User talk:Essjay/RFC

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Essjay/archive1

Retructure the RfC?

Although the notice at the top states it doesn't conform to normal RfC format, I feel that maybe it should be changed so it does. While this matter is unique, it really doesn't deserve special treatment IMO. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this page only just became an RFC five minutes ago. --BigDT 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting my ideas and opinions out now before it's too late. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Any attempt to restructure this as an RFC will obviously fail. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so sure - it can be done. And please, next time archive with more care :-( --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While I hate to sound like a defeatist, I can't help but agree with Hipocrite. Refactoring a 250+ edit discussion page into the RfC format wouldn't be possible at this point. This is especially true since RfC format requires detailed opening statements with evidence, which we didn't have at the beginning, and you can't fill them in retroactively without annulling all the affirm/rejects that have been given already. --tjstrf talk 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone were to just delete the worthless voting up top... Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive it and start again is the best way forwardSpartaz ^Humbug! 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry just did the deed. I'm going to move two sections concerning process to this talk page and just leave the sections discussing Essjay's conduct. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Boldly moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay/Straw Poll and archived. GRBerry 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing of the MFD

Is there any good reason for it to have been closed three hours after it was open and with a determination that was completely unrelated to what anyone in the MFD suggested? Good grief, it's not a vote, but when we close these things, we should at least try and do something resembling the consensus. All of the keep/delete arguments still hold whether it's called an RFC or a (female dog) session. --BigDT 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO this was the best resolution. Deleting would have caused just as much tarting as keeping. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the keep opinions were (at least in spirit, and often in words) of the sense that "this is just the same as an RfC". Making it an RfC subpage is certainly in line with those opinions. (Mine was one such.) GRBerry 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Listing this RFC

I have listed this as an approved admin conduct RFC as this all seems to be around whether Essjay abused the communities trues and whether he should keep his various roles. Feel free to disagree and move it to user conduct if you think that is better. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this has any chance of being conventional, what with the way it was started. Speaking of which, where are all the old ocmments? Milto LOL pia 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you mean the old RFCs they are still there, just not listed. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree with the placement, as the issues raised in this RfC do not address his conduct in any of his administrative roles, instead dealing with him as an editor (or perhaps more accurately, him as a person). --tjstrf talk 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I see you moved it. On reflection I agree with you. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Refactored

Users who do not endorse this summary (re BigDT)

1. Juvenile wording of a juvenile concept. I take this quite seriously and I hope other thoughtful contributors do as well. Durova^Charge! 20:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   Good grief ... I take it seriously too, but I'm also a realist. Jimbo just appointed EssJay to arbcom even after the "scandal" broke. Nothing is going to happen so it's not worth my time to devote too terribly much time and energy into it. --BigDT 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   Don't be so sure nothing is going to happen. Had Jimbo known this was going to happen, he wouldn't have appointed Essjay, and it's not too late to revoke that appointment. Or the community could force ArbCom to take action, or lose their mandate. --Cyde Weys 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   Yep. Jimbo's not actually stupid. Gwen Gale 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

2. It's a little out of proportion to be worrying that this poll is what's going to cause embarrassment for Wikipedia... —Doug Bell ^talk 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. 1) Jimbo will probably read at least some discussion. 2) Centralizing this firestorm will be helpful, and this could be a way of centralizing it. 3) If no actions are taken, I expect an RfAR to be opened, at which this will be evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, and probably also evidence of community opinion. GRBerry 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Users that disagree with this summary (re Hipocrite finding of fact)

1. Note regarding DOug Bell's comment below: I endorse that he did it to evade those type of people, not Brandt per se. Although it might have been Brandt per se, in which case, he failed. Milto LOL pia 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Essjay was engaging in this behavior prior to the existence of those outside influences. GRBerry 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. (2x ec) Uh, hello. Didn't Brandt figure out the deception? —Doug Bell ^talk 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. (edit conflicted) I completely reject this argument. Essjay might have used his "deception" to spoof would-be stalkers; unfortunately he also used it to gain leverage in debates with other Wikipedia users. You can find a good sampling of some of these edits compiled here by Doc Glasgow. Essjay's actions completely undermine the bedrock principle of assuming good faith and are a discredit to Wikipedia. Pseudonyms are fine, but to assume a persona in order to exploit the greater intellectual currency it creates is reprehensible and inexcusable. A Train ^{take the} 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Putting it on his user page: maybe. I favor mouse pictures myself. :-) Writing "I am also a tenured professor of theology" in a letter to an actual professor that he had no reason to suspect of being a stalker? No. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   I wonder, has an apology and a retraction been issued to the professor Essjay lied to? —Doug Bell ^talk 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

5. While Essjay's desire for anonymity is completely understandable, his claim to qualifications he did not posses was completely unnecessary. MartinMcCann 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Threaded discussion to Heigoland

Oh, give me a break. Hundreds of people are upset about this. Maybe 5 people tops might stand any chance of acquiring some of those tools from this. If that handful of people in line for top tools does not have more integrity than you suggest, then we're pretty much doomed as a project anyway. Derex 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a very jaundiced view of what is motivating people to be so upset here. Essjay has done a grave disservice to both the project and the community, he need to return to the ranks and re-earn (if that is possible) the community's trust. Giano 21:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. Your ridiculous assumptions of ulterior motives have no place here. --Cyde Weys 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite terms I would use. however the assertion is fairly easy to test by lloking at those who would logicaly be next in line for abcom and seeing that they have not commented.Geni 01:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to JzG

Is the irony of using a strawpoll to delete a strawpoll because strawpolls aren't useful intentional? Derex 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but it would only be a strawpoll if we listened to the other side. Right now it's just people saying what they DO think, which is more constructive than getting in camps. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Background?

I strongly suggest adding a "Background" section to clarify the situation. I've seen several users on IRC confused regarding this because the discussions linked don't give much information to start with. This should also be an evident part of each RFC discussion, even if we choose to style this one a bit differently. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it's confusing if you haven't been following. Getting people to agree on the wording might be a whole other issue though. Trebor 21:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to agree on the wording. Users can add outside/opposing views if they disagree. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by BigDT

Removed from main page after straw poll was archived

Without endorsing EssJay's actions, this straw poll is pointless because nothing is going to happen as a result and it only gives people who oppose Wikipedia something to point at and laugh --BigDT 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. --BigDT 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Consensus building is the wiki way and this thing is just a mess. An RFC is the correct format for this to allow discussion and consensus building. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Agreed. This section here might help.

Removal of the straw poll

Removed from main page

The straw poll is a poor substitute for reasoned debate, encourages factionalism, invites people to gather a mob for a ticklist of sanctions and is in sundry other ways an impediment to rational discussion. It should be marked as archived or removed.

1. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Absolutely, Lets do this properly. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
5. JoshuaZ 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Yes. I like the 'sundry other ways' bit, I could probably come up with 10 off the top of my head. Sam Blacketer 21:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Don't object, but let's leave at least the pointers to prior discussion visible. It can stand (after some expansion) as the replacement for "evidence of prior attempts to resolve this". Admittedly, from the perspective of most Wikipedians, this thing came out of nowhere in the last 48 hours or so... GRBerry 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Delete per nom. *cough* PTO 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Most definitely agreed, this is basically a lynch mob signup sheet at present and a fine example of where WP:VIE applies. Archive it somewhere. --tjstrf talk 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the irony of using a strawpoll to delete a strawpoll because strawpolls aren't useful intentional? Derex 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, the magic of Wikipedian logic means that if you went and changed all those #s to *s and wrote "Users who endorse this course of action" above the section it wouldn't be a straw poll anymore. You can do that if it makes you feel better. --tjstrf talk 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Cryptic

Removed from main page

Closing and hiding a well-advanced discussion because you disagree with its format is a monumentally stupid thing to do.

I'd try and write something relevant to the subject, but I don't like repeating myself, and I have no confidence that it wouldn't just be buried, too. —Cryptic 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yeah, it was not much more than misguided page blanking. Gwen Gale 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Agreed - Skysmith 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom's knowledge

Should we be told the precise date that the Arbcom was first made aware of this matter, and what action they decided to take - or not take?

likely early feb although further detials have come to light since then.Geni 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Typical bullshit

I am so sick of people not being allowed to express views on Wikipedia because little busy-bots don't approve of the exact fashion in which the views were expressed. No one said it was a freaking strawpoll. Many people, including me, elaborated on their views. It was a structured way to organize commentary. Ok, so no polls. How about discussion. Whoops, no. "Threads are not allowed". I see, so we can't provide organized feedback. We can't discuss. What exactly is the effing point. Truly, truly, fed up. Pitiful. Derex 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Its how an RFC is supposed to work. Its supposed to promote consensus. Its probably got its work cut out here though. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in part with Derex (and I'm the one that archived). I think the "no discussion" rule for User conduct RfCs is something that makes it harder for them to work, and that this rule should be changed in general. But I did the archive because it is better than getting things deleted, and having a discussion in two different formats is not helpful. GRBerry 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can discuss right here, on this talk page. This is the page for discussion. That is the page for comments. RFC's can work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If y'all agreed with the comments you wouldn't have buried them. Gwen Gale 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've buried every threaded discussion I've noticed. I buried the entire strawpoll, both positive and negative. What side, exactly, am I on? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My impression is you're not happy about the bogus CV but you're worried the criticism of Essjay is way too hard on him. I have the impression you're also waiting to see how/if Jimbo responds to the flurries of reaction to his remark that Essjay's behaviour was "nothing to see here, move along, move along..." Gwen Gale 23:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Like a lot of things related to this matter, the original 'discussion' was thrown together quite quickly and generated a lot of interest. However, things need to be conducted properly if they are to work. The previous 'straw poll' (commonly used term) was not achieving as much as it could have done had it been started in the right location and the standard format. It served as an example of how not to do things IMO.

