work environment will get you fired - looks like wikipedia promotes lies and poor judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.25.44 (talk • contribs)

lol. Wikipedia isn't a job. pschemp | talk 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yeah, so Essjay lied. We've all lied in the past. However, let me say this: Wikipedia is not a work enviroment. Rules that apply there do not apply here, and vice versa. This is the internet. You may have everything in the offline world. However, you come to the internet broke, lacking the only thing of value here: knowledge. Those who have it, rule. Those who want it, learn. Everybody else just sits in the stands, watching the internet world fly by. PTO 20:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikia or whatever it is called, is a for-profit business. Putting people into a position of authority based on their credentials and then keeping them in that position after their lies have been exposed just screams hypocrisy and fraud. If I lied claiming to be an experienced commercial airline pilot, was hired as such and then exposed as a fraud you can bet that I would be removed from that position. A fake bio is one thing but he represented himself to a REAL academic as a tenured professor. Essjay is a fraud, plain and simple. As for you, I picture you as the character on South Park spending all of his waking hours killing people off on World of Warcraft. It's too bad you lack the social skills and integrity necessary to live in the real world. (Anon edit by User: 65.166.25.44)

Um, Essjay disclosed his identity to Wikia before he was hired (unless they are paying him in cash by dead drop). Thatcher131 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essjay lied about his credentials. That is not in dispute - the question here is how far did those lies penetrate. No reputable media organisation will ever again believe a wikipedia editors credentials again on trust alone. Frankly, it worries me that they ever did. However, the question to be considered now is do wikipedia editors trust Essjay? - and secondly, does it matter a toss whether they do or they don't. Jimbo gave - so only Jimbo can take away. Jimbo is the person who has to weigh up on what he based his confidence in Essjay, and also the effect appointing such a person to the Arbcom has on his own standing. Basically, it is nothing to do with the rest of us - Jimbo's encyclopedia - Jimbo's the one who sinks or swims on this decision , not us. Giano 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think pschemp ought to just take essjay out for a nice romantic date and cut to the chase. pschemp, you are madly in love with essjay from the looks of things...apparently essjay can do no wrong in your eyes.

Cue: drama! Read: Cluestick for 500, Alex.

Really people, I do not understand what the big deal about this is. Perhaps it popped a few cherries of niavete, but anyone taking anyone else's posted "credentials" on Wikipedia as true has serious trust issues. There is absolutely no way to really verify anyones' claims here, this is not a new situation, in fact, it's why Larry forked Citizendium a long time ago.

We really have two contradictory messages here: On one hand we value ourselves as the encyclopedia anyone can edit, on the other hand we are calling for some silly inquisition because someone lied about their credentials, even to the point of calling for a ban. These two positions I find are rather irreconcilable. Essjay has never acted in bad faith; I have asked numerous times for the people claiming he has to prove it - but no one has. So are we going to chase away good faith contributors because they lack credentials or because they lied about them? If so, then we need to cure ourselves of the idea that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

I have always been one to judge people not on who they claim to be, but rather on their actions. Essjay has always been fair in his dealings on Wikipedia. He has always acted with integrity and diplomacy. These are things that we value on Wikipedia, not credentials, and I ask the trolls that claim otherwise to kindly get a clue. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Peter, the trolls dropping in from Slashdot and the like are one thing, but there are also committed Wikipedians who have serious concerns about Essjay misrepresenting himself in the real world (you've seen the letter, right?), and the effect this will have on Wikipedia's already bruised reputation. I have consistently praised and thanked Essjay for his hard work and many positive contributions to Wikipedia. I'm also asking for him to consider the consequences of his decisions, good faith or not. Please try not to lump all those who are troubled by this affair in with the trolls and vandals. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what "damage" has been done? Wikipedia has never been really accepted by ivory tower academics so that's a non-issue. Brandt got uppity since he likes to stalk Essjay and found out that the person he was trying to stalk was just a ghost. The Slashdot lynch mob loves a good lynching, reason or no. Myself, I have yet to see a compelling reason why this is a bad thing in the context of Wikipedia, which, on Wikipedia, is the context that counts. It's just a lot of people going on with hot air and bruised feelings over a slight they have overreacted to, pure and simple. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The readership of the New Yorker is not limited to ivory tower academics. This will inevitably damage Wikipedia's public reputation. We know that Essjay has made Wikipedia a better place, but the public at large doesn't know, or care, about that. They will merely see that a high-up Wikipedia official who has falsified academic credentials. This may not make a difference here on Wikipedia, but it does make a difference in the real world. To deny that is to be exceedingly blinkered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want Essjay to leave, but I think the honorable thing to do would be to resign and reapply for the higher-level positions of trust. I'm not talking about adminship—heck we hand those out to just about anyone that sticks around without vandalizing or abusing. I'm talking about Checkuser, Bureaucrat, Oversight. I supported Essjay on his RfB. I would do it again. I don't know that I do trust him with checkuser though—not now at least. Oversight, I don't know. I do feel hurt by the extreme overrepresentation of his credentials. It was wrong, and there's not really any way to sugar coat that. This is a time to demonstrate character—that will be big step in rebuilding trust. Stepping down from the positions of higher trust and reapplying is the way forward. —Doug Bell talk 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he'd abused it, the other overisighters/checkusers can see the logs to see what has been done, and the developers can check it I believe. I don't think he needs to resign, he hasn't changed. Majorly (o rly?) 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but he has changed in the eyes of many. I used to hold his word in the highest regard amoung editors here. I no longer do. Those positions are positions of very high trust—not positions where we expect people to have to even think about checking up on someone. I respect Essjay for his work here mightily, but my trust in him is damaged. He should step back—to do otherwise would not be a demonstration of the honor that I still account to him and his deeds. —Doug Bell talk 20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, he hasn't changed, he's still the same person, just without the false credentials... and to me that's all that matters. Majorly (o rly?) 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know, I have a real problem with this thinking. Before this, he was someone whose character was beyond reproach, because there simply was no reason to believe otherwise. That is not true now. He may not have changed, but he has been revealed—at least to a degree. The point that seems to be going over the head of many people here is that there is a reason he did what he did that goes beyond what he has proclaimed, which was to hide his identity. That reason may well be seated in some deeper character flaw that has yet to reveal itself. I don't know why he did it, but the fact that he did is disturbing. Maybe he just suffers from insecurity, maybe it's something worse, I don't know. Don't get caught up in thinking that the problem is that he doesn't have a Ph.D.—the problem is that he significantly overrepresented his qualifications. Not just on his user page, but to the outside world when acting as a representative of Wikipedia. This is serious, and to minimize it with platitudes "he's still the same person" is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding what the real issue is. The fact is that his actions have created credible and significant doubt as to who he really is, what motivates him, his truthfulness and his judgement. Expressing concern regarding his access to the most sensitive tools here—the tools requiring the greatest trust and judgement—is not something that should invite rabid responses from apologists. These are legitimate concerns. Resigning the positions that were granted under false assumptions—the false assumption that Essjay was truthful—is entirely reasonable. —Doug Bell talk 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The simple fact of the matter is that he shouldn't and if he did, he never would get those positions back and it would be a loos to the project. All this is to me is several trolls (and a few legitimate editors such as yourself the seem to have sucked in) demanding their pound of flesh, and then another, and then another ... ad infinitum. He has never abused these privelages and therefore there is no grounds to remove them. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My response here has nothing to do with the trolls, and I would thank you not to tie my comments to the trolls in any fashion. —Doug Bell talk 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It represents poor judgment. Keeping someone who many don't trust in high positions makes some of us uncomfortable. If Essjay resigned arbcom now, I would come back editing soon. If he doesn't and Jimbo saying this is "no big deal", I don't know when/if I'll be back because I'm not comfortable here. It's too bad, because I was working hard in recent days/weeks on toward a couple more featured articles. I was also toying with the idea of "adopting" an African country article(s) and try to get some up to good or featured status, among other things I was working on. I hope to resume my editing activities soon, but I'm on hiatus now. It's not just the falsehoods, but the way this is being handled that bothers me. Regards. --Aude (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all honesty if you're going to make us choose between Essjay, an established editor with a distinguished editing history on whom CHU and RFCU rely almost exclusively, and yourself, with whom my only interactions have been incinedary and abrasive comments about Essjay, well, I'm going to have to choose Essjay. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Begone Essjay. Get another username and start again, you can still be helpful. Best wishes, all the same. Gwen Gale 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntarily step down for now

Doug Bell said "Stepping down from the positions of higher trust and reapplying is the way forward." This makes sense. If Essjay voluntarily does this for the good of Wikipedia/Wikimedia (no other reasons need to be mentioned) we have made progress in solving this problem. On Jimbo's talk page I asked if it was important that arbcom members have a reputation for honesty. One person said no, it was only important that they be good at solving problems. Well, here's a chance for Essjay to show he is good at solving problems and has Wikipedia's best interests at heat. Vountarily resign from the arbcom and checkuser and perhaps one or two other positions. There is no problem with Essjay continuing as an editor. Essjay, you have Jimbo's support. It's not like resigning for now for the good of wikipedia is like resigning forever. WAS 4.250 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would this accomplish? Arbitrators are appointed by Jimbo and Checkuser and Oversight are assigned by the Arbitration Committee. They already know all the details and if they wanted to remove those functions, they would have (obviously, he was appointed to ArbCom after being hired by Wikia, so jimbo knew everything at that point anyway). The only roles Essjay has that are subject to community approval are Admin and Bureaucrat. Do you think his false bio affects his performance of those two functions? Do you really think Wikipedia would be a better place by forcinig Essjay to go through RFA and RFB again? Thatcher131 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What it would accomplish is show that Wikipedia leaders are accountable for their actions. There's no way he should remain in a position of authority at Wikipedia. Rcade 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with regard to public perception of the credibility of Wikipedia and its management; problems with regard to Wikipedia editors percieving credibility problems when dealing with Essjay (why believe anything he says?); and possibly, just maybe, problems with Essjay actually not being trustworthy. This is a credibility issue and perception is at least half the issue. Being seen to respond appropriately is important. WAS 4.250 21:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, Essjay's conduct off-wiki and on has been most troubling. WP is a public web site, and the foremost online encyclopedia. Credibility to the reader should continue to be our most important concern - and when a user shreds WP's credibility off-wiki (as Essjay's lies in the New Yorker did) and on-wiki (by misrepresenting himself in subject debates as an 'expert'), he's doing real damage independently of 'which role' is involved therein. Sometimes bureaucracy can become blind to its core mission - and in our case, the bureaucracy's role should be to support and enable the project, not to ignore this torrent of valid criticism. All such conduct does is reinforce a 'gang rule' mentality. Whatever 'Jimmy knew', avoiding our clear responsibility to be accountable to the public (in other words, not to lie to them) is not acceptable.
This isn't to put it all on Essjay, since Jimbo also shares some blame for this debacle - if he did indeed know Essjay was operating under a false identity, having him speak with the press (and misrepresent his credentials/identity) appears to be a serious error in judgment. I've already been contacted a number of times by people who knew I was an editor here, asking me my opinion on the matter - and all I can do is hang my head and sigh.
The message that the press communicates cannot be controlled, so when you're giving an interview it's important that you're not patently lying. VERY IMPORTANT. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondrous Youth

Giving your recent falsehoods, can you reassure about this? Your bio reads:

"Before joining Wikia, I was an account manager with a Fortune 20 company. Prior to that, I was a paralegal for five years, including a three month special position with a United States Trustee and nearly two years freelance, handling special projects."

