Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 6

message: It's interesting to see that many have criticized wikipedia for relying on reliable sources and not credentials and now they attack wikipedia because of the possible influence of false credentials by Essjay. Editors should have ignored any credentials and accepted only contributions that were reliably and properly sourced. This way Essjay could have said he was Stephen Hawking while he was only a 11 year-old boy and still his properly cited contributions would have been perfectly acceptable, while his unsourced claims based solely on his credentials (even though he was Stephen Hawking ;-) should have been dismissed as POV. I don't know why this issue was so harmful to wikipedia. It's all about politics and people who are afraid of freedom of speech and free content. People who want to control everything are afraid of wikipedia. As an example:
He is afraid of lack of control of people's thoughts, and he also wants to earn a few bucks promoting his devious book against freedom. How I would like to know George Orwell thoughts on this subject. Regards Loudenvier 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is not for personal opinions on the article subject itself, but rather discussion of how to improve the article. Though you make a good point at the beginning. --tjstrf talk 19:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think your point is rather excellent. The Essjay controversy isnt so much about one user, but about criticism of Wikipedia. That criticism might focus on certain aspects like policy, process, or article quality, but in the end its largely aimed at attacking Wikipedia and even open culture as a whole. -Ste|vertigo 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credentials versus reliable sources 

message: Can someone please add this to the media list? thanks! - Denny 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Avi 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNN 

message: According to the Wolfson article, Essjay had two doctorates. According to the initial article, it was a doctorate in theology and a degree in canon law. I believe his old webpage said the same. Although we can (and I have) sourced the two doctorate claim, since it is more likely that the wolfson article is in error, unless all canon law degrees are doctoral, perhaps we should just write "two degrees" and leave out the doctorate? Just because we cannot put in original research, even if we know it to be true, should not mean we are FORCED to put in sourced information that we know may be false. Then again, attributability, not truth, is our motto, so I'd like to hear some comments from y'all. Thanks. -- Avi 05:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to accuracy I think WP:BLP trumps WP:ATT.  05:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does "living person" apply to someone who can not be proven to be living?  (SEWilco 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryan lives, and can his relationship to Essjay has been properly attributed. He should be treated with the same courtesy we give to everyone, his deceptions notwithstanding. Having lost his good name and positions in wikipedia, and his job in wikia, should be more than enough. There is no need for him to be further pilloried by wikipedians, at least, that's my opinion. -- Avi 05:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Wikipedia have enough information to know when he is no longer living, or does his BLP status extend forever?  (SEWilco 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How about we worry about that in, let's say, six months . I think his biologically-active status at current is not a matter of debate. We should all live so long that we have to worry about the death by natural causes of a 24 year old :) -- Avi 06:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Set aside, assumed to still be living.  May be reconsidered in future situations when WP:BLP is invoked as relevant.  (SEWilco 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Essjay claimed two doctorates (actually four, including the two honorary degrees). -Will Beback · † · 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! -- Avi 05:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two degrees? 

message: A small suggestion, but I think "Reaction to the controversy" or "Issues resulting from the controversy" might be more NPOV. To me, "fallout" seems to fit with those media outlets that go overboard in calling the controversy a 'scandal'. Kavri 06:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, Kavri. The current "fallout" section can be merged with the "Wikipedia" subsection of the "Reaction to Controversy" section that now exists.  That quote seems to fit in well.  (I'll confess to discouraging deficiencies in my knowledge of wiki-markup and permit someone who is more fluent in it to insert this.) Risker 06:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have organized each, separate and different section with respect to Reaction to controversy and *Outcome from the controversy. *Note the title change. Further, I have incorporated the "Mr. Wales quote" too. QuackGuru TALK 08:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont understand the relevance of Jimbo's quote - it makes no sense there. For example, he's referring to a policy, but no background as to what policy he's even talking about? Glen 08:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section on this talk page called Proposed changes to Wikipedia as a result. WAS 4.250 09:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean within the context of the article - it seems disjointed Glen 09:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retitle? 'Fallout from the controversy' 

message: I have reverted a change "honourable"->"honorable".  Although the editor's rationale (US English for US topics) is perfectly logical, this is a direct quote, word-for-word, from a source.  We should retain the original spelling. 131.111.8.99 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources should always be quoted as they are. Honourable is hardly a spelling mistake, SqueakBox 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, never ever alter a quote, no matter how mangled, never mind the spelling here's ok. Gwen Gale 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (sic) could be added to an obvious typo, eg EssJay, but honourable is not a typo. Nor is it true, as the edit summary implied, that British people cant spell, SqueakBox 19:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The spelling is correct if you are English and wrong if you are American, period. Please invest in a dictionary, they are wonderful things. --Tom 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Invest in adictionary? What one of those horrible paper things that gives you eye strain. Given the number of free online dictionaries this would be a rather pointless waste of money, methinks. Investing in an American dictionary wouldnt be any good for a Brit anyway as you'd never be able to find the word you were looking for, SqueakBox 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh... I don't agree with that at all (and I own several dictionaries), but the source now uses "honorable".  Not sure if it was edited or just misquoted to begin with, but it should now stay at "honorable".  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you crack one of those dictionaries open and read it and get back to us unless its an English/British one of course :) Anyways, is this really what Wikipedia has come to? Awesome! --Tom 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's with the hostility and personal attacks?  Calling people "thick" who disagree with you isn't cool, dude.  Not sure what gave you that impression, but it's wrong.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an American dictionary, shall I keep going? Gwen Gale 19:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making my point! Did you read the link? Man people are thick. --Tom 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what are you talking about? Gwen Gale 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the link, in the examples they use "honorable". That seems to be a "universal" dictionary which is pretty cool. It gives the spelling in like 15 different languages. Anyways, I am just fooling around and mean no harm or offense. Please have a pleasent day. ps my spelling SUCKS so I am the last person who should be having this conversation, cheers! --Tom 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Truth be told it's not at all wrong if you're an American. Perhaps inappropriate for an American publication, perhaps affected for an American but no matter, quotes should never be altered, it's the road to chavel, I mean, someone tweaks it here, then someone else tweaks it 10 years later, then again 50 years later and after awhile it's got aught to do with what was said to begin with. Gwen Gale 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source does seem to say "honorable". Am I missing something? WjBscribe 19:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see was originally sourced from a British article.... WjBscribe 19:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We need to quote the source verbatim whatever the spelling is, this US/UK thing is a red herring, SqueakBox 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:MOS, "..with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic." (and one can be sure vice-versa). No matter, I've swapped out the source so that the quote corresponds to an American spelling.  19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It wouldnt be acceptable to change the spelling in a quote merely to follow alleged guidelines that I am sure dont encourage changing quotes, SqueakBox 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read other comments.  The source now reads "honorable".  Thanks.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What an absurd discussion topic this is. Wales said a word out loud that is represented as "honorable" in the English he uses. I'm glad someone found a US source that spells the word the way he and Essjay do, so we can put this to rest.  Moncrief 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm> This article is about a controversy.  It is not about Essjay or his spelling. </sarcasm> Risker 19:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this discussion deserves its own Wiki article. Anybody want to start it :) --Tom 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the wikipedia way and wikipedia is doing wonders for UK/US relations as a result of dealing with tricky spelling and naming issues, SqueakBox 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I've just printed the article as it exists now, and the list of media mentions is almost as long as the article itself.  Since the article is still being actively edited, I wouldn't want to delete any of the news sources just yet, but it is really weighing down the page. Can we move that list over here to the talk page for now? Risker 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, in the absence of any comments telling me NOT to do it, I am going to move the non-referenced news sources over to this page in about an hour.  If anyone has a concern about it, please say so now. Risker 03:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "weighing down the page" <-- what does that mean? --JWSchmidt 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two reasons - they just take up a huge amount of space. I know it's very analog, but a lot of people print Wikipedia pages. Secondly,and now more importantly - these external links, many of which are already included in the references, are not adding anything to the article right now. People included them in the earlier development period of the article, as made sense at the time; however, now that things are slowing down, and more of these sources have been mined for their useful information, having them on the page gives them undue weight.  I cannot think of another article that has this many external links.Risker 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we transfer the huge list of news sources to the talk page? 