Hipocrite, you're probably on the side of Wikipedia, supporting standard protocol/procedure. By doing that, you're not expressing a view on the topic either way. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 22:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not in conventional RFC format because it's not a conventional RFC, it's a lynching party. (Especial congratulations to PullToOpen's valiant removal of me daring to point that out - don't want to interrupt the party spirit, or something.) Removing sections that are not in conventional RFC format would entail removing the whole thing - David Gerard 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, David, I actually put some thought into what I wrote. I resent your casual dismissal of my and others' concerns. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling this a lynching party is a personal attack. Make up your own "rules" as you go though. :) Gwen Gale 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more a straw man than a personal attack. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just whining. You only make yourself look foolish by saying "This RFC is stupid!" and then participating in it. Friday (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be. It's a tactic. Damage control through ridicule. Not helpful, not very effective. Gwen Gale 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, David, have you found any of your little sarcastic one-liners to be helpful in actually calming things down? If you had any sort of social clue, you would know that that they serve only to further polarize the situation and make "the other side" even angrier. Had you written a couple of sentences saying "This RFC is not needed. Essjay made some youthful indiscretions more than a year ago, which I'm sure he regrets, and hasn't abused his powers here. After what's been written on his talk page, let's give him a change to respond.", I would agree with you a 100%. Instead you have to ridicule others and be dismissive of their concerns. Again, this is a recurring pattern, so cut it out please. also it's one of your pals (or is it former pal?), whom you wasted many of your oh-so-brilliant one liners on, leading the "mob" [1] [2] [3]

Lovely, so now having been told we can't have a strawpoll, we can't have a threaded discussion, we MUST ONLY DO AN RFC. Now, we are told that the RFC will be DELETED for not following the correct procedure. You really, really ought to think more than a few times before you delete the commentary of hundreds of upset Wikipedians because the format you forced the discussion into is suddenly no longer suitable. The certification thing is meant to keep frivolous RFC's off here. Does anyone besides D. Gerard think this is frivolous? It's not like this little GFDL'd discussion is going to just vanish from the Internet if it gets deleted, I think you know that well. There is no cabal. Derex 01:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Procedure question...

If nothing comes of this rfc does arbcom actually have authority here? i.e. if someone filed vs. Essjay for some sort of sanction? Not sure what the limit of their mandate is. - Denny 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom probably won't sanction Essjay, but they could be asked to make a comment on the situation. PTO 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they can remove him from ArbComm, but they can remove any other rights. Whether they would or not is a different question. GRBerry 23:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think this really is a matter that is best settled by Jimbo alone, as the Arbcom can claim they have no juridiction over off-wiki comments - even those as serious as this. However they can pass comment and advise their colleague Essjay informally of the best solution to his problems.Giano 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This will be settled by Jimbo alone. Gwen Gale 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's his wiki. Gwen Gale 23:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom can claim they have no juridiction over off-wiki comments - Essjay's lies about his qualifications (the core of the whole problem) were made on-wiki. MartinMcCann 23:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia management recommended Essjay to the reporter for the interview. Essjay lied about his CV whilst nominally representing WP. This lie wound up in a widely printed article in the real world. Personally I don't think arbcomm has a shred of authority on this one, I think it's Jimbo's call but I'm commenting because doing so seems acceptable and helpful. Gwen Gale 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why only Jimbo? Why not the whole Wikimedia foundation? Andries 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He may listen to them for clues or whatever but in the end call it as he sees fit for his goals. This is not a remarkable thing by the bye. Gwen Gale 23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, not by Jimbo Wales. In fact, Jimbo Wales isn't even the ranking member on the Board; Florence Nibart-Devouard is. However, the Board does tend not to deal with local wiki issues, and Jimbo has been the resident God-king on the English Wikipedia. But the Board could change their mind and get involved, and overrule even Jimbo. --Cyde Weys 01:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary indent reset)

There are many instances where Essjay has violated the spirit of good faith by plying his falsified credentials upon discussions and other editors' efforts in an effort to effect content. Furthermore, his positions are ones that require community trust (WP:ADMIN mentions trust in its first few sentences) and that has now shown to have been violated. To what degree should be up to the community. While the ARBCOM may not be able to rule upon itself (for obvious reasons), it should definitely remain able to determine actions upon other aspects of Essjay's role on Wikipedia (barring word from on-high from Jimbo). ju66l3r 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the only pith of what I was saying is the last word'll be Jimbo's. Gwen Gale 23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically the buck stops at the whole Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation (linky), but that's the right idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The legal situation concerning Wikipedia authority is quite clear. The content of Wikipedia is owned by the contributors but licensed under a copyleft copyright license that gives anybody the right to reproduce it and to modify it so long as they retain data on the contributors. The hardware is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation which is a non-profit organization under an educational charter run by its board of directors of which Wales is but one member, and no longer its chairman. The community is free to stay or fork anytime it chooses, but practically that rests on the ability to raise funds for servers and the ability to act as a group. Wales is the acknowleged leader of the Wikipedia community. In practical terms this means that only behavior that drives funding away from the foundation to a proposed fork will result in Wales losing power. I think he will act wise enough not to do that. WAS 4.250 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Only to put that another way, without Jimbo WP would likely crash and burn within months. He's built a stunning combination of a mega high traffic social network, structured meta blog and role playing MUD which happens to look like a functioning encyclopedia to Google. Gwen Gale 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, regular contributors and followers of this matter outside of Wikipedia's community are only going to be satisfied when Jimbo makes the final word and gives the final outcome. Should this generate (further?) media interest, Jimbo will be the one they'll wanna hear from. Anything anyone else says is 'rumour'. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 00:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It purports to desire to become an encyclopedia, and certainly wishes to appear to be one. The incident shows that it is not an encyclopedia, and that the desire to become one is flaccid. Probably, "we want it to look like an encyclopedia," is enough to keep contributors playing the game. That would be the "hold on to valuable Essjay" option. - 207.229.151.91 01:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It will be settled by Jimbo, because he's the only one with the 'moral authority' to resolve it. He's the one who appointed Essjay to Arbcom knowing of at least some of the problem. The issues here are beyond established policy, so Arbcom has no jurisdiction. I think the consequences for morale will be extremely severe if Jimbo passes the buck on this one. Derex 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse the outside finding of fact by User:Hipocrite

1. Respectfully if that was his only motivation, why would he "reveal" it to anyone who found him on Wikia. He even stated on his Wikia page that he edits as Essjay, which I feel is counter productive in maintaining anonymity. Anynobody 03:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
2. It was not the "deception" which prevented his RL identity being acquired. It was the fact that he had a non-RL user name, as do many editors whose identity likewise cannot be acquired. The "deception" was completely unnecessary for this purpose. Tyrenius 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Vehemently disagree. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
4. I consider the reasoning a logical fallacy. His trumped up resume, use of academic stature in debate, coupled with his quick rise to having every bit possible, is more likely to gathered intrigue and caused him to have come under the watchful eye of Wikipedia critics. Without his mainspace edits under false pretences, critics wouldnt have gone to the lengths they did to pin down his identity. There are many editors here on Wikipedia that have successful kept their identity under wraps. To imply that this was a useful and that the ends justifies the means is distasteful. John Vandenberg 06:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved from the main page per this: On user conduct RfCs, do not create "disendorsement" sections on RfCs. If you disagree with something someone else has said, you may add your own separate statement explaining why you disagree. Do not create a "Users who do not agree with this summary" section, or the equivalent. This tends to be a confrontational act that is not productive. -- ReyBrujo 05:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Lied repeatedly about himself..."

There's been discussion covering whether lying about oneself is really a problem. I just noticed an RfC that Essjay filed against another user back in August 2005. Included among the charges was this:[4]

• Lied repeatedly about himself, and attacked users who questioned his claims
  • Claims to be a fifteen year old.
  • Claims to have "passed the Florida bar exam last year."
  • Claims to have an NYU law degree.
  • Etc.

Following that RfC he filed an RfAr, which included these charges:[5]

• ...repeated lies and disinformation about himself...
• He claims to be a well-credentialed contributor (an attorney with a JD from NYU)...

So Essjay apparently considered lying about oneself or ones credentials to be a serious enough issue to include in these cases. (Although the lying was perhaps the least of the charges.) For reference, Essjay added the Category:Teacher Wikipedians to his user page just the day before filing the RfC,[6] and made another apparently false addition to his user page two weeks earlier.[7]-Will Beback · † · 06:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

He also put these fake credentials on meta:List of Wikimedians by college major or degree ([8] and [9]). and listed himself on meta:Bipolar Wikimedians and meta:Queer Wikimedians. These are far worse in my opinion because it was not his user page, and others listed on the pages have reason to be offended. John Vandenberg 06:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Will, this evidence ought to be on the RFC project page. Please put it there and copy my strong endorsement. This proves hypocrisy. Durova^Charge! 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted this before I saw Jimbo Wales's new message asking Essjay to resign.[10] I don't know that further material is needed on the RfC. If you think so feel free to post it there. -Will Beback · † · 07:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So, this is an example of what a wonderful benefit to wikipedia he has been. Reminds me of firemen who light fires so they can be a hero by putting them out. Has anyone taken a really close look at the so called vandalism unit he ran? WAS 4.250 08:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep and he's been asked to resign. There's more stuff like this going on here, one can only wait and see which way the wind blows cuz it's puffed by Jimbo. Gwen Gale 08:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In light of Jimbo's statement this becomes less important, but may still be worth posting since Essjay hasn't acted yet. I think I've said my bit on this whole matter so I'll leave for someone else to bring to the main RFC page. Durova^Charge! 22:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone explain at the top of the RfC what it is about?

Hi all, as a more or less departed Wikipedian (my user talk page is protected because of persistent harrassment/vandalism from anon socks for a permabanned user, but I can be reached by using the email feature if anyone really needs to talk to me), perhaps I have no place here, but this comes as such a shock to me that I'd like to comment in the RfC. Indeed, since I

1. contributed to WP under my real name,
2. was accused (falsely) by a (recently semi-banned) Wikipedian of misrepresenting my own terminal degree,
3. was accused (falsely) of being a composite author, of owning sockpuppet accounts and otherwise misrepresenting myself at WP,
4. was subjected to extensive and well-documented harrassment, both on and off-wiki, of the kind which Essjay apparently wished to avoid,
5. was the author of several user space essays (deleted upon my departure) examing various thorny "wikisocial problems" ensuing from the lack of a single known identity for every Wikipedian, leading to a disturbing inequity of accountability for one's edits,

I can't help feeling that I am well qualified to speak out on this matter.