So, you are 24. 24 minus 5 is 19. 19 minus two is 17. So at 17 years old you worked freelance handling "special projects" for a United States trustee (whatever one of those is.) You might even be claiming this at age 16 or 15 depending on how long you claim to have worked as an account manager. Even if the two years is consecutive with the five, you are claiming it for aged 19.

Totally without credibility.

What wonders did you achieve aged 12? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.79.131 (talk • contribs).

If you would, like, read the page instead of drive-by trolling, you will find your answers. Thatcher131 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he should have told the truth and written "unlicensed paralegal." And the dates still don't marry up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.79.131 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what happens when you have a credibility problem. They won't believe you even when you are saying two plus two is four. WAS 4.250 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is what happens when you have a Slashdot troll problem. They wouldn't believe Isaac Newton if he told them two plus two is four. —Krellis (Talk) 21:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your misrepresentation of identity

I will say this for the record:

Creating a pseudonym is one thing. Creating an elaborate fake persona with fake credentials, and using it in arguments, letters, and interviews is another. I am deeply troubled by this behavior, consider it highly unethical, and would like to ask you to seriously consider stepping down from your official Wikimedia roles. At the very least, I believe you owe the community an apology for this behavior. You have damaged both the reputation of the project, and your own. I am deeply saddened and disappointed.--Eloquence* 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He already did apologise above. Majorly (o rly?) 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I do believe the issue goes beyond the New Yorker article and interview. As the above diff shows (and other examples have been cited), Essjay has used his fraudulent credentials to support his arguments about articles. This is a serious breach of ethics that has nothing whatsoever to do with protection of identity.--Eloquence* 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, the above reference claims no more than having studied Catholicism for years, which seems to be the case. And cites sources, as Wikipedia should rather than accepting statements ex cathedra. Confession and apology are appropriate, and have been given. While I appreciate that you're without sin, no need to stone anyone. .. dave souza, talk 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I've been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn't tell you know how many times I've heard this myth, in and outside class." In conjunction with the profile as a professor of theology on his userpage, there can be no doubt that he used fraudulent credentials to bolster his argument. Other Wikipedians will often look upon anyone claiming any professional credentials with awe, since it is fairly uncommon. Essjay knew this, and used it to his advantage. See Kelly's blog post on the topic for other examples.-Eloquence*
I concur with Eloquence. // Internet Esquire 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plain and simple fraud. Spankr 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plain and simple interpreting statements with hindsight and the assumption that those reading had already been to his user page to be impressed with his claimed credentials. My respect for Kelly Martin has gone down, given that s/he seems to think that one of Wikipedia's foremost experts on Catholicism (which looks rather tongue in cheek to me) justifies the statement (at the link Eloquence gives) that "Essjay has no more right to claim to be a scholar of Christianity (and certainly not "Wikipedia's leading scholar on Catholicism"!) than I do, and yet his totally inexpert opinion has been given undue weight because of his lies." Spot the missing "one of", and note that Essjay's current bio does indicate that he's a scholar of Christianity. As, of course, anyone attending Sunday School arguably is. The false bio was wrong, about time it was corrected. As it has been. Now what we need is some Christians to live up to their ethos of forgiving. Any takers? .. dave souza, talk 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for speaking out, Eloquence. As a member of Wikimedia's Board of Trustees, you're in a position to hold the management of this project accountable. I don't see how Jordan can continue to serve in a position of leadership here, given the seriousness of the fraud. Rcade 02:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eloquence - I agree with you. This isn't a matter of using a pseudonym. We can debate on the nature of "appeals to authority" but your Walter Mitty style behaviour is extremely damaging to us. The issue seems to be who decided that EssJay should be our representative in the media and whether any checks were done. Being someone's friend or knowing them on irc doesn't count. We can cope with fantacists but not as representatives. Secretlondon 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker Article

LOL

--

Awkward indeed. Explanation? --AsianAstronaut 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll up to find an explanation and apology, and try to leave new messages at the bottom of a page, please. Martinp23 22:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, but only found a rationalization and an excuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.80.239.153 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Was that even an Apology?

Your response is terrible. If this is an apology, it is pathetically unapologetic. Every time you start to apologize, you take it back.

Your first paragraph explains that you thought you had already apologized and somehow that apology had been left out of previous statements. You say that you want to clear everything up and apologize publicly. Fair enough. The point is, the first paragraph sets up your response as an apology. But when you actually get to the part were you should say, "sorry, I lied" you don't. Instead, your apology is filled with justification and self-aggrandizement.

Essjay giveth, and Essjay taketh away

The actual "apology" begins in the second paragraph. In the first sentence, you're already making excuses. "Decision to use disinformation to protect" yourself is the kind of phraseology I would expect from a crooked politician, not a contrite community leader. Why can't you use a simple word like "lied"? The next sentence takes away from your apology even more. You bluntly say that you are not sorry for what you did, and that you still think doing it was the right thing to do. If what you did was protecting yourself, and you're not sorry you protected yourself, there's little left to apologize for.

Moving on, the next thing you say is that you have support from people on wikipedia in general and from Jimbo in particular. I'm not sure if you're trying to point out how popular you are, how close you are with the big man or just trying to point out that lots of people agree that what you did was right. The first two cases are pathetic attempts to make yourself look good and the last merely reinforces the idea that since what you did was right, you don't have anything to apologize for.

The New Yorker

The rest of the second paragraph is about the New Yorker article. I'm still not sure what your point here is. It seems like what you're getting at is that you didn't try to spread this disinformation around. But in a more than 8 hour interview you were never asked about your qualifications? That seems quite ridiculous. The article says that "Initially, he contributed to articles in his field—on the penitential rite, transubstantiation, the papal tiara. Soon he was spending fourteen hours a day on the site, though he was careful to keep his online life a secret from his colleagues and friends." The story certainly comes off as if you talked about your wikipedia contributions in the context of your area of "expertise". Of course you didn't know which bits of the interview would get published, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is if you talked to the reporter about your false qualifications, and your response didn't address that.

Letter

Furthermore your response didn't address the letter that you allegedly sent to a professor on why wikipedia should be considered a respectable source. The letter says to "feel free to look at my Wikipedia userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials." If its such common knowledge that you're not who you say you are, why do you refer people to your false credentials?

In that letter you talk about your nonexistent degrees and students. This is blatently lying. You're no longer protecting your identity with false information, you're trying to persuade a university professor to let his students cite wikipedia. Aside from the part were you lied, I think that you made a good arguement. I want professors to encourage wikipedia too. But the hypocrisy of claiming accuracy and honesty while not displaying any kind of basic academic integrity is appalling. My disgust is only accentuated by the fact that you presented yourself as (and indeed are, or perhaps were) a leader of the community.

Ego

Your apology is further destroyed by your constant attempts to play up your own virtues. If you really want to apologize, it is completely inapporpriate to say more than that you are sorry . How you can expect any community member to feel that you are truly contrite? Why point out that you did the interview for free? Why tell us about how much of your life you've poured into wikipedia? Or how much you hate trolls and vandals, or how much work you do to fight against them? Why include a defiant statement that you have no intention of going anywhere? It seems like you're trying to get people on your side. You've done a lot of great work for wikipedia. But when you're apologizing, you shouldn't talk about it, or try to win people over to your side. Apologzing is about being humble and admitting that you were wrong. Making an argument for yourself takes away from that humility. It makes it impossible for me to take your apology seriously.

An apology would have been nice. Instead, we get a self aggrandizing justification. JosephMDecock 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the above. There is a higher road to take out of this mess Essjay, but so far, it's not the road you have chosen. The damage to your reputation here only increases the longer you avoid accepting true responsibility for your actions. There is clearly more to it than a simple attempt to hide your identity as you have on more than one occassion attempted to leverage your false persona into greater credibility—there were many options for hiding your identity, yet you chose this approach which offers more than a simple identity shield. I urge you to take the high road while that path is still available and step down from at least checkuser and oversight, but probably from ArbCom and as a bureaucrat as well. I say this with the utmost respect for your work here and because I would hate to see your reputation here completely destroyed. —Doug Bell talk 00:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the above. Fortunately, I can spell unfortunately ;) --Tagishsimon (talk)
Yeah, I battle with my missing spelling gene each and every day. —Doug Bell talk 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see another comment on Essjay's "apology" not actually apologizing for anything.
Here's what I wrote at Slashdot (I have a four-digit ID there, for what it's worth) regarding the Essjay situation (Note that this was written before Essjay and Wales' attempts at ignoring the issue failed, forcing them to permit this current public discussion):

I've edited Wikipedia articles for going on three years now, and have always found it an impressive accomplishment. I've done more than my share (for one who isn't a basement-dwelling 21-year old who has way, way, way too much free time; Wikipedia, like many open-source projects, relies on an army of such fanatics to do much of the day-to-day work) of editing and copyediting articles and sometimes reverting vandalism when I catch it. The bottom line is that I like Wikipedia quite a bit.

Two things bother me about Essjay's case, though:
  • As others have noted here, Wales is confusing--unintentionally or intentionally--a pseudonym with a falsified CV (I remember it impressing me when I read that The New Yorker article last year). If Essjay was concerned about Internet stalkers he simply didn't have to say anything at all on his User page, or simply say that he lived in British Columbia or Japan or Oregon instead of Kentucky. Instead, he came up with an entire, completely-plausible but completely-fake academic background in theology. It'd be one thing if he had stuck to edits on astronomy or Germany or Legos but, in fact, he specialized in articles on theology. Of course people would take edits by someone with those kinds of credentials more seriously.
  • Beyond the pseudonym/fake-background issue. Essjay and some other admins don't like talking about this issue in public, and almost instantly threaten to ban those who do. I don't know if Purples is a sockpuppet for some otherwise-banned Wikipedia user, but he doesn't come across that way to me, and look what he gets in response to what I thought were pretty-legitimate questions. Yeechang Lee 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JosephMDecock, for your thorough analysis. Essjay's 'apology' mostly talks about what a great person he is. He obviously still does not understand why lying about being a professor was very, very wrong. He obviously does not feel that honesty and modesty are important traits, especially in a community like Wikipedia. I hope that Jimbo feels differently. Chrisahn 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?

I think that we should move this discussion somewhere else; it's starting to clog up Essjay's talk page. I'm thinking that we should move this to a subpage at WP:RFC (like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay or something similar). Thoughts? PTO 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I would prefer to hear a further response from Essjay first. I favor giving a brief period (no more than a day) for him to respond before starting an RfC. Let's give him another opportunity to make this right on his own—I think we owe him at least that. —Doug Bell talk 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think that would be a good idea. There's certainly plenty of commenting going on, so centralizing it would be good, if only to cut down on the chaos. And as I'm guessing this will end up in ArbCom's hands eventually, RFC is the next step along that path as well. William Pietri 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Concerned

When I first asked you about your dual identities, your explanation was both reasonable and justifiable. Claiming you have a Phd and theological tenure is a stupid thing a twenty two year old would say, so I don't have a problem there. However, the letter that has come to light and Kelly Martin's provision of times when you have used your fictious credentials to gain the upper hand in an argument disturbs me, far more than simply lying about your age. Wikipedians are drilled from the moment they edit in the principles of trust and assuming good faith, and as a Wikipedian yourself you took that trust and good faith and abused it for your own ends.