message: - or at least finished
Hi guys! It really sad that the guy actually a 'con'. You can be a 'con' of yourself but never be a 'con' of credentials..it will lower the image of wikipedia..che 05:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He might have lied, but he was not a "con". -- Ned Scott 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: QuakGuru has also reverted back to the ragged, PoV, bloggy factoring scheme. I don't think that's a very helpful reaction to the lifting of protection. Gwen Gale 21:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm extremely inclined to revert User:QuackGuru's problematic changes but I'm holding off in the interest of seeing the article not become locked again.  22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should be reverted, it is a step backwards. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the factoring and structure but have left the images in. QuackGuru, please heed the need for other input ok? Gwen Gale 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Gwen Gale 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: An edit war over this sentence? who also says and is reported to be co-founder of Wikipedia which Wales says is inaccurate? Can't anyone see what's mangled about this one? Gwen Gale 12:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gwen, I've started a new section for your comment, as it isn't part of the discussion about the edits that were done by Risker. While there was a side discussion about the co-founder issue, it was talk page discussion, brought in in passing as a side note, and in fact, with requests for it NOT to set off another round of talk/edits. However, since there is an edit made at some point in time that you have issue with, I've taken the liberty of starting it as a new section seperate from the current one which was primarily concerned changes to references. Also, it would be clearer if you either say what you changed, or, specified what the problem was and suggest a change, rather than an open call of "Can't anyone see what is mangled about this one"? It saves the problem of presumption over what one considers 'mangled'. Thanks. -- Kavri 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't see the grammar issue in this sentence there's not much I can do to help you. Gwen Gale 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gwen, I agree the sentence isn't worded well, however, it would make more sense to me that if you are going to comment, that it either you make a valid question asking for opinion, or make a statement about changing, or wanting to change, a section, then to rhetorically (my presumption on your response to my post is that you meant the question rhetorcially) ask "Can't anyone see...? Also, in my opinion, I find that your response of 'there's not much I can do to help you' unproductive in what was a call to make a question/concern clearer for everyone involved. If you want to make a post regarding your edit, than asking the general populace if they can't see what is mangled makes the onus on you to be clear. -- Kavri 14:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Kavri thanks for your input on this. I stand by my comment that if an editor can't see a glaring, quantitative syntax botch there isn't much I can do. I think it was helpful for me to hint that an editor can ask for minimal standards of literacy (or basic heed) here. Moreover, the flawed sentence was being constantly replaced in an edit war. Ok, having said all that, I know you only want to see reduced conflict here, me too, so I think your comment is cool either way. Gwen Gale 14:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that sentence still in there? I thought we'd gotten rid of it about 18 hours ago.... Risker 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was replaced through edit warring, I fixed it. Gwen Gale 13:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am out, I really don't appreciate having my edit summaries labeled as misleading. Call Sanager whatever you want, but it seems that whatever his role in wikipedia was, it should be mentioned for context.--Tom 14:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, truth be told I think I went back to the wrong version is all, thanks for fixing that. I'm ok with the compromise. I stand by my remarks about care and heed but any editor who doesn't agree can blow me off, this is a public wiki (as I'm wont to say), after all. Cheers! Gwen Gale 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies extended for presuming bad faith, re: "you are the one continuing the edit war". It was a somewhat reasonable assumption, but then again, assumptions are what get most of us into hot water to begin with. Thanks for letting the compromise stand. -- Kavri 14:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, perhaps I should shoulder some of the blame for this confusion.  When I revised and tightened the sources in this section, I failed to note that somewhere before I started working, the phrase describing Larry Sanger as "a founder" had disappeared already in an edit before the one I used as the baseline.  After all the work of finding a compromise solution on this issue, the absence of that phrase should have been obvious to me. It wasn't an intentional disruption, simply an oversight. Risker 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to chime in, no big deal or offense taken. I probably over reacted above. I am just not use to being accused of edit warring since I really try to avoid that(except in Gwen;s case :) ) just kidding! Anyways, carry on and remain calm and civil! Cheers! --Tom 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with wording in 'Wikipedia Critics' 