Since I haven't been active here in quite a while, perhaps I really am the only one in Wikipedia space who is puzzled! But with your collective indulgence, let me see if I have the facts of the matter straight.

Last year, Stacy Schiff penned an excellent portrait of the Wikipedia and profiled some Wikipedians, including User:Essjay. Since I recall that article very well, I don't need to be reminded that Schiff described Essjay much as he described himself on his user page, as a tenured professor of Theology at an anonymous (!) college. While AFAIK during my time at Wikipedia (c. June 2005-Sept 2006) I never encountered Essjay myself, I had the vague impression that he has long been one of the central linchpins precariously holding together the sociopolitical foundations of the Wikipedia, and I take it that there is widespread agreement that Essjay has been an extremely valuable contributor in many ways, including service on the Mediation and Arbitration Committees. But I take it that recently, as part of the process of accepting a paid position with Wikia, Essjay divulged that he had fabricated from whole cloth the previous self-description on his user page, of which, at the present time, some traces remain (search for "I am a catholic scholar", which appears to be inconsistent with EssJay's current self-description, which reads in part: "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"). This revelation certainly comes as a shock to me, and it was also news to the New Yorker (see the editorial note recently appended to the New Yorker article I linked to above). I take it that Daniel Brandt was not involved in Essjay's decision to reveal the truth, but that Brandt commented at his website after the fact. And I take it that Jimbo Wales told the New Yorker that he regarded Essjay's "disinformation" as a mere "pseudonym", apparently implying that he attached little importance to Essjay's deceptive self-description on his user page and in various comments throughout his career as a Wikipedian. (Edit: not true, as it turns out: I just noticed that I while I was writing this paragraph, Jimbo clarified his position and Essjay to resign, which I feel would be appropriate and which might render this RfC moot, although surely the discussion of how this happened should and will continue.) As a final irony, Stacy Schiff is also the author of a book on the marriage of Vladimir Nabokov, a writer widely recognized for his elaborate misdirections, masquerades, and many other ambiguities. Is that about right?

Some procedural questions: I've been away for a while, and what Stacy Schiff memorably referred to as "the regulatory thicket"seems to be rapidly evolving. Is it permissible to add a short endorsement to each of the outside views with which one might agree? Or is it still the custom to pick just one statement which you agree with, or else to write your own statement? I don't recall having seen an RfC with so many outside views before! And please stop me now if there is some rule against returning from the wikidead to comment in an RfC.---CH 07:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your status as an editor in good standing is still as valid as anyone else's even if you have been "wikidead", so comment away. You can endorse as many statements as you wish, write your own summary, or even do both. --tjstrf talk 09:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But, respected CH, you do make it rather difficult to "talk" about this issue with you, when you speak from the dead through a crystal ball, leaving your TALK page dead and now off-topic here (since we're discussing Wikipedia-specific structural problems now, not Essjay). Have any suggestions about where I/we can answer you? SBHarris 21:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice: I unprotected and unredirected User talk:Hillman (CH) to allow discourse. This is in no way meant as any affront to CH's desire to leave and only meant to accommodate current circumstances. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize I'd gotten this suspicious...

Whatever I might try to tell myself, this whole thing really has made me lose my trust in Essjay more completely that I'd even admitted to myself. I came to that realization when I, just after commenting on this RfC, saw a routine edit to WT:AN by EssjayBot II on my watchlist, and found myself taking a look at the diff.

You know, just to make sure it really was doing what it said it was.

I feel vaguely ashamed now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is gonna get really big really fast

....and we may want to consider splitting up some of these outside views into seperate subpages. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

new background section

Someone needs to give that thing a good npov scrubbing. I don't have time to do it myself, just peeking in. ... e.g. Essjay's habitual use, that's not in evidence. Derex 22:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion respectfully declined

An extremely respected administrator and editor, whose contributions I value enormously and whose current status within the project is a source of grief to me, has just tagged this RfC for speedy deletion with the designation: "db|Technical reason: In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed - this criterion has not been met - and since Essjay has not been given adequate time to respond to talk page comments there has been no real attempt at all. Real reason: this is no longer helping anyone."

I am sympathetic to the view that this page has outlived its purpose and, in particular, that further additions to it should no longer be made. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay#Outside view by Newyorkbrad which I added within the past 15 minutes. I would welcome a strong show of endorsements to my view, along with Giano's higher on the page, in the hope of preventing further damage to the human being who underlies this dispute.

However, this RfC was created as an alternative to a "straw poll" that was originally created to address issues concerning Essjay's conduct and status within the project. If it does not meet all the requirements for a traditional user-conduct request for conduct, it is too late to seek out yet another alternate forum. Too much time has already been wasted in meta-discussion, as witnessed in a comment I made in a thread yesterday on ANI addressing the fact that we were discussing whether there had been sufficient discussion of deleting a discussion of the discussion that was created from the overflow of another discussion.

To parallel the form of the speedy nomination, a "real reason" for not speedy deleting is that doing so at this stage will unfortunately escalate, rather than reduce, the drama already underway both on this project and elsewhere.

Accordingly, I have respectfully declined the speedy delete nomination and stricken the speedy tag. Newyorkbrad 00:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put it back because a convenient gross violation remains a gross violation. Could someone else please treat this lynching party page in the manner it deserves? Thanks - David Gerard 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the above was written before Essjay announced he is resigning all his positions and leaving Wikipedia. See User talk:Essjay. See below for discussion (I hope) of whether there is any value to retaining the RfC pages at this time. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unendorsed RFC - to be killed

I would kill it myself if I hadn't posted at length on its bogosity. This page is people trying to use something that looks a bit like an RFC for a public lynching. Per all rules of RFCs, it should be killed. Could someone please do so? Thanks - David Gerard 00:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As noted just above, I want to see this end as much as anyone. See the outside view I just posted. But "killing" it will only make the situation worse, alas. The discussion needs to end because Wikipedians realize it is long past time to end it. Newyorkbrad 00:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Occasionally one does in fact have to say "shut up and stop being a disgrace" and then deal with the continuing noise as an ongoing issue. That's why the rule on deleting uncertified RFCs - David Gerard 00:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in a note in AN, this RFC allows users to expel everything they have, and indirectly, to accept the matter and go on. Closing it will only make the topic continue to pop up. At least here it is a controlled environment. -- ReyBrujo 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only reason that this RFC spiraled out of control is that it lacked direction. Even if Essjay left his statement here, the masses would criticize it in even more "outside views". I pushed for its creation earlier, but I'm sad that it has turned into a giant pool of shit. PTO 00:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I will delete this page, if no one else does, under the 48 hour rule, at 21:21 UTC March 4, 2007, but invite others to consider doing so before that. It is not wikilawyering, we don't allow uncertified RfCs for good reason.--Doc^g 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting this will just cause more of a shitstorm. Jimbo's reacted appropriately, let's just let the thing wind down. Given that, it will. Essjay's going to need some time to recover, and so are all of us. Having this go to DRV will just cause the wound to stay open longer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion started elswhere and was moved here as a more appropriate venue. Move it back to community noticeboard if you wish but to move it here just to kill it is against everything that the arbcom proposed decision about the Brandt deletion admin dispute shows is agreed to by arbcom. Shutting down talk because you know better than the community is arrogant and harmful. Let people talk and stop saying shutup in wiki-talk euphamisms. WAS 4.250 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be a terrible idea if this were to be deleted. Sweeping it under the rug has no advantages, especially given that this will inevitably spill into other areas (for example, the community noticeboard) and basically be completely unruly. This issue should be brought to whatever conclusion it will reach on this page. .V. _[Talk|Email] 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict x2)I was going to say essentially the same thing that WAS 4.250 said. Did we learn nothing from the Daniel Brandt wheel war? The lack of a discussion venue makes things MUCH worse. I think it should be moved back to the community noticeboard. Once it's moved there, STOP MESSING WITH IT, and let the discussion run its course. Please? PTO 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We delete uncertified RfCs after 48 hours for a reason. Essjay has as much right to be protected from nastiness dragged out as any other wikipedian.--Doc^g 00:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea: We IAR and let the discussion go a while. Or move it. But don't delete it. PTO 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You will not protect Essjay by deleting this RfC, don't kid yourself. It'll just go to DRV, or another RFC on someone else over deleting it, or a wheel war that will result in far more grief. It's already winding down, as long as no one throws fuel on the fire, it will. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the situation is closed. Though Jimbo has apologized and made statements, it's likely he still is reviewing the situation more fully. For his sake and the community, it should stay for now. This is an unusual situation where normal rules need not necessarily apply. --Aude (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This not just about Essjay. Wikipedia has serious issues concerning credibility and accountablity and this episode has made them worse but can be used to illustrate some of our problems in order to try to successfully address them. The community needs to be given time to go through its own process in its own way of moving from denial to learning the facts to emotional reaction to expressing themselves to moving on to deal with the illustated issues of accountability and credibility. Rushing the process will not help. Leading might help. But many of Wikipedials leaders are still in denial over the fact that there is a credibility and accountability problem at wikipedia. WAS 4.250 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fucking hell. This isn't about the project any more. It isn't about us feeling pissed off with Essjay. He's 24, he's been a dick, and he'll resign his position and probably leave the project. This is about real life now, and real person, who role played with an on-line sight - but didn't really do anyone any harm. Yes, he acted badly, yes we're all in a self-righteous rage. But do you really want to take responsibility for fucking up someone's real life. Think how he is feeling right now. And consider that in 10 years when he goes for a job interview (or sooner if Wikia.com sacks him) then a potential employer will google 'Ryan Jordon' and get 400 hits that say 'liar'. That's totally disproportionate to 'the needs of the community' to have a lynching right now. And that's why this needs to stop, and as much of it as possible needs to be erased. Remember that we are human beings first and wikipedians second.--Doc^g 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So, delete it in 6 months. Complaints about unemployment in ten years because of this RFC are not serious stuff. Essjay is far from the first person to be dragged through arbcom or RFC. Do you think it feels good for anyone? Why is Essjay special in that regard, he's arguably harmed Wikipedia far more than most who get put here, though without malice. All you're going to accomplish is having two people step up and certify this. Or, it's going to be moved somewhere else. I have plenty of empathy for Essjay, but telling the hundreds of people who have commented here that their comments have to be deleted because of something like that is the absolute height of arrogance. Derex 01:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The presence or absence of this RFC will have very little impact on Google results compared to the article in mainspace, which, stupidly enough, seems likely to survive AFD, and thus be mirrored far and wide. —Cryptic 01:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3!) Deleting this page would be a terrible idea. It's true that the discussion has been occasionally nasty, but I think that this page is an important part of the community's catharsis in dealing with this situation. As others have said, deleting the page would create far more angst, wasted emotion and energy than letting it run its course. It is to be hoped that both the community as a whole and its members will come to a resolution on this matter, but it won't happen if we try to shut down discussion. Deleting the page would merely prolong the debate, insofar as instead of having a debate about Essjay's conduct, we would be having a debate about whether, how and where to have a debate about Essjay's conduct. It may not be immediately apparent, but the contributions to this RfC have slowed considerably since Jimbo's revised statement; I think they'll grind to a near-halt in not too much time. Let it go.