There have been many calls for you to resign; I have no opinion on your abilities as an administrator and bureaucrat, but it seems to me that the roles of checkuser and oversight are handed out specifically to the most trusted individuals on Wikipedia. You no longer are trusted by large swathes of the community, so I ask you to resign these roles until that trust has been restored. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up.-BillDeanCarter 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's entitled to his opinion whether you agree with it or not, Carter. I personally don't think that resigning would help him regain whatever trust he has lost, but would deprive us of an active checkuser and oversight, so it would be a negative for Wikipedia. --tjstrf talk 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that is simply wrong-headed thinking. The workload is easy to compensate for. The loss of reputation to the project is magnitudes more difficult to repair. —Doug Bvell talk 01:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The loss of reputation already occurred. Saying that the embarrassing member has since been hung, drawn, and quartered after the fact would do little or nothing to reverse the reputation loss. This is a bad situation, I agree, and no his behaviour is not to be condoned. However, I have been taught that Wikipedia tries the be a realist in its actions, and not to deal out punishments (whether through official action or peer pressure) for their own sake. A forced resignation might slake the inevitable thirst for blood that arises after a mess like this, but would it actually help anything? I believe it would not. --tjstrf talk 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily take his place. I have a PhD in Badass from Awesometown University. 76.19.13.202 01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently a masters in out-of-place juvenile smartassery to complement it. --tjstrf talk 02:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is clogging Essjay's talk page, and is basically harassment. He replied to the question, if you want more, ask, don't just pile on Yeah! Stick it to that Essjay guy! Essjay does a great deal for the community, and while I personally strongly disapprove of what he did, it does not change the fact that he has had a positive affect on the community. Imagine you are a new user. You don't want to reveal your identity, so you make a fake one. Over time, you become a major person in the community. Later, you regret that initial misinformation, and remove it from your userpage. When contacted by a magazine, you can't contradict yourself, or what would the readers think? But it is too late, it has spread to far. People look back and see... and judge. That is what I think happened to Essjay. If you want him to stop working for the project because he maliciously lied, I would agree with you. But to ask him to resign for something he no doubt regrets, is not something I could condone. I can tell this is stressful for him, and you are doing far more harm then good in this pointless discussion. Prodego talk 01:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that no mention is made of credentials other than being a "scholar" in the links Kelly puts up, and also note Kelly's misrepresentation of "one of Wikipedia's foremost experts on Catholicism" to read "Wikpedia's leading scholar on Catholicism". Rather careless when complaining about misrepresentation by someone else. ... dave souza, talk 01:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the sarcasm, people

Essjay is getting kicked around enough as-is without all of the random hecklers. Please, knock it off. PTO 01:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy deserves all the heckling he gets. When it's your job to be the guy who makes certain Wikipedia's content is truth, it becomes an Issue when you yourself can't be bothered to be truthful. It's like finding out that Merriam Webster can't actually speak English. 76.19.13.202 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay, along with 99% of editors, is not paid, so I don't think it would really be his 'job'. Prodego talk 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying he is not a paid employee of wikia? That seems to contradict information in evidence elsewhere. Jerry lavoie 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikia is a separate entity from Wikipedia, though they are closely related. He is paid for his work at Wikia, not his work here. --tjstrf talk 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but his description of his work at wikia seems to indicate that his work at wikia involves editing on various wikis' including the english wikipedia. So his edits here, in part appear to be part of his paid job at wikia. Not that it matters.... I was just confused about that. See my comment above "much ado about nothing", which sums up my opinion on the reaction to this situation. Essjay has been a major contributor to wikipedia, and his mentoring of other editors has earned him the positions he is in. I think his apology is sufficient, and it is time to move on. Jerry lavoie 04:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He got his job at wikia through his unpaid work for Wikipedia. Curiously no-one seems to have wondered why an academic hotshot cum paralegal would want to give it up to work for wikia.. Secretlondon 04:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is a moment in which big babies can come out and whine. There isn't a lot of deep thought here on the part of those whining. These are first impressions, and heartfelt whimperings.-BillDeanCarter 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achievements v. Controversy

The work the guy has done far outweighs any misrepresentation on his part. What makes Wikipedia look bad is the constant whining.-BillDeanCarter 01:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Whining. That's probably it. 76.19.13.202 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia looks bad because it has serious credibility issues. This is further compounded by the fact that many Wikipedians so readily excuse these breaches of trust. Instead of addressing this concern, you'd rather go on a temper tantrum and project your own behavior onto those who are bringing up the concerns. Essjay's many contributions to Wikipedia is not the issue here, nor is it relevant. The issue here is using false credentials to gain an upper hand in arguments. Likwidshoe 02:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been saying in another discussion, this is an encyclopedia - of articles. Simply because he doesn't have a string of letters after his name, does not mean his edits are of a secondary standard. The fact of the matter is, we cannot prove that had Essjay formalised his knowledge in this area (i.e. was a professer), his edits would have been of a higher standard; and it works the opposite way: claiming he was qualified when he was not, whilst not correct, does not mean his edits are null and void.
Kind regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 21:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post script: I've renamed the header from "Shut up, you big babies" to "Achievements v. Controversy" because that was the subject of the first section post, for civility and WP:NPA purposes.

I am delighted!

You and I share the same mental state... we believe we are someone we are not. I'm Napoleon, myself, and I'm a most excellent brain surgeon. Perhaps you can come over and visit me and the Queen for a spot of tea? You could even show me your degrees! Coolgamer 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed

I am just disappointed that what you did caused irreparable harm to wikipedia. I am also disappointed that you haven't apologized for using your fake credentials as leverage. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Caveat It's rather early to be declaring any harm "irreparable", however wrong the actions of one person involved may have been. Matt Gies 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you cut open a pillow and scatter its feathers to the four winds you can never put all of the feathers back in the pillow. What he did is irreparable, you can't take back the doubt that is in peoples minds about wikipedians now. -Ravedave 06:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OMG. Essjay is exactly what a Wikipedian is, and what I've always thought Wikipedians were. Some will be experts, professionals, others will pretend to be, some will be loons, and some will be highly educated unemployed individuals. Citizendium aims to be something more credible, but it loses it's creativity and accessibility in the process. Wikipedia is STRONGER because of what Essjay has done. It reveals what Wikipedians are and aren't. Get over yourself.-BillDeanCarter 06:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Essjay:

I'm probably screwed for typing this, but:
Sometimes there are times when I feel there is nothing bonding myself to another Wikipedian, but your incident with your identidy is probably my connection to you. For years, concealing my real name and other information on the Internet has gone from a minor threat to a extreme hazard to the point of stalking because of Wikipedia editors and anti-Wiki users. Because of information I gave out, I was stalked to some extent and I had to throw a curveball somewhere to throw stalkers off. Stalkers looked for my last name (which I have heard at least 10 different last names, none of which are right), reasons for changing my Internet name, jobs (supposedly I was in the Military, a school teacher or a high school/college student, none of which are correct), my age (I've heard ages from 14 to 30 to 50), anything anybody tried to recover from me, I lied about or threw misinformation in the bunch. Some stuff was true though, like ya know, my birth name is David, or is it :) Seriously, some stuff is meant to be private and I feel you were entitled to keep whatever you wanted from your real-life, off-wiki and not given to the public. I am truly sympathetic towards you for the crap you had to put up with. I don't blame you for trying to cover up your identity, I did the same thing. — Moe 01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people here don't have an issue with Essjay concealing his identity for protection (if that is what he was really doing), but choosing one with grandiose academic credentials and using those false credentials as way to gain authority and stature in a place where academic accomplishments significantly add to such. He used this persona and these false pretenses purposely and even with outside parties. [10] Lying to the New Yorker in an interview about his background had nothing to do with protection, but fabrication. As Elonka said above, it wasn't like he was claiming to be "Father of 4 in Ohio, working as an insurance salesman." --Oakshade 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A chiming in

Didn't think a new header was needed, and I don't think this post is really needed, but I figured it would be the nice thing to do.

You said: "...it was, quite honestly, my impression that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be..."

I am in the same position mentality as you are in regards to this issue. Many people seem outraged, many are surprised, many are confused. But I long ago stopped figuring that you were a professor of Catholicism. It didn't fit anything you did and so I did reason it was for privacy reasons. I'm a fairly smart fellow so this just took a couple month deduction. The bottom line is, I don't care who you or any other user is in real life. You've become a stone in Wikipedia's corner over the past several years, and "scandal" be dammed. I never considered entrusting any user with any tool based on what they do in the professional world or academic training, and with Jimbo making you an arbitrator long after he knew of your identity is a testament to this assumption of good faith that personal lives are not relevant to judgment and abilities. Keep up the hard work. Teke (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chin up

Chin up, stiff upper lip, this too will pass. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I appreciate your hard work around here. --A. B. (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fresh start

Here's what I think should happen. Essjay should apologize (he did), and we should forgive him. That is paramount. However, he should also resign his powers for the sake of re-earning his trust with the community. This way, it's like he's rejoining Wikipedia; Dr. Essjay will be a thing of the past and he will be just plain Essjay. He will he a regular editor again, and when he gets his request for adminship ultimately comes, people won't be voting on Dr. Essjay, they'll be voting on the real Essjay. Same applies for other processes. This will allow him to continue contributing, eventually as the powerful person he is now, because even if he did some serious lying, he is extremely useful. Bludgeoning him will just prevent this great asset from being a help. Hugs and kisses are in order. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Addendum: My solution is a compromise, not entirely my personal opinion. It is supposed to be a median between catapulting him and ignoring it. As much as I'd like everyone to forgive, forget, and move on, there are quite a few people calling for Essjay's resignation. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great suggestion. By all accounts he's a hugely valuable contributor, and it'd be a shame to lose him. However, I would still like to see an apology, as I don't believe he has yet owned up to the full situation, probably even to himself. Once he's done that and resigned his posts, then I think people will find it much easier to forgive and, eventually, forget this ever happened. William Pietri 02:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Seconded, although I think that it's unlikely that he will ever pass an RfA again. There are lots of people here who hate the idea of forgetting. PTO 02:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. – Chacor 02:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Essjay should apologize, but he didn't. See above, Was that even an Apology? Chrisahn 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where things stand, I think:

  • You have acknowledged your incorrect decision to hide behind a huge lie
  • You have not yet apologised for using this lie to gain an upper hand in content disputes (as laid out on the mailing list thread)
  • You are in positions that require trust (admin, bureaucrat, arbcom, checkuser, access to arbcom list, oversight)
  • People have called for your resignation from these positions
  • It would be difficult for the general Wikipedia community to forgive you for this incident
  • You do good work as an admin and bureaucrat and checkuser

I would recommend you voluntarily step down from arbcom and oversight, and temporarily suspend your checkuser activities until this blows over. You would have to apologise fully for any way you may have manipulated your false identity to gain an upper hand, sooner or later, so I'd ask you to do it now, or as soon as possible. You do good work as an admin and bureaucrat, so I'm not convinced you should step down from those positions. But just so you know, the whole community will find it quite hard to forgive. I know that first-hand. – Chacor 02:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not believe Essjay has acknowledged his decisions were incorrect, simply that they were hurtful. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to say he acknowledged it was incorrect (I'd have said "decision to hide behind a huge lie was incorrect"), I meant to say I felt it was incorrect. Sorry for the ambiguity. – Chacor 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come off it.....

I am not, at this time, active on Wikipedia. And so I had no intention to comment on this. However, I'm afraid that I driven to do so precisely by your statement. Because, and it pains me to say this, I find the statement itself disingenuous. When one confesses, one ought to make a clean breast of it, rather than 'qualify' the apology with mitigation pleas and justifications that just don't stack up.