message: * Wikipedia community
Speaking personally about Jordan, Wales said, “Mr. Ryan [sic] was a friend, and still is a friend. He is a young man, and he has offered me a heartfelt personal apology, which I have accepted. I hope the world will let him go in peace to build an honorable life and reputation.”
This is just mainly a style issue. Proper style and structure of this article is essential. Both quotes should be in block quote formats. One is in block quotes and the other is not. This is odd and abnormal to me. I suggest both be put in block quotes. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=115132676&oldid=115131062 < I do not understand this edit. Any suggestions. QuackGuru TALK 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  is for long quotes that, stylistically, should be separated from introductory text.  That quote is very short and short quotes should always be integrated into paragraphs rather than physically separated.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is that stated in policy. Or is this your humble opinion. Lets be clear. Also, this situation is different. There are two quotes. It looks abnormal one is in blockquotes and the other is not. It does look better in format with both being in block quotes. (Thinking.) I could find and add another quote from Mr. Wales and then it would be necessary to have block quotes thereafter. Thank you. QuackGuru TALK 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well first of all, I learned it in grammar school.  Second of all, it's explained on the VERY front page of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, so no, it's not "my humble opinion" (could you be any more smarmy, by the way?).  Third of all, you are seriously suggesting finding a quote for the expressed purpose of being able to use a second ?  You're kidding with this, right?  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Blockquotes are not meant for short quotations: Wikipedia Manual of Style and Block quote which says "Generally speaking, a block quote is used when cited text is four or more lines in length." Gwen Gale 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I already was thinking of adding more quotes to color the picture earlier. Afterall, I am the one who added the Essjay quotes and I believe quotes are a direct way for readers to understand the scope of this event. I will leave it up to the Wikipedia community to decide about the block quotes. QuackGuru TALK 20:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block Quote Format (Proper Style and Structure of Article) 

message: The first sentence says:
"The Essjay controversy arose in February 2007 after The New Yorker magazine noted that prominent English Wikipedia editor and administrator Essjay, later identified as Ryan Jordan, was found to have posted false information on his Wikipedia userpage about his age, background, and academic credentials."
The New Yorker says:
EDITORS’ NOTE:
The July 31, 2006, piece on Wikipedia, “Know It All,” by Stacy Schiff, contained an interview with a Wikipedia site administrator and contributor called Essjay, whose responsibilities included handling disagreements about the accuracy of the site’s articles and taking action against users who violate site policy. He was described in the piece as “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.”
Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team because of his respected position within the Wikipedia community. He was willing to describe his work as a Wikipedia administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page. At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay’s real name. Essjay’s entire Wikipedia life was conducted with only a user name; anonymity is common for Wikipedia admin-istrators and contributors, and he says that he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online. Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught. He was recently hired by Wikia—a for-profit company affiliated with Wikipedia—as a “community manager”; he continues to hold his Wikipedia positions. He did not answer a message we sent to him; Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikia and of Wikipedia, said of Essjay’s invented persona, "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."
at http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact?currentPage=6
WAS 4.250 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the first sentence based on your source. Please overview. :) Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 09:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: The subsection of "Reactions" titled "Academics" sounds like it is presenting the opinions of academics on the controversy.  Brock Read of the Chronicle, however, is not an academic; he is a journalist who writes for an academic audience.  Given that opinions among academics onabout [to clarify] Wikipedia have always been very divided (and given that representing a non-academic as an academic is kind of the whole point here), it seems like a key distinction.  Chick Bowen 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, didn't pick that up. However, the issue here is not whether Read is an academic, but whether his article in the Chronicle is a suitable source in terms of WP:A for the assertion of an effect on "Wikipedia's credibility – especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud.". alternative views are put in the comments on that aricle, and here in the following sentence citing Dr Nicola Pratt – together the hopefully provide a WP:NPOV account of both viewpoints. Any clarifications in mind? .. dave souza, talk 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making the clarification.  I made one very small additional change, since I wanted to make clear that the report wasn't based on a survey of professors or some such; it was Read's prediction of how professors would react. Chick Bowen 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, ta. ... dave souza, talk 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Academics" section 

message: Maclean's (National Canadian newsmagazine, similar to 'Time') had an article on the essjay controversy. (So much for getting away from the topic, I just got around to reading the magazine last night, and lo and behold, an article in my mag). I'm including the link here, because I figure a primary source, of importance, coming from Canada, was worth mentioning, but I had no desire to jump into inserting it into the article. Perhaps others would like to read the article and suggest what, if any, part of it should be put in the article. I personally think the last paragraph sums up the concerns that many have walked away with after finding out about what happened. 
As well, I'll note that it was somewhat noticable in the magazine, it was on page 39, but took up one third of the page. There were three columns, each with a different story, the Wikipedia one was in the center. To the left was 'The straw make all the difference' about flavour straws that are healthier than flavoured drinks, being introduced by Macdonalds. To the right was 'Water: the next global money-maker' talking about the water industry and technologies.
On the online version of Maclean's, I actually had to do a search to find it, as after several attempts looking around for it failed. Obviously, it wasn't front page news. 
The link is http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazine/article.jsp?content=20070319_103212_103212
-- Kavri 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Kavri; interesting to see the "business" take that Macleans gave this.  Another editor or two mentioned that there might be value in mining the "international" flavour of the controversy; I wish I was multilingual in my reading to see what the press in other countries have to say.  Risker 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Since when is Wikipedia "a company attempting to transition from online co-operative into a genuine media business"?  Was this an editorial decision to intentionally mislead or an incredibly incompetent reporter?  Filliam H. Muffman!  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...bbatsell, the majority of mainline media is biased and somewhat irresponsible in my opinion, but lets not bash my country's major news magazine as having an 'incredibly incompetent' reporter, eh? I myself don't particularly like how the article is written, but as Risker makes mention of, I had included it for some international input. I imagine many people outside of the "Wikipedia Communit" especially those who are not netizens of some kind, probably have various views of what Wikipedia is, even if it is not what Wikipedia declares itself to be. Anyway, I'm being a bit defensive, but seriously, 'incredibly incompetent' is a bit harsh...god/dess/es...its not like Canada inflicted "Fox news" on the world *wide grin* -- Kavri 22:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't attempting to malign Canada (or even the magazine, really), but if something is reported that is blatantly false, I think I can say so without being accused of bashing, can't I? :)  I know nothing about the magazine and have nothing against Canada, just saying that the article is false.  (Add.: and the reason I used the phrase "incredibly incompetent" is because less than 5 minutes worth of research would have revealed the actual facts to the reporter — it's also entirely possible that it was something changed after the article left the reporter's hands; there are lots of bad editors out there.)  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive the impertinence of the Canadian media; in fairness, even though Wikipedia is formally separate from Wikia, the latter's success is at least partially attributable to the former's popularity and reach.  We Canadians are a terribly cynical lot. Having said that, I think I'll spend the next day or so seeing if I can make any sense of the articles from other lands, and then figure out where they might fit into this article.  Risker 00:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in Maclean's: Wikipedia's trouble with the truth 

message: Why is this happening? Gwen Gale 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden comments 

message: Perhaps I'm missing something here, as a new user, I'm still trying to wade through various policies/guidelines. However, my understanding is that the Talk page is where major changes are...oh my gosh...talked about. Shouldn't things like new sections added, old sections removed, and sections retitled at least garner a line or two mention in the talk page, with what was done and why? I know there are summaries in the history, and I don't think every reference, word change, syntax change necessarily needs comment here, but I would think any major re-structure (such as the examples I gave above) would at least merit a mention/reason on the talk page. -- Kavri 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally that is the case, yes. :)  (I guess the only exception would be articles without a lot of contributors, which certainly doesn't apply to this article.)  It's always considered a Good Thing to propose and/or discuss major changes on the talk page.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments? Why is the Talk page not used for major changes? 