As for Essjay's protection from dragged-out nastiness — I hope that in time he will be able to recognize and understand several things: that the community and its members needed to work through their emotional responses to his misrepresentation; why his actions created such a strong, and occasionally immoderate, response; and that the opinions stated in the immediate aftermath may not reflect the considered views of Wikipedians after the dust has settled. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict, but the fellow above said the same thing I was going to say, but better. .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision WAS 4.250 01:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The above concerns an IAR deletion. Who is talking about that here?--Doc^g 01:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to see the shit hit the fan, then go ahead and delete this RFC. Complaints about it not being certified are an utterly ludicrous technicality. Any number of Wikipedians have spoken to Essjay about this issue. Arbcom, of which you were a member D. Gerard, drags people through uncomfortable examinations all the time. I think just because Essjay is generally a swell guy is no reason to bury anything. That he rose to positions of such and trust and received national media attention while behaving this way is a damn good reason to air it out. If this gets deleted, then in my opinion wikipediareview has a pretty damn good take on the situation here. Derex 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent example of the blood lust that is making Wikipedians look like vicious bloodsucking ass****s right now. Until you prove that you are a perfect human being that has never made a single mistake, you hardly have the right to throw stones. pschemp | talk 02:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

First, what stone did I throw? I did not attack Essjay whatsoever in that. I asked that this be aired out. Second, what bloodlust did I display? I asked that the considered input of the community not be deleted over a technicality. Third, I have fucked up plenty, and I've paid the price it. Most people have. Should we shut down RFC and arbcom entirely because there is no-one pure among us? You're bordering on hysteria and frothing at the mouth. Derex 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are advocating continuing to kick a man while he's down. That's despicable. Besides, you miss the fact that ultimitely, this is up to Jimbo, not you, not the rfc or arbcom. pschemp | talk 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, he's advocating letting the community discuss a significant breach of its trust by an individual who had been one of its most trusted members. Just because some of the participants in the discussion have expressed themselves with anger, vitriol, or a vengeful tone does not mean that the entire discussion should be deleted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating kicking anyone. I've endorsed no further action. I suggested putting a tag at top discouraging further input. I've defended Essjay's against those who argue he isn't contrite enough — who cares. I only ask that if he does apologize that he be frank in doing so. However, people here have a right to make there views known on this matter. It's beyond Essjay. This has been held up in the national media as a mockery of Wikipedia. I think it's important that it be on the public record that the editors here do not approve and do not endorse. You may just wish this would all go away, but the damage here would be increased if it did. It's been aired out, it's been dealt with, the community has spoken. That's all fine. But you take it away, if you try to just pretend this doesn't exist. This is not just about whether Essjay has the tools; it's about whether we as a community tolerate such behavior. And very unfortunately, Jimbo gave the false impression that we do in his comments to the media (albeit based on incomplete knowledge). So, I'd ask you to assume a little good faith and quit personally attacking people who see this differently. I have no bloodlust against Essjay; I've never even encountered him, though I have often heard his name. I can't really see how it helps Essjay to delete this, but I can certainly see how it hurts Wikipedia. Derex 02:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Move it back to another section

I suggest moving this somewhere else to not close it under RFC rules. While I agree this page has fulfilled its purpose and that it is a bad formatted RFC that should be deleted, I also agree that deleting this would make people, specially those that have never edited in RFC before today and the several relatively inactive users who have came to give their opinions, think we are hiding the problem. So, my suggestion is to move it back to its original place. -- ReyBrujo 01:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that RfC's are archived after a few weeks and the page can also be proposed for deletion in due course. I do not by any means suggest that the page should remain here indefinitely. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was originally somewhere else, and someone moved it here, that is why the RFC lacked organization. I suggest moving this RFC back to the original place, and leaving it there as just a way for the community to release tension. -- ReyBrujo 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This was originally on the community noticeboard. It would be rich to move it here on the grounds that this is "where it belongs," then delete it as out-of-process (and even so, hardly any uncertified RfC's are actually deleted in 48 hours.) If we must do so, move it to a subpage of its original location, the community noticeboard.Proabivouac 02:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. Someone moved an existing discussion to RFC because they didn't like it where it was. Now we're told that it shouldn't be at RFC. Therefore the commentary of hundreds of Wikipedians must be deleted. I think not. Simply move it elsewhere. You know it's not frivolous or bogus, despite Gerard's huffing and puffing — witness Jimbo's reaction. I'd hate to end up agreeing with wikipediareview about this place. Derex 02:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a move would be a far better solution than a deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am deeply opposed to deleting this as well. This is legitimately a big deal to a lot of people. The RfC will let the people who feel like they must say something have a say. By seeing how much has been said already, it will also help a lot of those people realize that pretty much everything useful has been said. Eventually this will die down on its own. Let's wait until that happens before deciding what to do. William Pietri 02:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't just leave an inappropriate RfC to stay, in the same way we do not allow malformed AfD or RfAs. It is true that the community needs a place to do catharsis, so we should really consider moving this somewhere else, outside the RfC scope. -- ReyBrujo 02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be ok with a move, as long as there are redirects and proper notifications, although I think it would be better to leave this and let the drama around this die down. Alternatively, is it just endorsement that makes this malformed? I would think that the several hundred endorsements of outside views would serve as an endorsement of the RfC, wouldn't it? Thanks, William Pietri 03:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, endorsers have to show that they've made a serious attempt to solve the dispute and failed. They'd have had to have communicated with Essjay, made suggestions for a resolution, and have given him adequate opportunity to respond.--Doc^g 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised to hear that argument from somebody who recently objected vigorously to process wonkery, as I feel the spirit of a user conduct RfC was clearly met. Given recent developments though, I don't think there's a point in quibbling. I still believe this should be moved back out of RFC space rather than deleted, though. Thanks, William Pietri 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WIkipedia does not censor material. The idiot should off though of the concequences. He just has to explain it to his next employer. Surelly if he has talent they will hire the guy! If they believe him... Then again what's to say he's not lieying right now to try and cover his tracks? Furthermore... this RfC has been cited in various real NEW Article. In removing or moving any of the content we are not only violating wikirules but the trust of the media! In fact I think that we should be able to add that silly template that says this article has been cited in the news. --CyclePat 03:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this has happened and nothing can change that. Deleting content that has been linked to will only give weight to those that say wikipedia cannot be trusted. Munta 03:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring over the CSD template

Come on, people. If you disagree with it, use {{Hangon}}. I've tried to do it twice, but I've hit edit conflicts both times. PTO 01:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion was already declined by an administrator. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Noting again for anyone who reads later that this thread preceded Essjay's retirement announcement. Newyorkbrad 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving some outside views?

I've been trying to think of ways to make this page less offensive to those who would like this affair to be over immediately. The only one that comes to mind so far is to start archiving some of the outside views that have achieved relatively little support. Say, everything that is more than 8 hours old and has less than five endorsements.

A possible option to that is to ask people to propose any new outside views on the talk page, and only move them in to the main page if they get more than five supports.