I *am* sorry if anyone in the Wikipedia community has been hurt by my decision to use disinformation to protect myself. I'm not sorry that I protected myself; I believed, and continue to believe, that I was right to protect myself, in light of the problems encountered on the internet in these trying times

So, you've done nothing wrong? Well, I am not hurt by your decision to use disinformation. And you are quite entitled to protect yourself. But that self-righteous nonsense utterly misses the point. Concealing your identity is fine - I do it. Throwing in some red-herrings is clever - I wish I'd thought of it. What is unacceptable, is repeatedly relying on that disinformation to underline and reinforce your position in the community and to gain advantage in content and other disputes. You have paraded and exalted your false credentials. You have used them to pronounce authoritatively on matters - and bolstered your position in doing so. And what I find even worse, is you don't have the courage to admit it in the midst of your self-justifying twaddle.

Oh before I'm asked to verify this, I can. Others have already pointed to the diffs, but let me gather them here:

  1. We should believe your testimony on what is a myth because "I've been a Catholic scholar for years"
  2. This statement directly misleads a trusted admin to cite you in an arbitration case as "Wikipedia's foremost expert on Catholicism", a title which you yourself had the sheer arrogance to re-use to bolster your authority in another matter where you humbly "offer the community" your advice [11].
  3. Here, in response to my own request, you testified as an expert in a debate, implying that what you as a scholar hadn't heard of was unlikely to be true [12].
  4. Here again you offer 'expert advice' as a scholar of Catholicism again [13]
  5. More advice supported with the simple statement "I just happen to have spent my life studying the Church"
  6. In a debate on expert testimony, you offer to speak for experts - with the doleful comment that you are one of the "marginalised" experts [14]
  7. Here you strengthen your case by slipping in "I'm an academic"
  8. Here you declare "I understand the theology" whilst slipping in a subtle wikilink to your userpage which, of course, rehearses your credentials.[15]
  9. Here you brag on your own RfA "I am a theology scholar after all". Totally superfluous to any simple disinformation intention - but impressive as hell when you are gaming the system to seek position.
  10. You also weeks pontificating on Catholic and related matters, all the while knowing that people were likely to listen because of the claims on your userpage.[16]

It took me less than an hour to find all of these. So what more is there out there?

Mea culpa you (almost) say. Well 'almost' is not enough. This is not simply disinformation to befuddle trolls - like changing your name and inventing a boyfriend. This is fraudulent, consistent, and deliberate misrepresentation, used pompously to your own advantage and to gain position. Now, you are obviously quite an auto-dictat for an unqualified 24 year old (if you are 24). So, you'd have been able to contribute to these debates anyway. But the manner in which you smugly asserted yourself is quite unjustifiable, and especially with the nonsense you delivered to us above. You tried it on, you've been uncovered. Admit it.

But, on the other hand, it isn't actually that big a deal. You're 24, full of yourself, and you do silly immature things. Who hasn't? And - in the long run - who cares? But here's the thing, we can't move on to the long run, as long as you keep feeding us a line. Stop it - admit you've been an ass. Give a real apology, that doesn't tug at the heart strings and blame the trolls. And then? Then we can perhaps move on, and rebuild a modicum of trust and dignity.--Docg 02:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't even want to mention Robbie31 (talk · contribs). I'd like to think he is a real person, but... I'm just not sure anymore. -- tariqabjotu 02:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And with this edit, I sure hope he is real. -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch; I hope there's an explanation. — Deckiller 03:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the calls for Essjay to step down from ArbCom, let it be pointed out that Jimmy Wales named him to the committee, after meeting him in reality and knowing the truth of the identity deception. Teke (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Jimbo can appoint who he wants, but he can't stem the hemorrhaging by fiat. A course of action that attempts to force an unaccepted solution on the community leads to the dark side. (I'm not trying to say what is acceptable to the community, just that "Jimbo says" is not going to fix this.) —Doug Bell talk 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By all means I did not mean the "Jimbo says" as any sort of validation of the situation. I have made my position on that attitude know previously (I'm aginn' it). My reason for raising this in the thread was that I don't think this was an unforseen coming and I'm not expecting a resignation whether one is called for or not based on this elevation. This said, I'm leaving Essjay's talk page alone now. Happy editing to all. Teke (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this

Can we move this to another location? A format similar to a request for comment, although not necessarily a request for comment per se, would be nice. This is really starting to clutter the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a user talk subpage would be more appropriate. PTO 02:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay? Teke (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is community noticeboard worthy for sure. (→Netscott) 03:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this are messages addressed to Essjay. It would not be correct to move them. --Gmaxwell 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my point on this bouncing content, much of the first part of this page is directly addressed to Essjay and that would be appropriate to remain on his talk page. Discussion about him (if Essjay is really "a him") as a 3rd person is better suited for a community page. --Oakshade 03:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed my comments to Essjay, and Essjay alone, on his talk page. He may move them, delete them, file them, as he sees fit. But no other user may do it. Especially do not move them to some obscure noticeboard I've never heard of. I did not address my comments to 'the community.--Docg 03:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested regarding your apology

I plan to cover the New Yorker story in this week's Signpost. Despite your statement that you do not intend to say anything further, I have to ask a further question. In your apology, you make some rather extraordinary claims about what Stacy Schiff communicated to you. Do you stand by those?

If you think there's anything more I need to know about this situation before I write, please let me know. --Michael Snow 03:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liar

I simply will not let this go. I do not trust liars and I will let my lack of trust for you be known at every opportunity possible. I don't care what anyone says in response to this, it's a policy I deal with in real life and on here. If you didn't want people to know who you were, then just don't say anything. That's not hard. But no, you had to lie. I do not trust liars. Not a damn bit. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a policy, I agree with that. Skult of Caro (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My take on the matter

Ok, I'm cutting into homework time to type this, but here it goes (forgive my long post):

I simply do not see why this matter has been blown completely out of proportion. Yes, many of us are disappointed in Essjay's apparent inflation of his credentials, as am I. Yes, many of us wish that he did not do so, as do I. However, I see that some users, anonymous IPs, vandals, trolls, and established editors alike, have all demanded harsh punishment for his actions in which he has already apologized for not far above. In short, these editors demand a Treaty of Versailles, Wikipedia-style, with demands ranging from resignation to desysopping to ban. Soon some editors will call for eternal divine damnation.

But what is the good of these drastic measures? Will it help Wikipedia if Essjay was stripped of his tools due to a publicized lapse of judgment? Will it help Wikipedia if Essjay was forced to leave here because some editors are calling for retribution of his unfortunately short-sighted actions? Will it help anyone if Essjay were to forcibly leave our presence, due to common immoral behavior that none of us have denied doing? Will it really benefit the hawks who so feverishly call for resignation, demotion, and public denunciation like those in the Cultural Revolution?

Though I may be disappointed in Essjay's actions, I choose to be one of the few who extend a hand of forgiveness. I do it not out of community approval or disapproval, I do it not out of Essjay's contentment, I do it not out of publicity. I forgive Essjay for his transgressions simply because that I, as many others, are not perfect, and will always make mistakes. I ask those who call for drastic measures to take a moment to step into Essjay's shoes, and visualize how it feels to be pressed by all sides, by both the Wikipedia community in which he has formed an intimate attachment to, and the online community and the world at large, in which he has become the de facto Wikipedia representative of sorts. Visualize how it feels to be remorseful, yet some still continue to demand more of your body, more of your mind, more of your soul.

But let me retrieve myself and you from this romantic-sounding daydream and get back to the point. I choose to forgive because a grudge is detrimental to all, to Essjay, to the avenger, to the community, and to Wikipedia. I choose to forgive because I recognize that I myself am imperfect, and will make (or perhaps already did) make the same mistakes. I choose to forgive because it is what I wish for others to do to me, and to each other, when we each fall into the same holes, the same traps. Forgiveness is not a resource that has to be rationed; it is a gift that we can provide to each other in abundant amounts. It is forgiveness that holds this community together, that gives people second chances to improve themselves, that gives an oppurtunity for the transgressor to reform him/herself, that allows us to tolerate each other without creating insurmountable friction, that gives Wikipedia a chance to survive, to grow, and to flourish, and to allow us to likewise survive, grow, and flourish. --210physicq (c) 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could share the sentiment. I think Doc got it right—forgive and forget can't happen until Essjay comes clean and "gives a real apology, that doesn't tug at the heart strings and blame the trolls". Essjay has to acknowledge his wrongdoing, not attempt to rationalize it. —Doug Bell talk 07:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. Of course, a full apology is desired by many. However, I am a forgiving person; I do not hold grudges easily, unless they are out to get me, in which my response will not be so kind. However, Essjay has seemed to have recognized his faults, and I am willing to let it go to save myself, and many others, of future strife, stress, and suffering. --210physicq (c) 07:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, I do recognize that Essjay has lost some trust within the community. I do not blame the community for being shocked and angered by such revelations. But I do ask for one thing: that the community respond to this incident in a calm and rational manner, and not resort to triggered and reflexive response that often have not been completely thought over and may hence worsen the situation rather than heal it. --210physicq (c) 07:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you read this differently, but I think the primary desire from the community at this point is for Essjay to address the issue with more candor and character than he has to this point. The longer it goes without that, the more the sentiment is going to move away from forgiveness. —Doug Bell talk 07:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then if the community wishes Essjay to fully reveal his remorse, then the community should persuade him and to prod him to do so. Creating an atmosphere of hatred and anger does not foster an environment of forgivenmess and regret, does it not? --210physicq (c) 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was Essjay who created the atmosphere of falsity and distrust and is exasperating it by not aknowledging it was wrong. Any bad feelins occuring are a direct result of his actions. --Oakshade 08:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And so you will further contribute to this atmosphere? And where is the point where we will hit rock bottom? --210physicq (c) 08:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's already at rock-bottom. Essjay's actions brought it here. When there's full accountability by him for wrong actions (and possible resignation of all of his posts), that will increase credibility for this project that was damaged due to this. --Oakshade 08:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't exactly what I meant. However, I respect your opinion. And what is the "accountability" (those are not scare quotes, but direct quotes) that you speak of? --210physicq (c) 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The apology most people here are looking for, not some "qualified" one with excuses and justification. --Oakshade 08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's the community's responsibility to "persuade and prod" him anymore than they are. I think you need to look to Essjay to see where responsibility lies. I have no hatred; some anger, yes, but mostly sadness and profound disappointment. —Doug Bell talk 08:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True; I'm not cutting Essjay off from his responsibility to fully coming out with an apology. But I do ask for rational responses, which, as far as I can see, have been somewhat lacking from some editors. However, you are right; what the community ultimately judges on depends on Essjay's actions from this point onward. --210physicq (c) 08:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well know ...