message: I haven't read through everything, so send me packing if this point has been raised before: is Essjay a version of S.J., Society of Jesus? In other words, was part of this editor's passing-off a sort of fantasy of Jesuit membership? Given his stated interests and the desire to appear authoritative, it seems plausible.--Shtove 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he specificallty denied on his original userpage that is was nothing to do with the Jesuits, but was based on his initials. How "Ryan Jordan" came to form the letters SJ, I don't know... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm just out the door ...--Shtove 23:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read somewhere his friends called him "Steve Jordan". Essjay said "Essjay" (or S J) is what some of his friends called him. Seems reasonable. Perhaps steve comes from his middle name. WAS 4.250 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesuit 

message: Would a disinterested admin please unprotect this page? Semi-protect might be helpful though. Thanks. Gwen Gale 14:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pls unprotect 

message: I am sorry for protecting the article then not responding to questions as to why I did this. I completely made an asshat of myself and I feel the need to explain myself. Firstly, my decision to protect the article was a measure to enforce talking it out on the talk page, which in my humble opinion is a more constructive use of edits than edit warring. An edit war certainly was brewing, even if no one violated the three revert rule. I trust that you all will be able to talk it out. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Messedrocker.  I don't believe that you made an "asshat of yourself".  Not at all.  I don't think the page needed protection, but that's a difference of opinion, not a crime.  Don't be so hard on yourself, and keep up the good work, please.  Best, Johntex\talk 18:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: *I don't care if the word "lied" is used (it's supported) though I agree "false claims" is more neutral.
*Essjay's citing of the book Catholics for Dummies is widely supported and is ok for the article.
*Saying he "admitted" using CfD is not supported at all (so far as I can see) and hence is not ok. Cheers. Gwen Gale 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen something with a direct quote from Essjay saying he used Catholicism for Dummies. Direct quote, primary resource, blah blah blah. I'll look it up when I get back, but I was wondering if I should even bother or if a quote directly from someone which they put on Wikipedia is considered OR/Self-reference? If it is (and I think it is), then I call BS and think policy should change, but... c'est la vie. --Dookama 21:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My take 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Notable_Wikipedians
 I believe this is for talk pages.
Jordan, Ryan I believe this one is for articles.
I am not sure where to put these. An experienced Wikipedian can place these in their proper place. Collaboration is the key. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this article was mentioned in each of these before but has been removed from the categories.  The article is about the incident, not the person.  216.95.209.50 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, this article isn't about Jordan... it is about the controversy... no personality cats are warranted here.  18:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your missing the point. The incident made this Wikipedian famous. That is what theses categories are for. Essjay is one of the most famous Wikipedians. A notable Wikipedian. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and if this article were specifically about him I'd agree to your logic of applying these categories.  18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not happening Quack. An article about Essjay the person had consensus or near-consensus for deletion earlier, this page can only exist if it deals with the incident rather than the person. --tjstrf talk 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use a category for notable Wikipedians which is about Wikipedians and not people. We just have to use the attributable category. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedians aren't people? --tjstrf talk 18:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is for Wikipedians and not a person specifically. It is a specific category for Wikipedians which is separate from other catagories about people in general. Essjay is a Wikipedian and a notable Wikipedian. The category is not about a person. It is only for famous Wikipedians regardless of how they got famous such as from a controversy. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 19:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately for you, we don't have an article about Essjay. So there's no article to which you can appropriately add the category. --tjstrf talk 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is related to the controversy. It orignated from a Wikipedian who is now very notable and famous. The categories are fine. For controversial Wikipedians we use the categories as I mentioned. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you miss the point of these categories.  These Wikipedians are notable for what they do (or have done) when they are not editing Wikipedia.  Essjay's real life is no more notable than yours or mine. Risker 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The categories are about Wikipedians. There are other categories about people in real life. We as editors can decide about the categories. It uses the word "Wikipedian." This is a no-brainer. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Which Wikipedian category does a "Controversial Wikipedian" fall under if you disagree. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 20:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Very well. When arguements have no validity or basis, it further confirms the categories are valid and acceptable. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you think with that line or reasoning you're going to successfully add these personality categories to this article you are quite mistaken.  02:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Wikipedians (Categories For Mainspace And Talk) 

message: In some of the press articles, reference is made to a discussion on Wikipedia about credentials, though the location is not specified.  Would it make sense to include a link to those discussions (including the straw poll) from this page?  
:*User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification 
:* User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification/Straw polls
--Elonka 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty new, so I'm still working on learning policy and such. To me though, it seems since these polls and policies are in the drafting stages, that it would cause further confusion to link to them now, they will in all liklihood be changing over time, and I think it would be best til a finished, or at least stable, version is ready. Also, since it's mentioned in the article, I don't think it is needed to give links to the actual internal processes. If someone is a Wikipedian, or an interested user/reader who wants to dig deeper, they can easily be pointed in the right direction for the information. My two cents. -- Kavri 04:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credentials discussion 

message: Quack, you seem to have some real talent in making boxes, but I am afraid that the one you have made for the sandbox is just too big. Something about the size of the "Archives" box would be more appropriate.  While it is good to be working in the sandbox, and I think it was a good idea to put other reference links there too...the link should not overpower the talk page. Could you please reformat?  And perhaps get rid of the red lettering, really the sandbox link is not the most important thing on the page. Thanks. Risker 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for removing it....and deleting the sandbox fork while we're at it.  05:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been abused and is in the form of a complete article. This is unacceptable. I've speedy tagged it as a fork and rm'd the link from this page. Do what you all like, I've done what I think is helpful under WP policy. Cheers either way. Gwen Gale 05:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your opinion, Gwen Gale. It went too far. Risker 05:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have no problem with your action, Gwen; I endorsed your speedy tag there. however, just so I know: I thought it was fine to create development sandboxes anytime, as needed/desired (not withstanding abuse, as happened here). - Denny 05:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What type of abuse are you refering to. I add a link to the sandbox and added links in the sandbox. I call it good editing. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 05:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I call it "give an inch... make an attack page" Gwen Gale 05:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't put up the sandbox to completely redo the article end to end; it was for two very specific points in the above sections (Catholics for Dummies, possible image placement ideas). Putting that horrible banner up top was unneeded and likely to ignite soon another unneeded shit storm. :( - Denny 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It caught my eye then. Gwen Gale 05:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quack, you might want to reconsider the "sandbox" on your user page as well. Risker 05:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of which. Gwen Gale 05:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to sandbox is too big 

message: Gwen and I apparently think alike. Here and here... Quack, please try to slow down. we are in no rush here, except for a desire to rush I think to stablize the article. - Denny 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated the sandbox I had started for MfD here. - Denny 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two ANI reports... 