Would either of these mollify anybody? Thanks, William Pietri 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel like having my view archived. I mean, it doesn't have much support, but I don't think it is offensive do anyone. At least, I hope it isn't. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd agree, but my theory here is that the nearly 50 outside views are part of what makes people suspect that this has gotten out of hand. Note that I'm not proposing deleting the extra outside views, just moving a bunch of them off the main page so that this looks tidier and hopefully more civilized. That's the theory anyhow. William Pietri 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to explain that I had a conflict of interest, so you could ignore me, but given Essjay's recent announcement, which I am sad about, I guess the whole thing can be archived. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's departure

Please note Essjay's announcement that he is resigning all his positions and retiring from Wikipedia. See User talk:Essjay. Can we please have a calm, civil discussion of what should be done with the RfC page now. Newyorkbrad 03:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'd like it deleted - and by policy it should be. But, I suggest marking it as historical for now, and discussing the rest later.--Doc^g 03:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion - I think it should stay around for a bit, but we may be able to get rid of it when things have died down. --TheOtherBob 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should be deleted? And why is the page protected? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think deleting this page is up there with some of the worst suggestions made in this whole affair. We should not forget nor attempt to hide nor minimize the consequences of our failings. This page represents an important part of the history here now and should be left for future review and reference. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a bad formatted RFC. The page should be closed, fully protected, and moved to its original place to prevent deletion. -- ReyBrujo 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, move it, don't delete it. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please unprotect this page. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'd like to add, closing of an RfC isn't like a deletion discussion, users other than admins should be included.. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted! Wow, I can't emphasize that enough. This page will serve as a demonstration about how Wikipedia views the behaviors that led to this RfC. (→Netscott) 03:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see Essjay's user talk archive restored, somewhat for the same reason. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott could not be more correct. This page must absolutely not be deleted. To do so would be to show the press that we are more concerned with sweeping our problems under the rug than with solving them, while showing all Wikipedians that members of an elite clique are offered a measure of charity not on offer to editors whose missteps were far less egregious.Proabivouac 03:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

One more for close and archive, but don't delete. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's got to be deleted as an uncertified RFC. You do understand why uncertified RFCs are deleted, don't you? - David Gerard 14:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That suggestion is ruleslawyering of the more ridiculous kind. Clearly, this RFC generated lots of feedback on this issue, as was the intention. Friday (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave it closed (Essjay's departure and resignation makes further comment moot), but do not delete. This type of issue is one that may arise again in the future, and this page is a record of how many of us viewed the matter (ranging from "who cares" to "serious breach of trust"). WP:NOT a bureaucracy, and we don't ignore the obvious (that dozens of people were involved in a discussion about this issue, and dozens of people could certify this RFC), just because line 133A on Form X9384 was not filled out correctly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should this page be deleted. Badgerpatrol 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay no longer an employee of Wikia

See this. It doesn't say if he resigned or was fired, but I suspect that will be forthcoming. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? —Cryptic 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, it's semantics. Gwen Gale 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculation, he's still working for them but will do actual work under a new name? In general I don't see this being a big deal for his job at Wikia. -- Ned Scott 08:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unclose

I'm sure we'd all like to see this over with, but I don't think we should close this RfC yet. There's still things a lot of people want to say, on both "sides". Essjay has been ripped a new a-hole, and his "retirement" doesn't surprise me, but how many users have claimed retirement only to turn around and come back? It also seems a little screwed up this closure was a mostly admin-decision, with some of the closure discussion open only to admins. Like I said, we all want this to end, but haven't we had enough of the knee-jerk reactions from this incident? -- Ned Scott 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. No one argued for his outright banning. If he chooses to return as a normal user, that is perfectly fine. He has lost his "bits", his special powers, that's all anyone was seriously asking for. Beyond that, it is beating, not just a dead horse, but a real person, with feelings. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I mentioned "both sides". Now that people seem to be calming down a bit, it's safer to show one's support for Essjay.. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If Essjay comes back under a pseudonym, without repeating the additional issues that caused a problem, he should be praised (privately) by those who learn of it. I don't think anyone suggested that he not be allowed to edit, so what more is there to discuss. The ArbComm language about "giving up rights under a cloud" needing to go through the normal process to get them back certainly applies. So there is nothing more to do here. Additionally, in a week or so, most of this discussion should be courtesy blanked. GRBerry 04:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He left. the rfc can accomplish nothing. This is the bloodlust I'm talking about, that people keep accusing me of making up. Leave it. It should be closed. If you have other issues, go start a discussion elsewhere. pschemp | talk 04:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pschecmp, he left, nothing we can accomplish with this RFC now, I'll archive it. Ja ^{wat's sup} 04:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I unprotected the RfC. The whole result of the protection was that only admins kept on editing it (see the history).

I think it is a really bad idea to forcefully close or protect RfC's. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to stay protected. It is a troll target linked from slashdot, and there is no reason for anyone to edit it. Rylung was just fixing the template. pschemp | talk 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought there could have been a little longer close discussion in the first place, but I oppose reverting the close. Discussion of any policy issues can be started on an appropriate policy page, or at the village pump. (I suggest waiting a couple of days first.) A cross-reference can be left here for anyone who has or wants to watchlist this page. This does not necessitate keeping the RfC open when by definition there is no longer a user to have a dispute with or whose conduct needs to change. Newyorkbrad 04:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits following the protection were to fix wording and to switch to the tiny padlock. Wikipedia gets nothing from keeping an RfC on a user who has left the project. If he returns, then we'll reopen it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur - there were a few admins who edited in the few minutes after the protection, but then it stopped. It should remain closed. --TheOtherBob 04:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My edit went through before I knew the page was protected. (I gather a content edit doesn't cause an edit-conflict with a protection.) Newyorkbrad 04:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, thinking that Essjay is really gone for good is a bit nieave. Who wouldn't annouce they were "quiting" after having all this happen? -- Ned Scott 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If he comes back, he no longer holds any position of community trust. So there's nothing else to discuss here. --BigDT 04:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There certainly is other things to discuss. I don't know why you guys think your helping him by denying his existence, shoving the whole issue under a rug. Closing this RfC, already deleting his userpages, you might as well said "don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out, Essjay". He's not thinking straight, and now you guys are making it worse. Way to fucking go. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think BigDT referred to the fact that Essjay gave up all his bits, considering adminship, bureacratship, arbcom, etc, "position of community trust". -- ReyBrujo 04:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course ... and I'm not sure who "you guys" is - I haven't closed or deleted anything. I am saddened to see him go, and plenty of people are wishing him well on his talk page ... but nothing good can come from leaving this page open. If you want to wish him well, ask him to stay, leave him a barnstar, whatever, you can do so on his talk page or via email. This RFC is moot. --BigDT 04:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BigDT. The only reason I can see for unprotecting the page is to continue the drama. There are certainly issues that need to be discussed, but this isn't the place as Essjay has left. If you want to discuss policy changes that may be needed as a result of this mess, why not go to the Village pump. He took over 48 hours between apologizing and deciding to leave, and the admins are respecting his decision and doing what he wanted with the deletions. AniMate 05:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I think it is a really bad idea to simply revert another admin's action without trying to discuss it first. It's that kind of sudden revert (in this case, of something which was endorsed by several admins) which has been causing all these wheel wars lately. --cesarb 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not think too well. However, I felt that discussion was closed too suddenly. It would have been better I think to leave it open say for half a day more, or until more people voted to close it. Rushing things could be another cause for those wheel wars. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, this RFC did not fulfill the basics, and should have been deleted in the very near future. I think it is better to close now, which saves the problem about whether to delete this bad formatted entry or not. -- ReyBrujo 05:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's bad to only let admins decide this in a knee-jerk reaction. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin who has watched this all unfold, I fully concur with this close. Risker 05:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it closed, please. Don't delete anything more - at least not until some days have passed and everyone has had a chance to absorb what has happened. If there are underlying issues to discuss, let's discuss them at the Village Pump or somewhere, but again it's best to leave it for a few days. We can all take a deep breath before putting any proposals about the future. Jimbo and the Foundation will have to handle any media blowback. Metamagician3000 05:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For what (little) it's worth, although I opposed the proposal to delete this page, I support its closure, especially in light of Essjay's announced departure. Discussion of the ramifications of this event can be held on the Village Pump or the Community Noticeboard, but the central question "What should happen to Essjay on Wikipedia?" is, obviously, now moot. I believe the page should be retained, at least for a few weeks until the dust settles, at which point a fresh deletion discussion can be opened. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. A discussion on the broader issues should proceed elsewhere. But, a specific focus on Essjay isn't necessary for that conversation. The archive is appropriate, but a deletion at this time would be a terrible misjudgement. Derex 06:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's gone and this had to do with wider stuff anyway. There are now more helpful places to talk about this. I say tag the page as closed to editing. Gwen Gale 06:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything closed after less than five days should tell people where they can go to make a further comment if they wish. a talk page. a sub page. anything that tells people we are not saying shutup. WAS 4.250 07:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Essjay was a member of the Arbitration Committee, and has already stood in judgement over a number of other editors, it would seem only fair to offer the same right to speedy closure and subsequent deletion of unfavorable commentary to all editors whose conduct has come under review by the committee.Proabivouac 07:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Grace note

A grace note, as it were, in the same discordant key, is that Essjay lied right to the end, and lied about other people. My comment in the RFC -- that professional liars lie all the time about everything -- was made before I found this out. But Fuzheado (Andrew Lih) realized that in his "apology" Essjay felt it necessary to suggest offhandedly (and apparently only for his self-aggrandizement as humble and generous) that Stacy Schiff had offered to pay him for his interview, without realizing this would be a serious breach of journalistic ethics. Kelly Martin also commented. I wish some of those leaving encomia on User_talk:Essjay seemed more aware of this troubling aspect of his personality; on this RFC and talk there were attacks on other editors who were critical of Essjay, a few of them even vicious. (My Psych 101 diagnosis is a heavy dose of defensiveness and denial.)

But we need not dwell on this longer, we need only face up to the problem. Martin has followed up with some potential remedies the community could explore in the wake of this. I would like to see some of these suggestions transformed into real proposals, and have the community start hammering out what we're going to do to be more effective at heading these kinds of problems off well before they become problems. I see there is some discussion at Jimbo's talk, but that isn't notably constructive either. If there are discussions ongoing of that nature, please post pointers here. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really trust Wikipedians to be level headed about this situation anymore. Look at how many people jumped to the conclusion that Jimbo supported Essjay's use of his lie in discussions, when that wasn't true at all. Some of these people are even so bold as to claimed that Jimbo changed his position, when he didn't change anything. Maybe she offered to give him a free "I love to read The Newyorker" T-shirt and he thought she meant money. It would be nice if we could ask Essjay, but he got run off the site by an angry mob. You guys would rather be set on a label you've given him and not even consider other factors. For one, Stacy Schiff printed information she didn't know was true or not, which had to have been embarrassing. I doubt she would admit to any other possible human mistake that would have made her look bad. All speculation, of course, and unlike many of my disrespectful and hate-filled Wikipedians, I only consider it speculation and give it no more weight than that. -- Ned Scott 15:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He pulled the plug on himself only an hour after I posted this question to him on his talk page: Just curious: 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. But, then again, we all know it's not a very ethical world, now, is it, professor. --Jayzel 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC). Needless to say he never replied. --Jayzel 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he was concerned with even trying to stick up for himself at that point. When people don't trust you then things you say can easily be taken the wrong way. Also, if you're going to ask like that, like an asshole, with the little professor comment at the end, then I can see why he didn't bother giving you a response. -- Ned Scott 08:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales found to have lied about credentials, asks self to resign

WIKIALITY, St Petersburg, Friday — In a stunning and horrifying turn of events on top-10 social networking site Wikipedia, founder Jimmy Wales has been found to have fibbed to a New Yorker reporter about his favourite color, as discovered when the New Yorker filed a correction to an interview with him when he was at grade school.