I'd figured you'd rather hear it about it first-hand rather than third-hand, so here are my externally-hosted reactions to this kerfluffle. I don't know what to say Essjay, I really don't. I trusted you. --Cyde Weys 03:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a big baby.-BillDeanCarter 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a hard topic for all concerned, but please keep WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in mind. Even if you want to make a point like that, I'm sure you can find ways to say that that WP:AGF. William Pietri 04:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Fake Credentials to Justify Edits

Essjay has been using fake credentials to justify edits for as long as his account's been on Wikipedia. Here's one from April 2005, referring to a book he cited as authoritative: "This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's credibility." Rcade 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of checkusers and other admin tasks, not to mention enough community confidence to have the most supported RFB of its time, and oh, those countless cases of mediation of dispute resolution mean NOTHING. HE LIED ABOUT THAT BOOK. Milto LOL pia 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to give him a pass from even a minimal standard of ethics because he's done a lot of work here, that's your prerogative. Personally, as an occasional Wikipedia editor, I'm waiting to see whether there's real accountability here from the top. Rcade 04:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ethics? What are ethics? I'm far more internet evil than Essjay, I guarantee it. Let's see some "real acocuntability" regarding me!
Seriously though, what do you want to happen here? Do you want him banned? Desysopped? Maybe just de-checkusered and de-oversighted, what with those being "sensitive permissions". What are you holding out for? Milto LOL pia 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he should lose all admin privileges on Wikipedia and go through the process of seeking approval for them again. But I care more about what the management does than what happens to him. The fact that Wales appointed him to ArbCom by fiat *after* he admitted this fraud is unbelievable to me. Rcade 04:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you want him desysopped for principle's sake, and never mind all the vandals/sockpuppets who will squeak by in the mean time. On to the next post: does his lack of PhD make you doubt his capabilities as an admin/b'crat/checkuserer/oversighter? Milto LOL pia 04:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His calculated attempt to present false academic credentials, here and in the press, makes me doubt his judgment on anything he's touched here. Rcade 04:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, Rcade, although I'm sad to see it. That's his fourth edit ever, and it's backing up his very first edit. Strange to think how such a momentary impulse set him on a course where he'd eventually mislead a Pulitzer-winning writer. William Pietri 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's so odd - before this, hardly anyone was worried about Essjay's administrative decisions. Was it because he had a PhD? Or was it because he had consistently shown good judgement? Milto LOL pia 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're talking to me, but in case you are, I'll say I'm not worried about his administrative decisions. I haven't even looked at them. But spending the better part of two years maintaining a fiction, including lying to an award-winning reporter writing an article for a major national magazine, and then falling back on (at best) a half-truth when it comes out? That's not something I'm willing to call "consistently showing good judgement". And good judgement is what I want in high places like ArbCom. William Pietri 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "lied to a reporter" has got to stop, it's not his fault she was too much of a ninny to check his background before publishing it for the world to see. I mgiht try and set up an interview with her just so I can tell her lies for lulz. Milto LOL pia 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From [17]: "Essjay is serving a second term as chair of the mediation committee. He is also an admin, a bureaucrat, and a checkuser, which means that he is one of fourteen Wikipedians authorized to trace I.P. addresses in cases of suspected abuse. He often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz, and he keeps an eye on twenty I.R.C. chat channels, where users often trade gossip about abuses they have witnessed." Yes, she made a mistake in not checking what he said sufficiently. But that does not change the fact that he lied to her, and it certainly does not excuse it. William Pietri 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miltopia - It's not his fault that he fooled a reporter? That's your position? Likwidshoe 02:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar time

The Working Man's Barnstar
I haven't been around that long, but I had heard your name before this... enlightening period, and I had heard it as the name of someone who did a truly massive amount of work in keeping Wikipedia running. It was the name of someone who was personally responsible for stopping hundreds of vandals and banned sockpuppets from disrupting. I'm certainly not "committed" to Wikipedia on any level, but even I, as someone who uses Wikipedia for research/fact lookup often, have to acknowledge the incredible contributions you've made. Shocking as it may seem, none of those contributions, especially to helping the machine run smoothly, have diminished in value in the slightest since finding out that you made up an identity for yourself. So this barnstar is to certify that your two years+ of service is still the exact same after the Big Discovery as it was before - consider yourself the lucky first and probably last recipient of a barnstar from Miltopia. Milto LOL pia 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This story is so sad. While I agree on much of the criticism, those things have already been said by so many others - I don't have to repeat them. Although you've suffered quite a bit of face loss, your contributions to Wikipedia remain the same. When the fury of this storm is over, I hope you will still be an active editor and appreciated administrator. // habj 13:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

Given what I percieve to be the importance of this story on a community wide basis I have opened a thread at a more appropriate venue see: Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#Essjay-The New Yorker community discussion. I encourage the Wikipedia community to voice itself relative to this story. (→Netscott) 04:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to know about Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia) and the AFD on it. – Chacor 04:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of new WP article

(edit conflict) Courtesy notice.per Chacor. Already up for AfD. --Oakshade 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "apologies" sound fake

Essjay, I don't know you, but it's clear that you have done loads of valuable, tedious and often thankless work for Wikipedia, so I thank you for that.

Looking over your very first edits in Spring 2005, I see that you used your supposed credentials as Catholic scholar early on to bolster your positions when arguing with other Wikipedians. In May 2005, after not even two dozen edits in article space, you put the fake credentials on your user page. Your claim that this was done as an elaborate scheme of misinformation to mislead "trolls, vandals and stalkers" rings hollow: at that time you were not even close to becoming a target of the stalkers and that was certainly not on your mind; instead you were just a little troll yourself. You became enamored with the project, like so many of us; you rose through the ranks, and you couldn't find the strength to admit your initial deception. That's sad but understandable. Maybe you felt like a victim of your initial troll, trapped.

But no: you were happy to use your fake credentials in a letter to an outside academic, and you surely mentioned them in the hour long talk with the journalist and fact checker from the New Yorker. I have no doubt that you were quite certain to be quoted as an "Wikipedia editing academic". Your statement from today "it was, quite honestly, my impression that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be" is, in my judgment, another lie. On 00:56, 24 November 2006 you deleted User:Essjay/Personal, the page containing your fake credentials, with the comment "(This is really stuff people should already know...)"

It is clear that this story will explode and will be found in the world's newspapers before long. Wikipedia has been harmed in many ways by your actions. Write an honest apology. Resign your posts. Keep working on Wikipedia. AxelBoldt 08:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From any objective take, on this narrow issue of credentials or disclosed background, Essjay has no credibility left. Nothing this user says about himself can be believed because his assertions of authority weren't innocently masked for security purposes, they were wholly misrepresented and what's more, seemed to have been used to gain sway in edits of content. He also showed a docking big lack of judgement in allowing a reporter from a major publication to take his fake screen credentials at face value and moreover seems to have used these fake credentials offline. What does this say about his judgement, say as a Wikia employee (never mind as a WP admin, CU and so on) overall? I don't agree with Jimbo's public reasoning on this but do agree there is no reason to ban the person behind the username. IMHO Essjay should take on a new username and be banned (or strongly discouraged) henceforth from making any representation as an editor about his educational or employment history. Gwen Gale 09:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are featured in this article.[18] (unsigned comment by user:Felisberto 10:09, 2 March 2007)

Impostor among us

Well, well. So a real-world impostor has deciced to use wikipedia as a platform for his self-aggrandizement. Probably because we are more vulnerable than, say, Princeton that could expel James Hogue. Enjoy your notoriority in our expense - Skysmith 10:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[... Comment removed by author. Some felt it was inappropriate, and while I don't wholly agree, such things are not needed right now, and ultimately there is no purpose to the post aside from expressing my frustrations with the system and the Foundation.] --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastards

We all know that the rules of internet personae are not well defined. And there are gripers in every crowd who will pontificate from any point of view. Don't let them get you down.-Ste|vertigo 12:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately though the rules and laws of fraud are very clearly defined. Deceiving the national press with false qualification to add weight to one's statements has disgraced us all. Giano 12:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your actions

Courtesy linking: A discussion regarding your actions has been initiated at WP:CN here. Regards, Navou banter / contribs 12:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to them

So you misled people about your credentials. Personally I don't care. Anyone who thinks that you have gained the influence you have within the community because of these 'credentials' has a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works, and could do us all a service by sodding off to Citizendium. Anyway, long story short I hope you aren't forced into giving up sysop, checkuser or any other of the capabilities which you've used for the benefit of this project. Keep up the good work. Cynical 12:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The facts - Synopsis

You have flatly lied about yourself. Contrary to your claim of it being a few minor insubstantial points to protect your identity, you clearly knew or should have known that in so doing you would influence the regard you had amongst users here. This was a flat-out fraud, and to call it by any other name is insulting to everyone who edits Wikipedia. The fact that Jimbo even seemed to endorse, or at least ignore, your outrageously deceitful actions brings the reputation of all higher ups into disrepute. - Abscissa 13:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (Member since 2003)[reply]

You are a big cry baby.-BillDeanCarter 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:No personal attacks, thanks. Gwen Gale 14:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovering this fracas.

The excuse appears BS imho, the fake page appeared way before I could find any type of threat(though this could unusually be blocked too) I'd have to say I have no trust in Essjay, or anyone else that posts/edits on here for that matter, I take everything objectively and go from there, goes back to the concept of Wikipedia by itself not being an adequate source. I work as a police officer, how would it look a report if I only took statements from one party, or biased my report for a certain side. Wikipedia will survive, we will move on, I am not sure about the administrators stand on this(as in questionability) but it's his/theirs project we just contribute to it, be that editting, donations or otherwise.

PS. Essjay if you fabricate any personas in the future, remember its thEIr, kind of struck me to think I had better spelling skills then a professor. Squashed that didn't we.

Dureo 13:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just realized I called everyone on here a liar, I didn't mean it like that, not to be misconstrued, I only meant in the context that I don't take articles here as fact, just standing alone, only with sources and references.

Dureo 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community opinion on the Essjay situation

I think it would be good to do an informal survey of community opinion on this situation regarding User:Essjay. Though all the comments up to now are helpful, I think Jimbo needs to see where the community stands and an informal poll or petition is the way to do it. --Aude (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also some added questions directed at Jimbo, asking for an apology or something from him might be appropriate too. Feel free to tweak the questions. --Aude (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to do an informal survey of community opinion on this situation regarding User:Essjay. Yes? I think it would be good to do nothing at all for a week or so. Right now the amazing horrific shocking sensational whatever about Essjay is all the rage; a week from now those with short attention-spans will have directed them back to Britney Spears's hairstyle or similar and it will be that much easier for more thoughtful people to apply their brains to this issue (or non-issue). -- Hoary 14:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if you think that's true, you're not thinking. This is a case of serious misconduct by someone who holds positions of power within the encyclopedia, and his misconduct has the potential to taint all of our work and destroy what has been built here. Who is going to donate to an encyclopedia which employs a known and admitted fabulist? FCYTravis 15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here it "has the potential to taint"; some minutes later and a couple of paragraphs below you say it is actually "tainting"; at this rate, a few more paragraphs and you'll be saying it's actually "destroying". But then of course I'm "not thinking". Except that I'm thinking that an awful lot of people around here are getting terribly, terribly excited. Well, I'm going to bed. -- Hoary 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dira necessitas

When Brandt first started writing about how he doubted you were who you said you were I laughed. "A dependable guy like Essjay wouldn't be lieing about being an academic." When people criticized Wikipedia for having too few tenured academics on board you were one of my counterexamples. I was very disappointed to hear the truth and even more disappointed to read your non-apology apology above.

You say: I have no intention of going anywhere, because to do so would be to let the vandals, trolls, and stalkers win. I don't understand this. What do vandals have to do with anything? Even if they do why should you make decisions based on what they think?