message: I presume this is patently false?  --  Zanimum 14:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calgary Sun article 

message: *I created a separate section for the information that is not directly related to the interview. It was reverted without discussion.
The sentence starting with... When Ryan Jordan was hired by Wikia in January 2007, he reportedly made changes to his Wikia profile and "came clean on who he really was".[14] ...is not part of The New Yorker interview. I recommend it have its own separate section. The entire paragraph could be titled something like Identitiy revealed which is reasonable. This is a no brainer (at least to me). If no Wikipedian objects with a valid reason other than saying "I don't like it" we can add the heading back in. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add the title Identitiy revealed back in since no objections have been made. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having seen both versions come and go, I prefer the inclusion of the 'Identity Revealed' section and its title. If it became a dispute, I'm somewhat neutral, but would at least want to hear a supporting reason for taking it back out. -- Kavri 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about sub-factoring it? Gwen Gale 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to hear a valid reason for sub-factoring a section which is not related to the interview. They are different. One is The New Yorkor Interview and the other section is about the Identity revealed. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are wholly intertwined. None of this would be notable if not for the New Yorker interview and subsequent correction note from them. Gwen Gale 07:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not explained how they are intertwinded. Based on your logic everything is intertwined and we can have one large section. The interview is about the interview. My logic is to organize the article and keep each topic separate. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 07:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like this:  The New Yorker wasn't by any stretch of the imagination the first party to notice this information.  In fact, they didn't know until someone told them.  But it did not become a controversy widely discussed in the media all over the world until AFTER The New Yorker published its editor's note.  That is why the "revealed" section is not any more than a subsection of The New Yorker section. Risker 07:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the interview is about the interview. The identitiy revealed is about the identitiy revealed. I have made a good faithed effort to organize the article. I really don't understand the point of clutter in the article as in the past. At first, a lot of editors disagreed with me but I have managed to keep it in good shape. A little organization is acceptable. I would like to hear specifically how each sentence in the identity revealed section is about the interview. My logic is when someone has an interview it is an interview. This is a no-brainer. The revealed part is a specific topic and was not an interview. Lets, hopefully, move along (please). :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 08:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Quack I did explain it and now Risker has helpfully done. You can't skive this from the New Yorker article. You can't skive this into a wider attack piece on Essjay or Wikipedia (which by the bye would sooner or later throw it straight back to AfD). Essjay might likely still be working for Wikia if he hadn't lied to Schiff. Gwen Gale 08:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Yorker interview 

message: I've changed 'References' to 'Notes' as a title, as that is the proper title (along with 'Footnotes') for a section that has inline citations. Since it's on the interernet, 'Notes' is preferable to 'Footnotes' which refers to the 'Foot' of the page.
I haven't created a 'Reference' section, as there is nothing to put there yet, but it was my thought that some of the spots that have a number of inline citations all in a row for the same piece of information, that the best/strongest could stay, and the others put down into a created 'Reference' section.
I also realized, that there may be some articles in the 'Notes' section, that instead of going into a 'Reference' section, could actually be put in the 'Related Links' section. As it stands now, the only related links are internal ones.
Though this was slightly bold (changed without discussing), I've put my reasoning here, and am more than fine if someone feels it needs to be reverted. Cheers. -- Kavri 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes, References, Related Links, oh my! 

message: ::Other editors are welcome to perhaps move this to a sub-page or whatever. I've rm'd the blogs, they're generally not citable. Gwen Gale 05:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasn't this already been on the talk page before? This bit is getting rather crufty... I'd almost prefer that it was deleted all together.  05:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok that's two. Anyone else? Gwen Gale 05:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problems with its removal, as QuackGuru has already said he has the information, and as well, one could always go back in the history, so it's not like it will be lost. My reply to QuackGuru got bumped by the two of you posting, but was basically to say for him not to get his hopes up that tons of material will suddenly be included. The changing the section name to 'Notes' and mentioning a possible future 'Reference' section and the possible expansion of the 'Related Links' was actually in preparation for paring down the in-line citations, and possibly moving some/all of the ones not used inline, to those two spots. The emphasis, in my intent, was to help in organizing the citations, and possibly in lessening where feasible. -- Kavri 05:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I tend to agree with User:Johntex. The only paring down that shoud be occuring is sources that are superceded by more accurate/reliable sources.  06:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of more related materials and links 

message: Sometimes there are various stylistic options that one might wish to propose whether on quotes or other things. It is entirely appropriate to  make those changes and then revert yourself and here on the talk page to link to that reverted version to offer an option to be considered. WAS 4.250 06:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for mentioning, that is a nifty idea. I would have never thought of doing that, but it does work well for a large change of text that might set off alarm bells, or for more visual/format edits that are more difficult to describe. Great idea! -- Kavri 06:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be careful that if a consensus is reached for the older version, that changes are made to the current one,  instead of reverting back to the old one, as this article is still extremely fluid and any number of changes could have been made in the interim . -- Avi 08:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic options 

message: I'm fine with 'Identity Revealed' being its own header, but there are others that want it removed completely. Gwen Gale suggested a compromise of making it a sub header. I've made an edit with it this way, and then reverted, so that without changing the current article, people can still take a look at what it would like here. -- Kavri 06:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, as a reasonable compromise. Risker 06:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've done it then (but if I was too rash pls do as you like). Gwen Gale 08:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity Revealed - keep but make to a sub header? 

