User talk:Essjay/RFC/archive1

• How about semi-protecting this page, too, before it gets heavily trolled? – Chacor 14:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Could be a good idea - Skysmith 14:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Only when it becomes problematic. Anons are part of the community and “…these questions are to gauge community opinion…”. --Van helsing 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected the page. If Essjay's talk page is a good indicator, then there's going to be a fair amount of ugliness on here and it'd be preferable to keep this page a bit neater. Anons are indeed a part of the community, but they don't get to vote in RfBs, ArbCom elections and what not. I think this is of the same stripe. Anons are still free to join the discussion on the noticeboard itself. A Train ^{take the} 15:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not an RFC?

Maybe I'm ignorant, but why was this started as a Community noticeboard subpage rather than a formal RFC? -- nae'blis 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to RFC, but think this situation falls outside of normal protocol where community consensus carries weight, since decisions regarding this ultimately are up to Essjay and Jimbo. So, I think a petition format is the way to go, with people registering their opinions in one single place rather than the many talk pages and mailing list (and probably IRC too) as has been going on the past few days. --Aude (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

An RfC would make a lot more sense. It allows much more nuance and discussion. JoshuaZ 20:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

An RfC would also have the advantage of allowing people to vent without being forced into some sort of premature reaction to show how angry they are about this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Is there anything we can do to move this to an RFC away from this abomination of a straw poll? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to put this into perspective

"I've never deleted a userbox and I don't forsee myself getting involved with that in the future." - Cyde, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cyde. Milto LOL pia 15:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• As one of those who opposed Cyde's adminship on the userbox issue, I will say that these two things are worlds apart. The userboxes hardly made any dent to Wikipedia's reputation, since nobody outside Wikipedia noticed the Userbox wars of February 2006. This thing has a great potential of bringing Wikipedia into disrepute however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the future is now, and by and large I am no longer involved in them :-P Cyde Weys 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks need to end

Regardless of sentiments, surely everyone here knows that personal attacks are against policy. I think it is best for people to cease calling Essjay a "liar" and similar. He has had a reputation of being one of the least likely editors to be incivil, so even though many posting here are angry/disappointed/bewildered, doesn't give them the right to attack Essjay. State your case with some decency. Thanks.--MONGO 16:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Only to put your helpful remark in perspective, the word's an accurate description of his thoroughly documented and admitted behaviour and hence is not a personal attack. That said though, yeah, directly and wantonly putting into the form of a noun and calling him a "liar" could still needlessly stir things up. Gwen Gale 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much what I am trying to say is that it is one thing to state "I think he has been lying" and another to simply outright call him a "liar".--MONGO 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I used the word myself - probably unwise - but something being true doesn't make it any less of an attack. If I called Editor X an idiot and he truly was, that would not help anything. Milto LOL pia 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between labeling a claim a lie after both The New Yorker and the person who made the assertion have stepped forward to identify the statement as a deliberate and egregious falsehood - and labelling the individual who made it as a liar. The former is a reasonable statement of fact; the latter treads an ambiguous line between literal truth (the teller of one lie) and common understanding (a teller of habitual lies). I see no problem at all with calling the statement itself a lie. I prefer not to go beyond that in this situation. Durova^Charge! 20:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

New question

See Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay#Essjay.27s_word_should_not_be_taken_in_content_disputes - this is what the encyclopedic (i.e. not related to Wikipedia's irrelevant public image) concerns are mostly about, and seems to be the thing people are most pissed about regarding internal affairs. Maybe focusing the RAGE AND HATRED on this subject will show people how irrelevant his credentials are to his past vandalfighting/maintenance stuff. Milto LOL pia 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't been noticing, but there are quite a few instances where Essjay used his purported expertise to attempt to sway opinions on content. That's dishonest, at the very least. Essjay may very well be knowledgeable about Catholic theology (in fact, he does appear to be quite well-informed), but as bad as appealing to authority is, appealing to false authority is that much worse (as it indicates a willingness to lie to achieve one's ends). As far as vandalfighting goes, Essjay is just a drop in the bucket; the wiki will not stop working if Essjay stops doing vandal management (he never was very consistent at doing it in the first place). Kelly Martin (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt

Why is Brandt's role in this even being considered? Don't let him influence any Wikipedia opinions if you hate him so much. The idea that "this sucks more because Brandt was the one who put it together" seems wrong to me. Milto LOL pia 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We need better straws

The present bunch of questions is too focused on Essjay. I fear we are not asking the community anything useful. The community cannot (and shouldn't) arbitrate, and the community shouldn't (and cannot) demand anything from an unpaid volunteer. Whether Essjay should resign from his posts is an argument between him and his conscience. If the community wants externally enforced repercussions, a case must be brought before the people who are tasked with arbitration— why isn't it there yet? Another thing the community can and should do is figure out what Wikipedia can learn from this incident and how to prevent future incidents of this nature. I propose the following questions (with my responses filled in because I like signing my name). — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed my proposal as this is now troll central and I have better ways to spend my evening. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What a load of crap