You have lost the trust of such a large part of the community that I doubt you can effectively carry on your duties. Please resign. Haukur 14:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing up vandals and trolls is the same straw man as "If you don't agree with me, the terrorists win." Gwen Gale 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have lost a lot of respect for Wikipedians because of how easily they turn on one of their own, instead of defending Essjay. It's probably a good idea to look at why Essjay created a persona, and see that it wasn't to defraud Wikipedia, but a little bit of fantasy role-playing and a little protection from prying eyes. This whining is embarrassing. This lynching is unacceptable.-BillDeanCarter 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Roleplaying is for MUDs, not for wikipedia - Skysmith 14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damnit, I have to agree with Haukur. Wikipedia is not the place for falsification, disinformation, or using such to bolster your own arguments. You were one of my favorite Wikipedians up until this came out (and maybe I'm naive for not knowing sooner); now I have to re-evaluate everything I've thought up until now. -- nae'blis 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must step down

There is no alternative, Essjay. Your lies and fabrications have caught up with you, like Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair. Nothing you ever write will be trusted, nor will any action of yours be respected. By selfishly refusing to quit your positions of trust within Wikipedia, you are tainting all our work with your misdeeds. For the good of the encyclopedia, you must resign your positions. FCYTravis 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The alternative is for him not to step down. Putting aside questions about what Essjay has done (non-trivial and interesting questions, better dealt with when fewer people are huffing and puffing so loudly), he hasn't "tainted" any of my work whatever, and I don't think I'm alone in believing or saying this. -- Hoary 15:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-trivial and interesting questions, better dealt with when fewer people are huffing and puffing so loudly Wise sentiments. Essjay certainly hasn't "tainted" my work either. Thatcher131 15:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If people come to believe that what appears in Wikipedia is influenced by deceit and manipulation, then he certainly has tainted your work as it would be percieved by others. The credibility of any written work is judged not just by its content but also by the integrity of those who write it. Dragons flight 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, context and provenance mean something. Gwen Gale 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
selfishly refusing to quit - I'd consider it selfiush if he did step down from various posts, as he keeps many parts of Wikipedia alive. Everyone makes judgement mistakes of different magnitude. I suggest that those who are calling for "resignation" get rid of the planks in their own eyes before pointing out the speck in Essjay's. Martinp23 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which planks would those be? I have never lied about my academic credentials, pretended to have held jobs I have not held, tried to assert my superiority of knowledge based on fabricated experience or engaged in a campaign of deception in order to secure positions of trust within Wikipedia. Essjay has done all of the above. FCYTravis 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm yet to meet anyone without a plank in their eye, including myself. I doubt that Essjay intentionally engaged in a campaign of deception in order to secure positions of trust within Wikipedia - people are shouting WP:AGF needing to be backed up by honesty, so try assuming good faith for Essjay. Although I don't doubt that Essjay's ind Jimbo's comments have harmed Wikipedia at least for the short term, I also don't doubt that when I was involved with the blocking of Qatar, I harmed Wikipedia's reputation - no one screamed "stand down" at me (ie - from admin status). The communtiy is turning into a lynch mob, making a mountain out of a molehill, probably because of Essjay's influence. I feel that it would be easy to move on, and that by slowing the Encyclopedia down so much by wrangling over this, we're proably doing more damage than Essjay ever did. My feeling is effectively "move along folks, nothing to see here...". Martinp23 17:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Everyone makes judgement mistakes of different magnitude". Judgment mistakes? That is bullshit ! (to borrow a phrase). He willfully misrepresented himself to all of Wikipedia, not to mention to that reporter and a real professor (via 'that' letter). He has zero credibility left and can only hurt Wikipedia; if he had any remaining integrity at all he would have already departed from Wikipedia. Duke53 | Talk 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I have had items sent to me (via USPS) that are associated with Wikipedia and are simply harassment and / or threatening in nature. Should I have claimed to be something / somebody else, ala essjay?
What he has done is associate Wikipedia's "most trusted" editors and administrators with lies, deceit and fabrications. The fact is that Essjay intentionally and maliciously faked his identity in an apparent effort to gain an upper hand in debates and establish credentials which led to his election to positions of trust within the Wikipedia community. It has been revealed that all of it is a lie, every single bit of it. He is a fraud, and by association, Wikipedia is a fraud as long as he sits in those positions of trust. Any newspaper, magazine or other publisher would fire such a liar in a moment, and if we hope to ever be taken seriously, we must not tolerate deceit either. As far as I'm concerned, anything Essjay says or does is a lie until proven otherwise - and that means he's unfit to serve in any position of trust. FCYTravis 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a little bossy FCYTravis, when using the word must, try to back it up with a policy. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy? How about common sense and good judgement? FCYTravis 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, a suggestion would suit better than a demand, as common sense and good judgment vary from person to person. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the "tainting" point. Wikipedia has been struggling for credibility due to a number of factors. Some people not previously decided on the issue are undoubtably going to see not only the fraud committed at the highest levels, but then condoned as if it were nothing by the founder. To say this doesn't taint all of Wikipedia is to deny the reality of the situation. —Doug Bell talk 16:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt Controversy, etc

Hey; hang in there with this whole fuss - hopefully it'll blow over in a few days. In the meanwhile, let me say you're doing a great job and it's just a disillusioned lynch mob out to get you.

Keep your chin up!

Kindest regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a disillusioned lynch mob. Please don't minimize the legitimate concerns of well-meaning and established editors who have deep concerns about a trusted member of our community who has perpetuated a series of lies over a lengthy period of time. --ElKevbo 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening; I respectfully beg to differ - at the end of the day, we are an encyclopedia: and that means articles. No articles have suffered because Essjay (incorrectly) stated he had a formalised qualification in the areas in question. At the end of the day, he is still very knowledgable in those areas; the edits he made to these articles are not degraded because he doesn't have letters after his name, and that's why this has been blown out of all proportion.
The term disallusioned lynch mob was simply used as a metaphor to show that certain editors who haven't actually been directly affected are calling for him to be stripped of CheckUser, Oversight, Arbitrator, etc.. - from what I've seen, he's doing an excellent job on the ArbCom. Perhaps some should take a leaf out of Essjay's book and refrain from editing here until the room temperature has calmed down.
Dixi,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree absolutely on the "some should back off for a bit" sentiment. However, to dismiss the concerns of editors who have not had direct contact with Essjay is misguided. We're addressing fundamental issues of trust, honesty, and integrity. Contact with or lack of contact with Essjay is irrelevant. Further, the documented instances of Essjay referencing his false credentials in discussing articles and edits to articles does lead one to believe that articles have indeed suffered. --ElKevbo 21:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's great to see that you see where I'm coming from with the "some should back off" side - some of the comments in the various discussion sites - including here - are blatant Personal Attacks. However, I still can't accept that because Essjay has a lack of an official qualification in the areas in question, his edits are suddenly of a secondary standard that when he was thought to have a string of letters after his name. Since we can't prove that if he did have a qualification, his edits would have been better, then we have to conclude that no articles have suffered. Unless, of course, you can prove articles that have suffered?
Awaiting your reply,
anthonycfc [talk] 21:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That he claimed to have expertise when discussing articles is harmful. His particular edits may have been great but that he lied to others when making those edits is wrong. The ends (good articles) do not justify the means (lying to other edits about one's expertise). His edits are not of a secondary status but the manner in which one makes edits is obviously of the highest importance here - that's why we have standards like AGF and NPA. --ElKevbo 00:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two separate issues here: the misinformation has damaged trust, and make certain interactions difficult or impossible, though with time and humility I'd hope that can be healed. Past edits will have to be checked for accuracy, which in a way is the normal process for all articles as per WP:A. Past administrative actions are more difficult to verify, though the diffs I've looked at suggest there should be no worries on that score. However review would be desirable. .. dave souza, talk 00:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell's message to Essjay

Essjay, thank you for all you have done for Wikipedia. I hope, no matter what happens here, that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia and will feel at home. No one should forget how much of an asset you have been, and still are, to this project.

However, many above have documented how you used your false credentials to bolster your arguments, both inside and outside Wikipedia. You have not apologized for this.

Being an admin is "no big deal", and faking credentials is not a valid reason for de-administration, in my book. Your position at Wikia is not my concern, as I use only Wikipedia. But being a member of the arbitration committee requires the strong trust of the community. Similarly, your checkuser rights could reasonably be seen as inappropriate, since the community would have to trust your claim that two IPs are the same, and this trust does not currently exist. Your continued service in these roles will serve to damage Wikipedia, and I know you don't want that.

I strongly urge you to apologize for using your assumed credentials to bolster your arguments; that you resign from the Arbcom; and that you voluntarily surrender your checkuser rights. You have not violated any Wikipedia policy, and I don't see any reason you should no longer be an admin or a bureaucrat, but any position that depends on a high level of community trust is not one in which you can be effective at this time. Finally, I recommend that you don't let the haters get you down, and that you continue to use your obvious talents and strong work ethic to improve this worthy project.

Sincerely, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka

Without expressing or demanding any particular course of action, I see it as absolutely self-evident that you are of course permitted to fabricate a "persona" to protect yourself from stalkers on Wikipedia. However, I see it as equally self-evident that using that fabricated persona's nonexistent qualifications in the course of a content dispute is unethical in the extreme. I find your lackadaisical attitude towards that serious ethical lapse to be disappointing. Nandesuka 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say something, and found that Nandesuka had already put it quite well. All that I would add is that I'm disappointed that someone with a position of prestige at an encyclopedia has so little concern for intellectual honesty. Using a fake identity is something I have no problem with, but arguing from non-existent credentials is entirely different. If we don't stand for intellectual honesty, then Wikipedia has already failed. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have my support

Regardless of the outcome of the mess you're currently in, you will always have my support and admiration, since what you've done for Wikipedia up until a few days ago is extraordinarily incredible. Whether you decide to step down or not should be based not on the opinions of trolls, malefactors, etc., but rather on your own self-judgment. Scobell302 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Thought

I am a new user but I stumbled across this dispute and read all about it and searched the histories and all that. I'm not really sure what Essjay's motivations were but one thing I did notice is that Essjay's 7-month absence from Wikipedia last year approximately corresponds to the time of the interview to when he decided to come clean about his misrepresentation. Just my 2 cens Hallibrah 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Please don't shoot the messenger, but an RFC has been opened on your conduct (not by me). You can view it Here, and respond if you so choose. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moral support

Although I can understand trust issues becuase of the fake credentials, please remember that a lot of us still respect what you have done and what you will (hopefully) continue to do for Wikipedia. Although I feel you should resign from ArbCom because of this issue, I feel that you can bounce back. Thanks a lot for your hard work! — Deckiller 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Falun Gong arbitration process

You may not have noticed, by one of the Falun Gong practitioners who is party to the arbitration case now in evidence has launched a major edit discussion about one of the Falun Gong pages, Li Hongzhi, which is presently frozen here: [19] Is it really appropriate to have that process continue independent of the current Arbitration case? It seems to me that an already complex situation will be rendered even more complex if there's simultaneouly disupted editing on one of these pages. Shouldn't Happy in General's issues be combined with the arbitration case in some way? --Tomananda 23:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to focus on building a consensus while editors are concerned about the Arbitration seems unlikely to work out, which is why the Mediation Committee and I agreed the Mediation should be put on hold. However, if editors want to try, that is their choice so far as I know. I believe the clerk, Thatcher131 moved that to the talk page because ArbCom focuses on behavioural issues rather than content ones, but you could ask him / her. Anyways, I am sure Essjay would know of something better to tell you, so I'll try to make sure he sees this message. : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropped by the site and discover a bit of a firestorm...

Essjay...my goodness, it's been too long. I hope you're well, although it appears from some of the pages I've seen today that life's a bit rough at Wikipedia right now. I just wanted to tell you congratulations about the promotion to the AC, and to warn you how difficult it can be to sit in that spotlight, but by now you know all about that, far better than I do. I hope all goes well, and while I'm sure my confidence means little (given how ghostly I've become around this place), I saw the news and felt compelled to let you know how much I trust you to make wise decisions here.