message: The Cite.php template allows for multiple in-line citations to link to the same entry using named references. I am seeing a whole bunch of duplicates here. I am paring them down, but it may be a good idea for people who wish to add a reference, to check the Reference list at the bottom of the article to see if the citation already exists, and use THAT reference, instead of duplicating the same entry twice in the list. -- Avi 07:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Avi for cleaning up behind all of us.  I suspect much of that duplication was caused when sentences and paragraphs were being rearranged. Risker 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem; it's a particular part of wikignoming I enjoy--checking, editing, and streamlining the citations, but its even better when the article is editied with that in mind :D. Thanks -- Avi 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Th'art a helper to the lazy! :) Gwen Gale 07:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference duplication 

message: Is "controversy" really the right name for this article? What is so controversial about this? It should be moved to Essjay scandal, in my humble opinion. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, neutrality was a factor in coming up with the name and Essjay's MUD CV has stirred up all kinds of controversy. Gwen Gale 00:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. But doesn't the representation of the "affair" as it appeared in published media outlets justify the idenifier "scandal" rather than what we think it may be? Controversial sounds so much like systemic bias. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scandal" sounds like systemic bias to other editors (I'm neutral). What's in a name? A MUD CV by any other name is as mucky :) Gwen Gale 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) Well, it seems the media has also latched on to this description Wikipedia founder speaks on the Essjay controversy and ITWire article Risker 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder which order that came in? Is the media using the name due to this article, or the other way around? --tjstrf talk 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's likely. Lots of folks mope about WP but keep using it endlessly. Gwen Gale 05:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I remember something similar coming up on the village pump once, where a neologism some columnist made up was written about in Wikipedia, and subsequently gained enough notability to survive under policy based on later mentions derived from the Wikipedia article. In other words, a case where an article existed whose factual lead would have to read, "X is a term coined by RandomMagazineGuy and popularized by the Wikipedia page you are presently reading." A good reminder of why we aren't a publisher of original thought: compellingly written original thought on a high profile website such as this can become attributable through mere circular referencing, then come back and bite us later when it turns out to have been ludicrously wrong and someone traces it back to us. Which is why we need to be so anal about sourcing everything on this page rather than simply citing the primary sources and using our own eyewitness perspective of the events, writing history in the process. --tjstrf talk 08:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're probably right, nevermind. I just had to get it off of my mind. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy? what controversy? 

message: So doing my own research on the Essjay thing I found this interesting tidbit from 2005 -- it seems Essjay started an arbcom proceeding against someone named User:Rainbowwarrior1977 and had him banned from wikipedia, one of the charges being that he claimed he had a law degree.  Check out the opinion here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rainbowwarrior1977, esp. the "Misrepresentation/honesty" subsection.  So is that binding precedent for everyone else?  If so, then the arbcom or Mr. Wales erred when initially overlooking Essjay's misrepresentations.  Hallibrah 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbcom does not make policy. WAS 4.250 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Arbcom deals with behaviour. Gwen Gale 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no ArbComm case against Essjay, who is now a retired Wikipedian and has no special privileges.  None of that has anything to do with this article, which is about the controversy that arose when a specific editor/admin (etc) was found to have claimed credentials he did not hold.  I suggest if you wish to pursue this further, you go to WP:CN or another forum.  Risker 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (Given I agree with Risker's take above...) Mind, I can't speak for arbcom but yeah, they do say they're not a court and I've never heard of an arbcom decision being cited as a precedent in any reliable sense. Think of it this way, the community (with Jimmy Wales' ultimate permission, guidance or whatever) makes policy. Arbcom scolds editors who have taken WP:BOLD way too far too many times. Lastly, Wales in his management and public roles simply isn't under the same rules (observation, not criticism). Whatever he said about Essjay, whatever mistakes he made, whatever helpful things he may have done, have aught to do with editing the wiki under WP policy. Gwen Gale 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: ex cathedra. Regarding the Arbitration Committee, it could be said that they are effectively the constructors of policy within very specific areas such as de-adminship and formal banning. Arbcom doesn't write policy, but it is the sole body of enactment for certain rules so its actions (or trends therein) are those policies. (This is aside from the fact that since our arbitrators are all highly respected members in their own rights they can exert quite a bit of personal influence as normal policy page editors.) --tjstrf talk 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Misrepresentation and Honesty" per the Arbitration Committee 

message: When did this get pulled out? - Denny 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quack pulled it out with his little edit blitz, I am afraid.  I would be happy to see it back in, if you are so inclined. Risker 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=116421910&oldid=116421377 I already put it back in way before both of you commented here. I was pasting and moving the links and see also section. As soon as I realized it was out I put it back in. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIkipedia history template 

message: I replaced "made false claims" with "lied".  This is functionaly and morally equivalent yet it is a simpler sentence structure.  We should chose the more straight-forward structure for ease of comprehension. Johntex\talk 08:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, "lied" is a heavily loaded term and makes a strong moral judgment that "made false claims" does not. I would similarly disagree with saying he "posted inaccurate statements" for the same reason in the other direction as it would be white-washing him. Please see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint. --tjstrf talk 08:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stongly oppose this change. Simplification is not as important as remaining neutral. The word 'lied' is loaded and has connotations of disaproval. News sources can express themselves that strongly but Wikipedia needs to include balanced content. WjBscribe 13:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The word lied is not helpful. One must also remember the context of Essjay's misrepresentation: It began as a MUD avatar with a CV to go with it (not cool but rather wonted on Wikipedia back in the day, maybe still) and he got a bit trapped. WMF breezily gave Schiff his phone number and he made a so very weak judgement call in confirming the MUD CV but as these things go, since neither WMF nor Schiff did their own due diligence, almost egging him on, it's not fitting to use the verb "lie" with all the hints and baggage that word carries. Gwen Gale 14:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree... let's make absolutely sure everything has every impression of NPOV here. - Denny 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well that's your opinion. Others disagree. That's why we have a policy requiring us stick to neutral writing in the first place... WjBscribe 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We should use the same label that the reliable sources uses, and nothing else. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a dangerous approach to take. Imagine applying the same approach in biographies about celebrities who get a lot of media attention. Reliable sources often express themselves strongly- more strongly than Wikipedia can. We are not required to use the same phrasing as our sources and indeed that can be a bad idea where the source is making editorial comment as well as reporting fact. WjBscribe 15:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me rephrase that, we should limit ourselves to labels that can be attributed to a reliable source. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability helpfully explain the use and weighting of sources. Gwen Gale 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HighInBC: You'll notice that we do that in the article already, attributing the statements such as "plain and simple fraud" to be the opinions of specific critics. --tjstrf talk 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplification 