This is nothing but an enormous personal attack and should be deleted in its entirety. What do you epxect to do with this "straw poll" which has not been at all advertised? Assume that Essjay will immediately get down on his knees and abide by any results which would come from this bogus vote? And since when did Wikipedia become a democracy, anyway? If you have a problem with Essjay, file an RfA, this is not going to do anything but make people yell at each other. Corvus cornix 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Like how people are going to yell at you for your deletion nomination of this page? Seriously. – Chacor 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a public poll is not necessarily the best way to handle this. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The poll has been rather civil from what I've seen. There's nothing inherently wrong with gauging editors' opinions through a straw poll, especially with the understanding that it's not intended to decide on what action(s) should be taken. At a minimum it lets people vent their frustration in a central forum that other can easily avoid or ignore if they so choose. ChazBeckett 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a big problem, or a personal attack, but I do think it would make sense to give Essjay more chance to respond to the already substantial calls for him to step down before seeking to quantify support for his resignation. Presumably he will say something more on this issue, and we should now wait to hear it, at least for a reasonable time. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the usual rule on a wiki is that failure to object = consent. See Wikipedia:Consensus. So intentionally deferring opinions can be seen as supporting rather than as just waiting. I think that the vast majority of those indicating that Essjay's actions weren't acceptable and he should step down are administrators, I'm certain that the majority are well established editors, mostly in good standing. GRBerry 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Watch and hivemind are loving all of this drama, I'm sure. Corvus cornix 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And in response to Christopher Parham, this is an ongoing news story in which every hour of delay deepens the embarrassment to the project. Essjay, whose falsehoods placed us all in this uncomfortable position, has an ethical obligaton to atone for his mistakes as swiftly as possible. Since he refuses to address this adequately and appropriately, the most the rest of us can do is to be diligent, rapid, and thoughtful in our own responses. Durova^Charge! 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think "rapid" and "thoughtful" are reconcilable concepts. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you even know what you're talking about? Wikipedia-Watch and Hivemind are two websites run by the same person. They're not "communities". And since when did we let him set the policy on Wikipedia anyway? --Cyde Weys 20:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you feel the need to be excessively abrasive today? Corvus cornix 23:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

Simple question: what did Essay do? With diffs, plz. And I strongly suggesting posting a summary on top of the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For some time, Essjay claimed to hold a PhD degree in a determined subject, but lately he confirmed to The New Yorker he did not hold such degree, and that he had invented a fake avatar to protect himself in real life. Some people are concerned that he did use his fictional degree to intimidate others editing articles (here and here), making him unsuitable for arbcom, oversight, bureaucrat or even administrator access. Others like to troll around. And who knows, maybe there are some who are after his bits, wouldn't surprise me. -- ReyBrujo 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some also believe that this means that we can't trust him, because he lied to the community for so long. If we don't trust him, he shouldn't hold positions that require trust. GRBerry 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

and some others beleive that by lying in a national press about his nonexistant qualification, whil being quoted and putting himself forward as a leading Wikipedia editor he has brought the whole project into disrepute. Giano 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy closes of the mfd discussion and removal of the mfd tag from this page

What are people afraid of? That enough sympathy for Essjay will develop when people see how so many people are ganging up on him? What's wrong with letting a deletion discussion run its normal course? Corvus cornix 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Slightly ironic when the deletion discussion is about stopping another discussion. If the MfD followed its normal course, then this discussion would be mostly over before it closed, so just let things be. Trebor 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

These edits by FCYTravis make it perfectly clear just what this page is being used for. Corvus cornix 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No. They make it perfectly clear what one editor is using this page for (and I'm not passing judgement either way on his comments). Don't make false generalisations. Trebor 19:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I really like how people can defend the existence of this page when it was created by someone very against the user in question. This whole !vote is completely pointless until the heat of the matter is gone and people are able to vote in a proper format, to actual effect, and with everyone starting with level heads. The MfD meanwhile is not being given a fighting chance. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this whole thing now go to a proper RFC? That's a much better format for this kind of thing. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the worry is that Essjay's behaviour has been approved by Jimbo. Obviously, some editors with all kinds and sundry PoVs might hope to spin it to their advantage. Meanwhile it all draws more traffic and attention to Wikipedia and fame is the name of the game :) Gwen Gale 20:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So what that Jimbo agrees? Fine. He has his POV. The community needs to discuss this and build consensus - its the wiki way and throwing this out for no valid reason simply gives our detractors even more ammo. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's what's going on now. Anyway WP has both strengths and flaws, it's not "us" and "them," at least, not for me. Gwen Gale 20:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> that's why we should avoid a vote - it creates us and them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's what the hoi paloi want, so they get a toothless vote. I think I can even figure out which side wants to vote, so that I can pick a side! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)