I noticed when I came to your userpage that you had a bio up...and was confused, since I had recalled your identity differently. I was about to post my congratulations with a note saying I had confused you somehow with someone else, but then I discovered the maelstrom here and read a little of it. I don't quite know what to say--I feel I must have made a bit of a fool of myself, seeking advice on theological matters, etc. But then trust is what the site is built on, and I want you to know you still have mine--a paltry gift, I feel sure, but it is yours, such as it is. If there is no such thing as Wikiforgiveness, there ought to be. I hope someday you'll let me know, via email or my talk page, why you chose to represent yourself the way you did, but then maybe I never knew you well enough to warrant having the whole story, or to justify this request for an explanation. I promise you, I ask it not in outrage, but in a desire to understand better someone I still think of as a friend at this place I have kept at an arm's length these many months. Maybe one day when the winds stop blowing you'll favor me with the story.

As always, I wish you well, and hope that March will go out like a lamb, as far as you're concerned. Until we speak again, happy wikiing, and may you continually find peace-- Jwrosenzweig 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Wink and a Nod

You know, this New Yorker thing you pulled off was the craziest thing I've heard of in a long time. Now of course I wouldn't go so far as to say that I approved of it, but a good bluff is a good bluff. Happy (and stress-free!) editing, --Merovingian ※ Talk 05:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a special circle of [redacted] reserved for duplicitous [redacted] like you.

I can't believe that now that you've been outed as a complete fraud you've gone on to make up an entirely NEW story on your user bio, describing yourself as a former paralegal and account manager at a major corporation. [redacted] Kade 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...your comments here are simply ridiculous, do nothing but convince myself that you are a troll and I see no reason you shouldn't be permabanned indefinitely. There is a way to voice your opinion without resorting to the kind of heinous comments as you have done here.--MONGO 06:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. (You've gotta admit, it's worth a chuckle) Maîtresse 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that the tone of some contributions here are real bad, on the Norwegian bokmåls/riksmålswikipedia postings like the one that started this thread would have been deleted immediately and the user banned for quite some time. Dont see any reason to accept a language like that. Ulflarsen 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Ulflarsen, you appear to be an Old European. Me too, and we're not equipped for such flights of rhetoric. (For one thing, does the [redacted] fill the brain [text] or the sack [title]?) This (redacted) language goes with big belt buckles, the appeal to truthiness, and other mysteries. Team America helps us gain an inkling about this inscrutable higher civilization. -- Hoary 08:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC), "redacted" (such an impressive word!) by autoredactor Hoary at 09:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remind Kade of our no personal attacks policy, which this violates seven ways from Sunday. Aside from it being policy and good manners, people are unlikely to take your concerns seriously if you can't state them in a reasonable tone. William Pietri 08:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's comment

FYI - User talk:Jimbo Wales. Can we stop trying to figure out who to blame and start thinking about how to move on? Guettarda 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to wait for Essjay's answer. Thatcher131 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the figuring out who to blame is over. How we move on depends on EssJay's answer but I think at this point, it mostly affects EssJay. What I would like to see is this to stop being a spectacle. Those who derive great pleasure in the drama and oppose the project will work to keep this alive. EssJay is a great contributor. I hope EssJay realizes that the "positions of trust" are "no big deal" and continues to work on making the encyclopedia better as he has for the past few years. --Tbeatty 07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People keep saying "EssJay is a great contributor." How do I know that's not just as false as the other stuff you used to believe about him? How do I know the vandals he fought weren't sockpuppets of his? Why should I believe anything about him without really good evidence? Apparently his friends have been accepting his self appraisal on things without checking for years. How do I know anything you guys claim for each other is true when you show such utter contempt for truth? His friends say so what he lied. Well, with that attitude why should I believe anything his supporters say? WAS 4.250 09:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who doesn't like Essjay less because of this, I don't have "utter contempt for the truth", although I do think honesty is overrated. Anyway, if I added evidence to my statement, when/if I have time, would that actually make a difference? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 09:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also think "utter contempt for the truth" here is a little strong even for Essjay, and certainly for his friends and supporters. Personally, I think Essjay just fell into a classic "tangled webs" situtation. He told a small lie very early on in his career here, which unfortunately snowballed into an international sensation. Although I'm not necessarily asking you to cut him some slack, I'd like you to consider how horrible this must be for him. He's just given a big black eye not just to himself, but to a project he clearly loves. I'm not saying you shouldn't be upset, but you can be upset and compassionate at the same time. William Pietri 09:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask people to cut him some slack. He's only given himself a black eye, not the project. Let's not overreact, and let's wait for him to comment. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fairly niave. Of course he's given the project a black eye. That doesn't mean it won't recover, but to deny that effect is naive. —Doug Bell talk 09:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99.99% of wikipedia readers will never realise this happened, have never heard of Essjay, will never hear of him or of this mistake. For most editors, those numbers won't be a lot higher. For those of us that are active, it will be higher, but we have the experience to know that no real damage has been done, except to Essjay. The servers won't miss a beat. Articles will still be created, improved, vandalised, reverted and read. That is what matters, not this. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only time will tell, but I don't think I'm overreacting. This won't be nearly the sensation that the Segenthaller thing was, but it goes far beyond affecting Essjay alone. I count dozens of blog reactions, some very prominent, a number of news items, and several friends asking me about it. As the Chronicle of Higher Education says, "[...] the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud." You're right that the world will keep turning and Wikipedia will survive, so this isn't a trip to the ICU. But I am still willing to call it a black eye for Wikipedia. William Pietri 10:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of Essjay. I guess that makes me 0.01%. He's a pretty important guy, which is why this is such a big deal in the first place. – Lantoka (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay has been around longer than any other Editors I know and since I joined Wikipedia, I have heard about all the good things he has done for Wikipedia and 1 mistake should not halt his happiness. He is one of the the most notable of all Wikipedians and to forgive him would be the right thing to do because then we can actually move forward. Jimbo did the right thing by accepting his apology and now I dont think there is any problem and we should stop blaming Essjay for his one mistake and look at what he has done since he joined Wikipedia..--Cometstyles 12:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hurts to see Essjay in such a mess, but I second Comestyles comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"... we should stop blaming Essjay for his one mistake". And what would be his "one mistake"?
  • Lying about his background / work experience / credentials on his user page?
  • Lying to the New Yorker reporter?
  • Lying when he wrote that letter to the authentic professor?
  • (etc., etc., etc.)
AFAIAC, every edit he ever made was built on a foundation of dishonesty; rather than 'licking his wounds' and showing remorse he is proud of his lies. He should walk away from Wikipedia now. Duke53 | Talk 17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as you recall? Obviously your don't recall is off. Quote from JImbo for you, "People who characterize him as being "proud" of it or "bragging" are badly mistaken." Now take your nastiness and go home. pschemp | talk 19:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, can't we drop it now? Surely we don't want to make it impossible for Essjay ever to come back? ElinorD (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am ok with that. I certainly would never trust him again, and would disregard anything he says. I've asked him for help in the past on various things, but now I feel he has no credibility. How seriously can he take this project if he never thinks to say 'hi, you're a reporter doing a story on this new phenomenon. Do you fully understand how WP works, and that I've created a false front to protect my private life?' He made everyone who edits wikipedia seems like a duplicitous tool. I heard people in a mall computer store today talking about this thing. It's made the news, people know. For the protection of Wikipedia's reputation, Essjay should walk away. I am highly disappointed in his choices. ThuranX 21:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Luck

Hi essjay - I was one of the folk who prodded you about this, and was sorry to see it escalate so seriously. i see jimbo has asked you to resign your positions, which is really the only sensible thing possible at the mo.

As i've said all along, you do good work, and seem to be a very nice person - and maybe this is a beginning, not an end? - good luck and hope you're well none-the-less..... Purples 07:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think it's time

I think it's time we heard from you Essjay. Jimbo has communicated with you and briefly with us. There are many open questions. I know you need to read this all before responding, but I have to believe that you have been. There is no way forward from here without hearing from you. We wait, but perhaps not as patiently as we should. —Doug Bell talk 08:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doug Bell, the longer you wait, the harder it gets. And everyone who is reading this, lay off Essjay for the moment. With some of you criticizing him, and even swearing at him, it isn't surprising that he haven't replied yet. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 10:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; it is time for essjay to fish or cut bait. For someone who bragged about how much time he spent here (and that he would be returning to his normal activity after sleeping for a while) the silence from essjay is deafening! His last activity is here: [20] ... his pseudo-apology (more than 48 hours ago). This indicates to me that he may be a coward, in addition to being a confirmed liar. Note to essjay: do the right thing for once ... leave Wikipedia forever, and do it now. Duke53 | Talk 19:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lay off; be civil ~ Arjun 20:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No; if anybody is not being civil in this incident it is the confirmed liar (essjay). Duke53 | Talk 20:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These kind of comments from Duke53 are really, really unhelpful. The more I see of them, the more my sympathy grows for Essjay (whom I have criticised). I'd remove them as trolling, except that Essjay has a notice at the top of this page asking people not to do that. I really don't see the point of kicking him when he's down, unless we want him not to feel able to come back ever. ElinorD (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"unless we want him not to feel able to come back ever". By George, I think you've got it ! Duke53 | Talk 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm astonished by each day that goes by without Duke53 receiving a block. He is without doubt the most trollish and incivil user I have ever encountered (and no Duke, that's not a personal attack so please save your NPA warning for somebody else). Give his contribs a quick look and you'll see what I mean. auburnpilot talk 20:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems he ignored my request for not badgering Essjay. Duke53, despite your demands for Essjay to quit Wikipedia, I highly doubt he will. Continue harrassing Essjay like this, and you will get blocked. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 20:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, he just has been. ElinorD (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...now I look like a fool....I'll just go and cry with embarrassment... --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 21:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whither Wikipedia?

Having been away from WP for some months perhaps make it easier for me to see that essentially, just about everything everyone said above is correct!

  1. I agree with User:Doc glasgow, User:Axel Boldt, User:Eloquence and the others who pointed out that while protecting yourself from harrassment by choosing a pseudonymous "handle" or withholding personal information on your user page might be prudent, there is a huge difference between withholding your real life identity and fabricating a fake real life identity.
  2. I agree with those who point out that the positions held by Essjay in the Wikipedia are analogous, in American political life, to the office of Supreme Court Justice. How would Americans feel if a Justice revealed that he had fabricated his legal credentials? How could they retain confidence in their judicial institutions? Jimbo simply had no choice but to demand Essjay's resignation. Wikipedia can and must find others to fill his shoes.
  3. I agree with all those who recognize the innumerable positive contributions Essjay has made to the Wikipedia, and his reputation for apparently (aye, there's the rub!) acting responsibly in his position of trust.
  4. I agree with all those who feel that, as of the date of my comment, given the violation of trust and the power of his former privileges, Essjay's apologies have been woefully inadequate.
  5. A hypothetical justice who revealed that his legal credentials are fraudulent would most likely not work in the legal profession again, and I feel that the real life analogy holds true: regretfully, I must agree with those who argue that Essjay cannot be entrusted with positions of high responsibility again within Wikipedia society--- his deception has been far too damaging for that level of forgiveness.
  6. I agree with User:Prodego's analysis of how Essjay might have gotten himself into this mess, and I agree with those who argue that the Wikipedia community should offer him the opportunity to continue to contribute as an ordinary user.