message: First off, are there any sources besides Essjay that can confirm the letter to the professor? I haven't heard of any, therefor I don't think it should be included, and definitely shouldn't be considered when discussing the use of 'lied' vs 'false claim'. A simple Google of 'lie definition' will give anyone a good overview of the two terms. For 'lie' here are a few definitions:
tell an untruth; pretend with intent to deceive;
a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth 
A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it. 
For 'false' here are a few definitions:
not in accordance with the fact or reality or actuality; "gave false testimony under oath"
arising from error; "a false assumption"
erroneous and usually accidental; "a false start"; "a false alarm" 
deliberately deceptive; "hollow (or false) promises"; "false pretenses"
Regardless of what we might individually think/believe, or is even supported by observation, the fact is that Essjay himself said that he made a pseudonym for protection, that he thought others knew it wasn't true, and that he meant no harm by it. Therefor, using 'false claim' supports what Essjay has claimed, while also making it clear that his information on his user page was not true, and by the definition of false, it could also be that it was deliberatively deceptive. If we go with lie, we lose NPOV, because we then discard all the claims of Essjay about his motive or reasoning, and use a word that implies deception and preverting the truth. 
I think that by stating what actions happened and when, the readers and other Wikipedians can decide for themselves what they want about the case. Whether he lied to be deceptive and fraudlent, or whether he made false claims to protect his identity. There is enough information in the article to support both views, it is not the place of Wikipedia to give one version more weight than the other, and to do so would be OR or NPOV, if not both. Can the call for using 'lied' be laid to rest now? -- Kavri 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'False claim' vs 'lied' - 'false claim is more accurate and NPOV, and is not OR

message: Thank God I've been using my real name . . .
I've also tried carefully not to inflate my level of professional expertise or accomplishments, but I have occasionally called myself "highly skilled" or "one the best" at software development. But I hope I never claimed a higher title than I was given: I "led a project" once but my title then was "senior programmer/analysit", not "project manager". 
And I'm a ten-time college dropout. I don't think I'll ever get that sheepskin. :-(
But let's not be too hard on EssJay. While his deception is not justified by his accomplishments, it still may be evaluated in light of them. 
It's just a shame that people (not just him!) feel that the only way to get a voice in this world is to stake a claim. Would that we would all simply respect each other and listen to each other as human beings. --Uncle Ed 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. My real name is not "Uncle Ed" of course but "Ed Poor". --User:Ed Poor 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integrity 

message: Radar Magazine poked fun at The New Yorker over the issue, stating that it "..only took the magazine's vaunted fact-checking department seven months.." to discover the identity of their interviewee.
Here is an interesting tidbit above. I think it belongs in the article. I will discuss it here first. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidbits 

message: 1) I noticed the wikinews boxes are in need of serious repair.
2) The Essjay's letter to the professor is gone because of the continuous rearrangment of sentences.
3) The Justin Timberlake tidbit is worth mentioning in the article which was identified in a previous discussion on this talk page.
4) The New York Times link does not link to the article. I will use a link to the direct article piece.
5) I believe the Notes title should be changed back to the References title because they are references. I do not understand the title change.
6) I will update the related links section and add an article and put the wiki boxes there.
7) The response by Stacy to the interview is not mentioned. It may be worth mentioning.
8) The lead sentence is missing the "L" word which is backed up by three solid references.
9) The See also section was modified and shortened which is below par at the present time.
10) I do believe more detail is needed in a few areas of the article for completeness, accuracy, and above all else neutrality.
11) At the top of the Reaction's section I still believe an introduction sentence is a good idea.
12) I would like fresh eyes to view the Identitiy revealed section to determine if a separate section is better or the bolder sub-factored section is better.
13) There is still ongoing discussion about a particular image for the article.
Let the talks begin. Regards, :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not arguments- they are statements. You need to persuade other editors that these changes are necessary. WjBscribe 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quack, I've checked out that different NYT link that you picked up on, which is for A Contributor to Wikipedia Has His Fictional Side (reference #19), and this seems to be a live link.  If you can get it into the cite.php format (I admit to being technologically challenged), I think it would be good to insert it in place of the link that is there now for this article; the current link takes one to a screen that requires registration to access.  Perhaps you can also find a similar link for reference #6, the other NYT article used as a reference? That would be excellent. I don't foresee any controversy in providing live links to the actual articles in place of the existing restricted ones.  Risker 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 13) The image adds nothing, especially not in the gallery formatting Quack has curiosly insisted upon (on his user talk page, among other places, he has adamantly stated that the image "MUST" go in a gallery section). This is not an article about Ryan Jordan, so why add a photo of some guy alleged to be Ryan Jordan? If Essjay had uploaded a photo of some scholarly looking middle aged tenurial type then an argument of relevance could indeed be made, but it's not. So no compelling argument for inclusion exists. --tjstrf talk 07:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 13) I disagree.  This article is about the Essjay controversy.  That controversy began around the question of who Essjay is and claimed to be.  Essjay has claimed to be the person in the photo.  The question of where it should go should not interfere with our adding it to the article.  I have always maintained it should be in the section related to Wikia since that is the time-frame when it was uploaded.  Johntex\talk 08:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Johntex, I think the challenge with the photographic image actually revolves around determining what this article - and ultimately the story - is about.  There are those who feel that this story is about one person who rode roughshod over Wikipedia using false credentials.  But what the media reports tell us is that the story is the perception that there are no checks and balances to ensure that people do not fabricate entire personas and essentially "role-play" when editing Wikipedia. Essjay did not break a single Wikipedia policy by pretending to be someone he wasn't.  A few hours of hard digging would probably turn up several more people with questionable credentials (like the "loyer" whose userpage I looked at the other day) - Essjay's persona is not unique.  So...if the perception of independent reliable sources is that the controversy centers on the lack of a Wikipedia credentialling verification process - that is what the controversy is about.  While there are lots of other controversies within Wikipedia about this whole situation, including that information is nothing short of navel-gazing without reliable external sources.  Essjay and his actions are simply the "hook" in the story, he isn't the subject of it.  Wikipedia is.  Sticking a picture of the one guy who's been publicly outed doesn't help the story; would we start adding any available images of other Wikipedians when their "fake" credentials are discovered? Now, if you were to suggest an image of one of the Wikipedia symbols, I wouldn't have any problem with it. Risker 18:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 13) Does anyone still think there are BLP concerns regarding the photo. Essjay uploaded the photo and the media has used it. Therefore, no BLP concerns apply. 2) I will add the Essjay letter tidbit back to the article since people are neutral on that. 1) The wiki boxes have been modified and look a little odd. There has been a lot of rearragement of info. I do think the article could have better detail still. We are not quite there yet IMO. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 05:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Very well. It has been over 24 hours for people to digest the information. Since people are neutral on the Essjay letter, I will add it in. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Detailing, Organizing, And Moving Forward" 