Jimbo failed to make himself available for press interviews on the matter, being high in the mountains of Tibet and out of contact with civilisation at the time. His initial reply, sent by cross-Himalayan semaphore, of "wtf? srsly" served only to stoke the fires of discontent.

Reaction was fast and spurious, with posters to the English Wikipedia mailing list expressing how deeply saddened they were by this terrible turn of events, and that he should promptly strip himself of all powers on the wiki and fire his own ass from his project.

"We have called for a Request For Lynching," said administrator WikiViolin451. "Unfortunately, some people have unhelpfully commented on it that we're acting like a rabid mob and that piling shit on shit on more shit is unlikely to achieve more of anything that would actually be worth having happen. Which shows terrible bad faith in our bad faith, and is undoubtedly a personal attack. So we removed those dissenting comments to show the unity of our feeling on the matter."

Lara "Stillwaters" Sanger did not miss a golden opportunity for comment. "It's obvious Jimbo should have been intimately aware of each and every individual edit and action on his stupid project. I certainly am on mine. So he should have known better than to make a comment on the matter that showed anything less than total awareness. Waiting until he was actually back in radio range of civilisation before dealing with these IMMENSELY important matters of wikiality shows how terminally doomed the Wikipedia project is, and why my wiki, ChineseDemocracyDium, will be so much better, when it appears. Any month now!"

Wikipedia administrators called for calm. "The moon has returned. I repeat, THE MOON HAS RETURNED. With the sacrifice and repeated flogging of the pieces of the corpse of Jimbo, the Great Red Demon that Ate The Moon has coughed it back up again. If you keep trying to sacrifice the thin film of Jimbo cells on the asphalt, the Great Red Demon might eat YOU next. So cool it."

- David Gerard 14:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be serious David, this isn't Uncyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 14:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

True, I don't think Uncyclopedia has lynch mobs like Essjay saw. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 14:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the RFL bit describes quite a few things on this RFC accurately. This was a disgraceful enterprise and I eagerly await its deletion as an uncertified RFC. - David Gerard 14:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look much like lynching to me. Catchpole 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You, of all people, calling for a page's deletion because of an undotted i—particularly when A) it's clear that dozens of those who edited the page had attempted discussion with Essjay, some of them for weeks, and B) they can't dot that i, because the page is protected and marked Please do not modify—is ironic, to say the least. —Cryptic 14:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And a note to Gwen Gale - deleting a comment noting that people's comments are being deleted looks really silly, particularly when it's all still in the history. It's entirely unclear what you hoped to achieve by doing so - David Gerard 14:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice I deleted your entire parody? Someone restored it straight off. That's ok. I do appreciate your opinion that reaction to Essjay's misrepresentation of his academic credentials has been overblown and sometimes hasn't quite followed standard WP policy and procedure. However, can you truthfully say you've never closed an eye to botched processes which nonetheless were expressing a PoV you agreed with? I think your parody is a personal attack on people who were posting their sincere opinions in good faith. Yeah, some editors have used this as an excuse to troll, others as an excuse to vent over past grudges but nonetheless, I don't think your over the top posts have been at all helpful, IMHO they seem to have only polarized and stirred things up even more. Gwen Gale 14:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave poor Jimmy alone, so what if he lied, he has only been helpful to the cause! ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I noticed someone restored the comment. I thought talk pages were to talk about the article they were related, and not the topic. Unless that is only applied to anonymous who come to ask for cheats in games and to talk about how great the singer is, and not to Wikipedia talk pages. -- ReyBrujo 14:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

DG looks serious to me. He's lacking in solemnity, though -- and I find this lack very refreshing. -- Hoary 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big thing to me if he truly wants to express himself that way. Gwen Gale 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it strikes me as a mix of personal attacks and wikilawyering that only serves to create further ill-will and resentment. But the only response to it would be to continue the discussion of the underlying conduct by Essjay and how / why the community and Jimbo should have reacted . . . and I don't care to. --TheOtherBob 15:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete this and delete Essjay. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 16:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Gerard. It's clear you think this is all a big to-do over nothing. Jimmy asked Essjay to resign. Why? Is Jimmy part of the lynch mob too? Or, is he too cowardly to resist a lynching? Derex 17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he's actually attacking Jimbo with this.. He's making fun of the mob using Jimbo as an obviously absurd example, to emphasize the point. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I know he's not. That's why I'm wondering if D. Gerard actually has the courage to include Jimbo in his mudslinging, given that he fired Essjay over "bogus" and "meritless" concerns. Or does he reserve his vitriol only for the unwashed masses who had the impertinence to speak when not spoken to? Derex 07:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo didn't fire him, he only asked that he step down (IIRC, didn't he only mention stepping down from being an arbitrator?). We've seen Jimbo desysop people quickly before, without asking or anything like that, so if he really felt it nessesaray then he would have done it right then and there. -- Ned Scott 08:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking someone to resign is the same as firing them, but a bit more polite is all. From what I understand the two of them had met personally recently and Wales had hired Essjay for a meatspace job, after all. Gwen Gale 09:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope everyone is satisfied

This[11][12] should satisfy everybody's desire for a pound of flesh. I think Wikipedia has lost a good contributor. That is what happens when you wish to take punitive action instead of preventative. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

File:Beating 2Da 2Ddead 2Dhorse.gif

Please let it go. What is done is done. -- ReyBrujo 18:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is helpful. Please re-consider blaming everyone here for him leaving. Nobody made him lie. --Cyde Weys 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

'Preventative' actions such as what, exactly? Not trying to brazen it out with the whole "embolden our enemies" line, until the matter did indeed get to this point? Or preventative on the part of the community, in being less keen to over-promote people to be such obvious "single points of failure" in the first place, perhaps? (Especially such clear-cut conflicts as being both on the bot approval group and active as a bureaucrat in setting bot flags (ideally separate roles); and being on the arbcom, and <almost anything else>, as the AC is our "court of (second) last resort", and thus the very place questions of "abuse of a position of trust" will likely end up.) However in this case, given the AC promotion being done directly by Jimmy Wales (and come to that, Essjay's rather contentious RfB having been closed by a Foundation employee), I'm not sure we can necessarily entirely blame "the community" as such. But unless JW actually does fire himself -- or to put it less hysterically than David Gerard's ridiculous flamebait, make the relationship between the Foundation, himself and the community (via the ArbCom or otherwise) better defined and more transparent -- there's little we can do about that single point of failure. Alai 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I find Alai's comment insightful. Haukur 21:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wales has said he made a mistake. Meanwhile Wales in a sense is Wikipedia. For all its flaws, take him out of the loop and WP could easily lose the social engineering talent that makes it tick. Gwen Gale 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo didn't do anything wrong. You can't expect him to be aware of every argument Essjay used in every discussion. Jimbo was only commenting what he was aware of. We were all surprised by this, and only a few were able to notice it in the first place, so it's reasonable that he didn't know the full situation. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• My view is that it is about time we put this whole incident into perspective, a perspective not of what we would like to, or dream will happen, but what in reality is going to happen. Essjay behaved unacceptably as a result he has had a (some may feel deserved) public flogging and retreated into the wilderness to consider his future. There is little more anyone can do for, or to him. Hindsight (and I suspect in some quarters a little schadenfreude) is a marvellous thing, and I suspect quite a lot of people would probably have behaved differently, including Essjay, if the clock could be turned back. Sadly, it can't but we can move on. I have never spoken to, emailed or had any contact with Jimbo whatsoever, but I can tell you all one thing for certain - he will not resign, he will not leave, in fact he does not have to explain. You see it is his company, he is the Chief Executive. Chief Executives hire, they fire, they make decisions but they don't leave their own companies - neither do they have to explain to the staff. Now that may seem tough to some of the staff, but that is the way things are, and nobody can change it. Those of us who enjoy working for this project/company can now try to help with a damage limitation effort - which I think can be achieved if the sniping stops and we get back to producing 1st class articles that are beyond question. Those that are still unhappy, then, regretably, must consider their own future here, and if they would not be happier elsewhere. Whatever, we have to move on from this, because this prolonged bitterness is as damaging to the project as Essjay's (and others) mistakes. People using bogus credentials happens all the time in real life and certainly, sooner or later Citizendum and other similar projects will have their own identical scandals - the very nature of the internet and human behaviour creates them, and unless people are going to post their passports, identity papers and utility bills on their user pages (which will never happen) - these things will be repeated. So like it or lump it we have to get real and get over it. We have no choice. Giano 09:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Beating dead horses

The image you left on the Essjay discussion would have been better if it had been the chainsaw removal of the dead horse in Animal House. Had you yourself ever been a victim of Essjay's childish highhandedness and abuse of ill-gotten power, you'd have some better understanding of those of us who were. Meanwhile: I suggest a visit to your local city court building. Find some victims of some crimes just adjudicated. Tell them to get over it, and move on! Note their reactions. Come here, and report. SBHarris 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The image was meant for HighInBC, to stop discussions that basically blame others for Essjay's departure, as it only opens a wound that should close, not infect. -- ReyBrujo 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but THIS wound needs massive debridement, open drainage, and liberal use of a hyperbaric chamber to kill remnants of the gangrene causing the stink that leaks from it. SBHarris 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the target (and evidently in this case, the target wasn't at all clear), I'm not sure it's exactly a helpful type of debating tactic (or indeed debate-stopping tactic). Alai 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Sbharris, what do you suggest? He is already gone and relinquished all his bits. What else do you want? Do you want to undo every one of his contributions? Do you want an oversight to permanently delete every one of his contributions? Do you want to reopen every one of his closed debates? Maybe stalk him? What else YOU do want? Revenge? -- ReyBrujo 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume the straw men are snacks for the deceased equines. Once again, I seriously suggest dialing the rhetoric down a notch. Or eight. Alai 19:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What I WANTED was for somebody to listen to me when I first complained about Essjay's childish behavior last June. Since that didn't happen, what I'd like NOW, is some place where we can have an open discussion of the institutional/structural problems with Wikipedia, which the attainment of Essjay's ridiculous powers, is emblematic of. Now, where would that be? SBHarris 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

AN, ANI, VP or community noticeboard. Any of those will do. This rfc is over though. pschemp | talk 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I put some ideas at User talk:Jimbo Wales. WAS 4.250 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Locking this page may be a start? --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please? I think the discussion has left this building. Gwen Gale 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

IT's a matter of just procedure! Help us summarize the time!