Which is where I feel we can move the discussion beyond the particulars of Essjay's fall from grace. I propose that the community turn its attention to the question of what lessons can be drawn from Essjay's mistakes. I feel that one lesson is glaringly obvious, if only because I have been arguing along these lines for almost a year: Wikipedia policies and customs encouraging anonymity and ambiguous identities inevitably blur the boundaries of moral behavior, which renders it entirely too easy for a newbie to fall into the errors made by Essjay early in his Wikipedia career. In addition, the fact that

  1. some users edit under their real name (and indeed endure endless harrassment on and off-wiki, with the result that we are inevitably driven out of the WP),
  2. some users adopt a pseudonym and divulge little personal information about themselves, but construct a coherent wikidentity, possibly gaining the trust of the community and rising to positions of authority, entirely on the basis of the quality of their edits and the public record of their actions at WP,
  3. some users, like Essay, go further and construct an elaborate but falsified "real life" identity to complement their wikidentity,
  4. some users register numerous sockpuppet accounts,
  5. some users edit as IP anons

tends to create a profound inequity of accountability for one's actions here, and leads to innumerable other social problems within the Wikipedia community. On the basis of my (extensive) experience participating in the Wikipedia, I feel that number two is the best choice, and should be the only choice allowed from this point forth.

I'd like to see Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia community finally acknowledge that despite the venerable tradition of anonymity in expressing political arguments such as those set out in the Federalist papers, the Wikipedia is or should be ultimately an encyclopedia, and as such, the need to ensure the veracity, balance, and integrity of information presented in Wikipedia articles, and therefore, to ensure the accountability and integrity of its editors, must in the end trump all other considerations. The political structure of Wikipedia is, or should be, only a means to the end of building an encyclopedia. Editing the Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Those who for whatever reason are unwilling to accept the same level of accountability voluntarily assumed by editors like myself should not be allowed to edit at all. Those who repeatedly and seriously abuse the privilege of editing (e.g. by vandalism, obstructive editing, threatening other users) should be evicted from the community. And should not expect to find it easy to sneak back in under an assumed identity.

I'd like to see Jimbo and the community bite the bitter bullet and acknowledge that continuing to allow unfettered ambiguity of wikidentities is simply not in the best interests of the project. I feel that the rules should be changed to state that everyone must provide some proof of identity to register (visible only to carefully admins--- but it surely doesn't help sell my proposal that I must immediately acknowledge that no-one but perhaps Jimbo had more privileges here than Essjay!) and must then either use their real name or choose once and for all a single pseudonym for their WP account. I note that all other public access forums with which I am familiar (save UseNet) strictly proscribe sockpuppetry, and while many users in such forums do attempt to evade such rules, at least they are clearly breaking a rule and can be summarily evicted when caught. (Few forums are comparable to Wikipedia in size and complexity, but I offer physicsforums.com as one small example.)

But the onus does not lie entirely on the shoulders of the individual editors. The Wikipedia leadership also bears a heavy responsibility in this social contract: the leadership (now that the ArbCom has been so badly compromised, perhaps the requisite leadership can come only from Jimbo himself) must provide clear, well organized, and maximally unambiguous policies and guidelines in order to ensure that all Wikipedia users know what is expected of them at all times--- or can find out what is expected of them in any given situation, without expending undue effort. Compare the physicsforums behavioral guidelines and privacy policy with the murky and disorganized shamble of Wikipedia policies. (Stacy Schiff refered to a "regulatory thicket", aptly suggesting a dark, thorny, and impenetrable place.)

Wikipedia provides a social environment in which to edit collaboratively. Because Wikipedia is (or was, five years ago) so innovative, this social environment has evolved rapidly, in part because it has by tradition been so flexible. But I feel that Jimbo and the community need to explicitly recognize that with one million articles (perhaps fifty thousand worth the ink they aren't printed with), Wikipedia is now a mature enterprise, perhaps the single most widely consulted information resource on planet Earth. I feel that the need for clarity, focus, stability, and integrity has for some time outweighed the former need for flexibility intended to ensure further rapid growth.---CH 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All men make mistakes. Accepting them is a sign of the good. But only the greatest can assume the consequences and follow the hard returning path -- Drini 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Time for some quiet thought

I am becoming increasing concerned about the effect all this is having personally on Essjay. Everyone (including me) has had their say. This continuous sniping and shooting that is still happening all over the site is now becoming nasty and unpleasant to watch. Essjay cannot be feeling very happy, or pleased with himself - so what is the point of continuing this? Nothing more can be said that will change things. Let's just now show some humane civilized behaviour and let him lick his wounds in peace, and come to his own conclusions. Giano 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, also seeing this post of Giano (and its endorsers), I would honestly feel very comfortable (just plainly happy) with a "Hey guys, back again, but give me some time to think things over… okay?" sort of I’am-alive-and-kinking kind of comeback. Looking forward to that. --Van helsing 18:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that any indication of moving forward at this point would be welcome. —Doug Bell talk 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be both pleased and relieved if this all went quiet until Essjay had a chance to reflect and reply. But this place runs on consensus, and that inevitably involves a lot of discussion. I strongly believe that discussion should be civil, cool-headed, respectful, and compassionate. But the point of letting discussion continue is that done right, it will help people come to terms with the strong emotions they are feeling. William Pietri 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano's post just above is perhaps the wisest thing on this whole page. I was thinking something similar, but he expressed it, and expressed it very well. Giano has called it right this time. Let Essjay absorb it all, and show him some compassion. Metamagician3000 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar from Banaticus

File:Resilient-silver.png The Resilient Barnstar
I haven't been around that long, but I had heard your name before this... enlightening period, and I had heard it as the name of someone who did a truly massive amount of work in keeping Wikipedia running. It was the name of someone who was personally responsible for stopping hundreds of vandals and banned sockpuppets from disrupting. I'm certainly not "committed" to Wikipedia on any level, but even I, as someone who uses Wikipedia for research/fact lookup often, have to acknowledge the incredible contributions you've made. Shocking as it may seem, none of those contributions, especially to helping the machine run smoothly, have diminished in value in the slightest since finding out that you made up an identity for yourself. So this barnstar is to certify that your two years+ of service is still the exact same after the Big Discovery as it was before - consider yourself the lucky first recipient of a barnstar from Banaticus. (This message was cadged from Milto LOL pia) Banaticus 19:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I demand one of those as well! -- Drini 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive setup (EssjayBotIII)

I believe the form should be like this: 

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<archivebot>
  <target>
    <page>User talk:Meteoroid</page>
    <archive>User talk:Meteoroid/Archive $A</archive>
    <mode>autoincrement</mode>
    <age>8</age>
    <counter>1</counter>
    <maxsize>50</maxsize>
  </target>
</archivebot>

can you explain this part of the code before integrating EssjayBotIII to my talk page: <counter>1</counter>

 Meteoroid »  19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay should be banned outright

This fraud of the most extreme example should be cause for a total and permanent blocking. This is far worse than any simple page vandalism. In fact, an admin recently attempted to permanently ban me simply for using the word "libel". Essjay's actions are hideous and deserves the ultimate penalty. --Jayzel 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how this is worse than a "simple page vandalism". Essjay's been one of our best editors for many years, so why should he deserve a block? Although he did have a false identity, he only did it to protect himself. As for you, you weren't banned for your use of the word "libel" only, but for your countless legal threats. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 21:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you were indefinitely blocked (not banned — two entirely different concepts) for a legal threat, which was removed when you retracted your threat. Please look up the definition of the word "indefinite". It does not mean permanent, it means that it has no definite end; in your case, the end came when you retracted your legal threat. At any rate, this is a completely irrelevant topic on Essjay's talk page, and I disagree with your assertion and feel it has no basis. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there should be criticism about this user. If possible, report this user to ArbCom.  Meteoroid »  21:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
did you miss the part where Essjay now runs Arbcom? ThuranX 21:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay doesn't run ArbCom. Other members can overrule his vote, and I doubt he's going to take part in the discussion, if he's keeping his silence.--K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 21:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but it'd still be suspect for any outcome OTHER than a block then, and so no matter what, the situation becomes tainted. ThuranX 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for the old line: "So, Jayzel, when'd you stop beating your wife?"

Anyhow, back to the topic at hand, perhaps Wikipedia should change it's name to Second Life II. Apparently, many of the hall monitor's here feel it's more important for the people who run this site "to protect their identity" by fabricating lies both online and to the media, while attempting to ban other users with bogus claims, than they are to building a credible encyclopedia. If that's the case, then there is no need to send me before you fake tribunal. I'd be more than happy to disassociate myself from this fraud all by my lonesome. Cheers! --Jayzel 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that it isn't important to protect your identity, then that is your opinion, and noone can change that. However, sometimes other people can feel the need for privacy, and if you can't understand other people's views, I suggest you don't edit here. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... At least read what other people are saying before snapping at them. Zocky | picture popups 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think Essjay should be banned, you're going to have to provide evidence to the ArbCom. There clearly isn't consensus for a community ban. It sounds like you have some hard feelings over your recent block, which was overturned. Instead of insulting Essjay, Wikipedia, and the Arbcom, try channeling that anger into improving articles or helping the encyclopedia. Clearly his actions are problematic, but do they overrule all of the good (and there has been quite a bit of good) he has done for the project? AniMate 01:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I am interested in now is how he responds to my question I proposed to him above. Here it is again: "Just curious, Essjay: How much did this reporter offer to pay you? I'm curious because she's a prize-winning journalist and, as I DO have a degree in journalism myself, I know it's considered unethical in the biz for reporters to pay for interviews." --Jayzel 02:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up.

I've just come from Peter M.Dodge's userpage and I wanted to clarify one thing. From my perspective, as I've explained previously, holding positions of trust when you are no longer trusted is inappropriate. But now you no longer hold them, I consider the situation rectified. "It’s not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you." I still think you're the nice, helpful user I've always known, and I would help you out with an article tomorrow if our interests meshed (though you're always welcome to join WP:LGBT :) It is my understanding you were an active editor even before you got any tools, and I'm sure the community would be delighted to have you start over as one again. And who knows what the future will hold? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, he does still hold them, at the time of this writing, see Listusers, he has been asked to step down by Jimbo. I believe he has not yet responded to this request, I think, understandably, he's taking the weekend off. Mak (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment

(cross-posted from the RfC; any replies should probably go there)

This situation rapidly escalated from a very controlled tempest on Essjay's talkpage into a raging firestorm across the project within a space of about two days. At this point, several hundred editors, and various outsiders, have reviewed and criticized many aspects of Essjay's statements and actions. No matter how strongly any editor may feel about any one or more of Essjay's actions or statements over the past two years, there is little more that remains to be said. Meanwhile, behind the persona of Essjay, is a real human being, with flaws but who clearly loved Wikipedia and Wikipedians, who has fallen from the top of the world to what he must find a very much lower place in a very short span of time—and as I observed last week in a very different context, an individual's mistakes and embarrassments that are captured in an online forum now follow the person for the rest of his or her life. No useful purpose can be served by piling on further criticism and, consistent with Giano's comments above, I urge that everyone immediately cease from doing so. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Metamagician3000 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we assume that he's embarrassed by his actions?
From what I've gathered exactly the opposite is true, i.e. he takes pride in his ability to pull one over on the lackadaisical media.
Perhaps there were subsequent interviews and/or public statements where he expressed remorse for his actions, but I'm not aware of them. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go read WP:AGF. pschemp | talk 01:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, read m:Don't be a dick. Cbrown1023 talk 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retired

Essjay Retired because of all the Dilema and its so sad that we are losing a very dedicated Editor...--Cometstyles 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&oldid=112480415"