Please help us summarize the RfC by placing key point bellow. (Ex.: When RfC was started, when key points where given, when polls occured, when closed, when the entire page was protected). This will helps us dertemine if sufficient time was allocated in a fair manner! Please place in chronological order. --CyclePat 02:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of RfC on Essjay

• At 03:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC) a POLL on closing the discussion is started.
• At 03:42, March 4, 2007 (ONLY 12 MINUTES after the afformentionned POLL) user:Voice of All protected the page. Stating (this RfC is moot by definition, there is no user to "help", for broader issues, a general RfC is needed.
• At 04:04, March 4, 2007 user:Oleg Alexandrov REASONABLY unprotected the page stating: (Please discuss on talk).
• At 04:11, March 4, 2007 user:Pschemp protected Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay (will do nothing but attract trolls [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

Unfair Protection

(comment: Since when do we protect pages because we think it may be trolled. I remember seeing a wikirule on this and it says not to do this. --CyclePat 03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

As per WP:FULL, "Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people." As per WP:SPP#When not to use semi-protection, Semi-protection should not be used (And I think that would include Full as well): 1) As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred. 2) As a response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others (see the protection policy for how to deal with this). 3) To prohibit anonymous editing in general.

This page appears to be currently protected for the wrong reasons.

If it had been blocked for legal reasons, as per wikimedia's protection policy, then that might be a good reason. But none of that occured and in fact the protection occurred after 7 votes in favor of clossing the POLL to decide if we should close this RfC. (approx. 12 minutes). --CyclePat 03:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it was being used to force the closing. However, I do not know if this was harmful or helpful. Regardless, even though I disagreed with those who closed, they were only trying to do what they believed was the right thing to do, for both Essjay and the community. (still frustrating, though..) -- Ned Scott 05:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

POLL

The above comments demonstrate that the page was unfairly blocked. If we can't do the poll on the protected page. Let's do one here! This is a POLL: DO you feel that the RfC was unfairly closed? Despite this previous question, do you think the RfC should now be closed? --CyclePat 03:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil. Many, many people here have already expressed that this should stay closed. The rfc is useless as the user has left. Leave it. pschemp | talk 03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So is not giving people enought time to voice their opinion in a Poll to decide if we should close the discussion or not. --CyclePat 03:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken though. Thank you and I appologize if this Poll seems evil, But I think, given the above circumstances of not having an obvious fair time to voice an opinion on clossing (12 minutes) that their may be a need for RfC on this. I too probably would have vote to close, like user Munta will say ... --CyclePat 04:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. Enough time should be given to allow people to make their views known. It appears that this closure came far too soon after comments were requested. For the record, I would either have voted for closure or more likely given a neutral stance as I think Essjay is no longer the issue - the main issue has now hit at the heart of what is "truth in wikipedia" Munta 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough! I am tired of these mother f*cking polls on this mother f*cking page. Seriously though, why are we having this poll? Essjay left, so there is no need for anybody to "comment" on his actions anymore. PTO 04:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a user-conduct request for comment. The purpose of a user-conduct request for comment is to gauge the community's opinion on whether an editor's conduct is problematic and needs to change. The editor whose conduct was under discussion here was Essjay. Essjay has retired and left Wikipedia. By definition, at this time his current conduct on Wikipedia is not problematic and there is nothing to change. Accordingly, continuing to engage in a user-conduct RfC regarding Essjay is not appropriate. Frankly, despite this fact, I could have supported keeping the discussion open for a couple of hours after Essjay's retirement announcement to allow people who had already formulated views to express them; but it is now more than 24 hours later. It is not as if there will not be opportunities to address any broader concerns or policy issues raised by this situation in other appropriate forums such as policy pages, and participation those discussions will be much more useful for editors with ongoing concerns than further deliberation here. As I suggested last night, editors can post links here cross-referencing discussions of interest to readers of this page so those interested in participating can easily find them. This RfC is closed, over, finished, completed, and there is no reason to discuss whether it was properly closed any more. Newyorkbrad 04:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• "As I suggested last night, editors can post links here cross-referencing discussions of interest to readers of this page so those interested in participating can easily find them." As per this thought, some of the open discussion on the wider issues has now moved to User TALK:Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia: Administrators accountability and its TALK page. SBHarris 04:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You do bring a partially valid point. I'm going to bed now. But tomorow I may see to it that I start an RfC on the last administrator that protected and as you say properly closed "the discussion on Essjay." pschemp. As per some of the above comments, some people obviously have a couple things to say. Goodnight! --CyclePat 04:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to do that, you need to open the rfc on the admin who originally closed it too. And those that wheel-warred to change it. Seriously. There was no wrong doing here as no other admin has seen fit to overturn the actions. Now, NYB already explained that as a user conduct RFC, its purpose no longer exists. There are plenty of places people can continue to discuss issues related to this. However, they don't belong here. pschemp | talk 04:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine a more useless digression from either addressing meta-issues, on the one hand, or writing an encyclopedia, on the other. It is also generally understood that administrator-conduct RfC's exist to address patterns of alleged misconduct, rather than a single disputed decision. See e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning#Outside view by Newyorkbrad and its endorsements. I know and respect that you hold strong views but they should be channeled toward future improvement of Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Do you know why it is so hard to sue judges for judicial misconduct in the real world? Because otherwise every litigant who disagreed with a decision would do so. This strikes me as almost the same thing. Let it go, man - or discuss it somewhere else if you absolutely must. But an RfC on Pschemp would be highly inappropriate. --TheOtherBob 05:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the force-closing was needless, but I don't care enough to push the matter. What's the point of closing discussion on one page and then suggesting that people take the same discussion to another? One of the reasons it bothered me is that it seemed more like we were no longer allowed to talk about the subject rather than a closing process. Now I no longer think that, for obvious reasons.

One of the reasons given for closing was that the page was directly linked by many blogs and slashdot, making it a likely target for trolls. This is Wikipedia, and if you got a lot of users monitoring the same page then that kind of thing easily takes care of itself. The harshest statements didn't even come from trolls, they came from established users.

The other reason it bothered me is that it was so soon after Essjay "retired", and knee-jerk reactions have done nothing to help the situation in the past. I can imagine a situation (considering how often it happens) where Essjay is feeling like shit, makes the statement, but shortly changes his mind after a day or two. Closing the doors on everything, deleting user pages, makes "coming back" that much harder (embarrassment, hassle, etc). You don't just jump on these things when the person who asked for it is likely acting out of emotions, and that includes the knee-jerk closing.

Granted this is all speculation, and I could be totally wrong, but it's a likely outcome and a good reason why you should give it a little time, even if it's at least a few hours. Often times something like that can even change someone's point of view on the situation, where they would want to change their statement, instead of having what they thought at the time preserved in stone.

However, like I said, I don't think it's a big enough deal to reopen it now that it's been closed for so long. It would have been one thing to have been able to re-open it right away, not disrupting the flow, but what's done is done. I also know that much of my view is speculation, and accept the idea that I could easily be wrong, and that no harm was done by the quick close. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing this page for good

I believe this page has outlived its own expectations, so I propose the following:

1. Move Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay to Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay, its original location.
2. Blanking both the project page and the talk page, leaving a brief explanation of the page purpose and a link to the previous version of the page, much like what we do with AFDs about living persons.
3. Locking this page down.

I don't expect the second point to be liked. However, two things are clear for me: this page is not necessary anymore, as the subject of this page is not here anymore, and that this is a bad formatted RFC that should be deleted per our customs, therefore it should be moved to another place (heck, move it to User:Essjay/RFC if you want). -- ReyBrujo 05:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Have done so. Good idea. SBHarris 05:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

History would be kept, yes? -- Ned Scott 05:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First point great, second, NO WAY. Essjay must not be given courtesies above and beyond what we would offer other editors facing community disapproval or official sanction, and it's vital that our overwhelming disapproval of this deception be made easily accessible to interested members of the press and public. Covering it up will cause still more harm to Wikipedia.Proabivouac 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't do this stuff to punish editors. There's no reason to make this stuff easily accessible, as the issue has now been settled. (and it was settled by Essjay and Jimbo Wales, not by the mob crowd) The issue was flying on several talk pages, not just here. The existence of this RfC would have done little to nothing to have changed the outcome of these events. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't do this to punish editors, but it's pretty obvious that Essjay is being given special considerations which would not be extended to most editors. The purpose for this information to be available to the public should be completely obvious: some will allege - and understandably so - that, on Wikipedia, all you have to do is make up academic credentials to influence content and rise to the very top of the heirarchy. Whether that narrative misses some crucial nuance isn't the point. We look like a bunch of idiots right now. It's to the point where I'm feeling ashamed to admit to people I respect that I contribute here.

We can understandably feel bad for Essjay - it's the kind of situation where one sorely wishes there was nothing to discuss. No one here can doubt that he was in a fundamental way "on our side." In the New Yorker piece and in the infamous letter, he aims to defend and promote Wikipedia.

However, this is a project-level issue. The brutal fact is that how we handle this will be noted by the public, and we will be judged accordingly. It's vital that our rejection of this fraud, perpetuated not just upon each other but in the press and to the public, be heard unambiguously, loudly and clearly. If that must come at the expense of Essjay's feelings, it's tragic, but so be it.Proabivouac 07:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to move the page, I'm OK with that, but leave a link at the "blanked" page here to the new location. This will also allow the page to be unprotected. Given that the New York Times has now published an article that references the various discussions on this issue, we absolutely have to make it easily available. Repairing our damaged credibility depends on as much. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Doug: the page can be moved, but must not be deleted, for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I too agree with Doug Bell. With the New York Times now referencing this story it is liable to get even more prominence in other media outlets. It should be relatively easy to access for the time being so that the public will have an opportunity to see the community's views on this whole story. (→Netscott) 07:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly right.Proabivouac 07:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved it into the user namespace. I noticed, while doing so, that Essjay had already moved a previous RFC to his user space, so it should not be "wrong". As for the blanking, I will wait for a better consensus. What I suggest is blanking the page and leaving a link, especifically http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Essjay/RFC&oldid=112790712, with a message "Click here to review the latest version of this page." By the way, I deleted the first move attempt because it was a copy/paste one which did not kept the history. -- ReyBrujo 11:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe moving to Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay, to prevent a namespace jump. -- ReyBrujo 11:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't so much care where you move it (yes, it should stay in project space, but I'm not that concerned about that detail). However, NO, NO, NO...DO NOT DELETE OR BLANK. That is a terrible idea. This page needs to get indexed and remain easily accessible. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A click away qualifies as "easily accessible" in my manual. Also, why we need it indexed? To shame him? -- ReyBrujo 12:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Doug Bell is completely and utterly wrong and at odds with practice and policy. Uncertified RFCs are deleted specifically so as not to be indexable, searchable and abused. There is no productive reason to keep this around - David Gerard 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

New York Times

This just in: the New York Times has published an article about this affair. Interestingly, the story focuses as much on the community's reaction to Essjay's false persona as it does on the misrepresentation itself. Edited highlights from the article:

In a blink, the wisdom of the crowd became the fury of the crowd. In the last few days, contributors to Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, have turned against one of their own who was found to have created an elaborate false identity.

....

The Essjay episode underlines some of the perils of collaborative efforts like Wikipedia that rely on many contributors acting in good faith, often anonymously and through self-designated user names. But it also shows how the transparency of the Wikipedia process — all editing of entries is marked and saved — allows readers to react to suspected fraud.

...[discussion of Jimbo's initial reaction]

But the broad group of Wikipedia users was not so supportive. Mounting anger was expressed in public forums like the user pages of Mr. Wales and Essjay. Initially, a few people wrote to express support for Essjay, along the lines of WJBscribe, who left a message saying: “Just wanted to express my 100 percent 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!”

By Saturday, the prevailing view was summarized in subject lines like Essjay Must Resign, and notes calling Mr. Jordan’s actions “plain and simple fraud.”

....

Mr. Jordan announced his resignation from Wikipedia on his Essjay user page on Saturday night. In a brief note below, he said simply, “It’s time to make a clean break.”

That page had been a model of industry, with tallies of the more than 20,000 articles he edited and statements of personal philosophy and Wikipedia policy. Where there had been the motto in Latin, “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito” (“Yield not to misfortunes, but advance all the more boldly against them,” according to some translations), there is a stark rectangular black box with the word “retired” written in white capital letters.

All in all, it's a pretty fair summary of the affair. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is.Proabivouac 07:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to have done a far better job at NPOV than we have. One could almost find that ironic. -- Ned Scott 08:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A) It's the New York Times. I wouldn't feel bad if they do a better job than we do. B) They are allowed to do OR. JoshuaZ 08:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They're a news org, set up to do that (more or less). Gwen Gale 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD closed early, when news of NYT article came out

Closed by El_C early, already on DRV. Sigh. - Denny 07:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And as I say on the DRV, the most egregious aspect is that El C claims to have known about the NYT article when he closed the AfD. Then he makes the outrageous comment that the NYT article was "unlikely to change consensus in an appreciable way" in response to my comment on his talk page that I had just changed my opinion from merge to keep based on the new information. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

News articles coming out only mean something could be a temporary hot topic, and are not always a good indication of notability. In any case, the article wasn't about Essjay, it was about events recently unfolding, so I don't see what the big problem is. This really isn't a controversial thing, but people seem to be anticipating that it is. The same information can be covered, and in an article where readers are more likely to find it. It makes sense from an organizational standpoint. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"In any case, the article wasn't about Essjay, it was about events recently unfolding, so I don't see what the big problem is."

Please, now. The article was about events recently unfolding regarding Essjay.Proabivouac 08:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, now, I'm not perfect in choosing my words. I obviously meant that the article was far more about those events regarding him than being an article about him. Really, people are getting down right ugly on this talk page. -- Ned Scott 09:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's a bit myopic Ned. There were already several stories, but I based my previous merge opinion on the fact that it seemed to be a single event. The NYT article is about not just Essjay, but also the entire reaction to it. That article, to me, coming several days after the initial uproar, pushed the Essjay article over the threshold for notability. Others may share that opinion, but the discussion got closed before hardly anyone had a chance to absorb the new information. Plus, the New York Times is a pretty notable source for the new story, which in itself gives it credence. If Time Magazine includes an article on this in the next issue, it's still just a temporary hot topic, but I for one would find that to increase the notability and the need for an article on it here. Wouldn't you? —Doug Bell ^talk 08:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• No offense, but I don't follow your logic. For one, I still think that Wikipedians are giving this more weight than it actually has simply because we ARE Wikipedia. Disregarding that, though, I don't see why you would disapprove of reorganizing the information to be more about this incident rather than an article about the person. If anything, I would think that would be more desired. -- Ned Scott 09:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Three words: New. York. Times. Whether or not you think the article does alter matters it is very hard to see how one could possibly think that it didn't have a heck of a lot of potential to do so, especially when it changed the position of at least two editors. JoshuaZ 09:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I took this same position on Wikiality, which was a bit of a redirect/article battle right after it happened, but now no one cares that it's a redirect. And I would think that Wikiality has more notability than the Essjay situation. The New. York. Times. also had an article about Wikiality (more than one, I think).
  The same info is covered, it's easier to find.. where's the issue here? You guys are overreacting to nothing. -- Ned Scott 09:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Because among other things, this didn't have a full discussion about it, when the Wikiality matter was being discussed everyone was already aware of the NYT coverage, and Wikipedia was not under intense scrutiny over Wikiality like we are right now. JoshuaZ 09:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, so the new article doesn't sway you. How about we give everyone else a chance to weigh in? Anyway, I don't see any point to debate you here...go present your views on the propriety of the closing at the DRV. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My apologies, I just thought it was rather obvious that the event was what was notable, not necessarily the person. I see no harm in continuing the discussion and have updated my comments on the DVR to reflect that. When it does open, just keep in mind that it's important that we try to treat this situation as if we were not Wikipedians and had no connection to the issue. If you would still give it an article, then I would likely respect that reasoning, even if I disagree. -- Ned Scott 09:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • it's important that we try to treat this situation as if we were not Wikipedians and had no connection to the issue
        I did exactly that, which is why my comment prior to the NYT article was to merge. The NYT article discusses the event at a different level and creates a broader context, thus my changed opinion. Maybe the article should be renamed...but it is not a bio since there is no person "Essjay" and we don't even have confirmation of his real name. I think we should take Jimbo's cue on this and rename the article "Essjay scandal". —Doug Bell ^talk 10:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re "Essjay scandal", that sounds fair.Proabivouac 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Temporary departure?

Whatever we do with these pages, we should remember that not all departures are permanent. Essjay himself left in November 2005, making a vow to never edit here again, and then returned five weeks later.[13][14][15][16][17]. He also left, with no announcement, for a few months last year. If folks think we need to keep the material from being mirrored and cached then we can blank the pages without deleting the history. That leaves the material accessible for seriously interested parties. (Also, deleting these pages would make serious holes in several editors' edit counts and oontribution histories - though maybe that's not such a bad thing...) -Will Beback · † · 10:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the deletion discussion was effectively closed with the publishing of the NYT article. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi protect

Can someone please explain the reasons for semi protect on this page. Munta 11:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[18] --cesarb 11:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - but I can see no IP trolling on this page at all. Surely the semi protect can not be warranted. Munta 11:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - no longer an issue now page has been moved and semi protect removed. Munta 11:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Restore to original location

Now that the DRV has closed as an undelete, I think that this information should be moved out of Essjay's userspace, back to the original location at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay. --Elonka 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect one of the reasons the DRV passed was that people were happy with it staying in Essjay's userspace- which got around the fact it was an uncertified RfC and there had been no previous attempts to resolve the dispute. Listing it on an RfC subpage suggests it complied with RfC requirements, rather than just being the least worse place for the discussion to happen. If you're really keen on moving it back though, I suggest a discussion where it might get more attention- perhaps Wikipedia:Community noticeboard? WjBscribe 02:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As a subpage of RFC, it will be deleted. It should either stay here, or be moved to its original place as a subpage of the community noticeboard. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I know about the DRV, but that does not prevent the page to come again in conflict in the future. -- ReyBrujo 02:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It ain't broke. Don't fix it. Derex 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the original DRV was for the original location in Wikipedia namespace. The move to Essjay's userspace was just a temporary solution. I also think that Wikipedia-space is a better and more stable location for the data, especially considering how other elements of the controversy have been disappearing from the user namespace. --Elonka 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care where it goes, so long as it doesn't get deleted for a few weeks. My concern is that people will use the RFC location as an excuse to delete for being uncertified. I wouldn't object to moving it to a subpage of the noticeboard, as others have suggested. Derex 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I say we leave it where it is. Having had more time to think about it, I would not be bothered by it's deletion, but then again I've already exported a copy to my hard drive.. (I really liked Teke's comment, and a few others). If we have access to it, as we do now, then it doesn't matter where the page is located. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)