message: At the top of the Wikipedia community section it jumps into a quote. I believe an intro summary would fit well at the top of the section. A brief summary of the events would greatly improve that section.
The collaborative online encyclopedia site, Wikipedia, has been hit by the Essjay affair, after one of its editors used false credentials as part of a pseudonym persona and in an interview, made false statements to Stacy Schiff of The New Yorker. There has been broad discussion within the scope of proposing credential verification and policy changes. 
Here is a start to have an introduction summary for the Wikipedia community. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 07:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a complete chronological account of the controversy (including the New Yorker and the false credentials) just before the "Wikipedia community" section. Not to mention the lede, which also recounts the entire matter including the New Yorker and the credentials, and the Timeline, which also goes through everything, again including the New Yorker and the credentials. I don't think a fourth recap of the controversy in "Wikipedia community" is necessary. Casey Abell 12:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I saw was text about that letter for the academic and a mirrory cite to webcitation.org. Gwen Gale 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about the fully referenced text above which is fully sourced. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the self-referenced citation that snuck in with it.Gwen Gale 02:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion here is also about the fully referenced sentences above. For the other text with the reference, if it does not meet your satisfactory I could search for another reference to meet verifiability. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay..first off, it's "identity" not "identitiy".  I'm also a bit hesitant for the conditional phrase.  We don't know when the letter was written; the cited source does not say whether it was before the interview or between the interview and The New Yorker finding out about the credentials. We have to be careful not to imply more than the cited source says.  Risker 03:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any verifiable support that it was ever sent? (only asking) Gwen Gale 03:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the cited reference(s). :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 03:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is easy to know the letter was sent before the controversy happened. I understand your concern. He would of never sent the letter if The New Yorker knew about his identity and false credentials. This is clear. But to ensure verifiability I will make the necessary adjustments and add it to the article now. Thanks for your help. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 03:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, Gwen, I've wondered that right from the start. We only had Essjay's word that he had sent it until Finkelstein mentioned it; unfortunately that little bit of OR wasn't cleaned out of the article before Finkelstein picked up on it, although he could have read about it on several other WP pages as well I suppose. Incidentally Quack...someone else had a Website link at one point too, except that one showed the date of the letter, which was some time im 2005, long before the interview even. We can't put that into the article because of a lack of proper sourcing, but at the same time I don't think it would be appropriate to even vaguely imply it happened between the interview and the editor's note. Risker 04:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the necessary adjustments. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 04:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe Finkelstein is the only citation I've ever seen so far for any notion Essjay indeed posted the letter and truth be told, Finkelstein on this is a bit thin, as if he picked it up from an early version of this article. I don't think there's enough support to say Essjay "sent" the letter. Gwen Gale 04:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see Quack is edit warring and has put it back in. I've already rm'd it once, I think it should be rm'd again. Gwen Gale 04:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already discussed it here and Risker identified the adjustments that were needed. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 04:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If ever anyone needs evidence about the hazards of sticking primary sources into an article...well, here it is.  Finkelstein is vague; and in fact the document itself says it was sent as an email rather than a letter.  To me, that is a pretty big difference.  The info in the original document indicates that it was written shortly after the Siegenthaler controversy, which was in September/October 2005.  With that in mind, the conditional clause at the beginning of this entry really does have to go and I will take that out.  Quack, have you found any other references at all that talk about the letter?  Risker 04:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have just read through all our cited sources, as well as the ones on Quack's user page, trying to find another reference to this letter.  There is none in anything collected here to date.  (Incidentally, no pictures of Essjay either, except for two 1.5 second distorted shots on the ABC news report.) Given there are over 40 sources altogether, a single vague (and somewhat incorrect) mention probably doesn't cut it to meet WP:BLP and WP:RS standards, let alone notability guidelines.  Risker 05:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree. The only independent source I've ever seen for that letter having been sent has been that Guardian article it looks like a reporting error. Gwen Gale 05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, WAS 4.250, the problem is that Finkelstein's comment wasn't picked up by anyone else.  The exact words from Finkelstein:  There was a letter sent to a professor, in which his phony credentials were used as part of an endorsement of Wikipedia's value and accuracy: "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia."   Nobody else even bothered to mention the letter - but of course it wasn't a letter, it was an email.  And given that anything that seems to have to do with those professorial credentials was essentially malarkey, it's entirely reasonable to question whether or not it was ever sent.  Risker 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "others" I was refering to this: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/03/head_wikipedian.php WAS 4.250 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia community 

message: Before his identitiy was known to the The New Yorker, Essjay sent a letter to a college professor using his persona's credentials, vouching for Wikipedia's accuracy. "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia."
This information above is fully referenced. Click on the reference here. This is reference #7 currently in the article. ^ a b c d e Finkelstein, Seth (March 8, 2007). Read me first. Technology. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-03-18. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 02:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I saw was text about that letter for the academic and a mirrory cite to webcitation.org. Gwen Gale 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about the fully referenced text above which is fully sourced. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the self-referenced citation that snuck in with it.Gwen Gale 02:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion here is also about the fully referenced sentences above. For the other text with the reference, if it does not meet your satisfactory I could search for another reference to meet verifiability. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay..first off, it's "identity" not "identitiy".  I'm also a bit hesitant for the conditional phrase.  We don't know when the letter was written; the cited source does not say whether it was before the interview or between the interview and The New Yorker finding out about the credentials. We have to be careful not to imply more than the cited source says.  Risker 03:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any verifiable support that it was ever sent? (only asking) Gwen Gale 03:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the cited reference(s). :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 03:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is easy to know the letter was sent before the controversy happened. I understand your concern. He would of never sent the letter if The New Yorker knew about his identity and false credentials. This is clear. But to ensure verifiability I will make the necessary adjustments and add it to the article now. Thanks for your help. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 03:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, Gwen, I've wondered that right from the start. We only had Essjay's word that he had sent it until Finkelstein mentioned it; unfortunately that little bit of OR wasn't cleaned out of the article before Finkelstein picked up on it, although he could have read about it on several other WP pages as well I suppose. Incidentally Quack...someone else had a Website link at one point too, except that one showed the date of the letter, which was some time im 2005, long before the interview even. We can't put that into the article because of a lack of proper sourcing, but at the same time I don't think it would be appropriate to even vaguely imply it happened between the interview and the editor's note. Risker 04:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the necessary adjustments. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 04:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe Finkelstein is the only citation I've ever seen so far for any notion Essjay indeed posted the letter and truth be told, Finkelstein on this is a bit thin, as if he picked it up from an early version of this article. I don't think there's enough support to say Essjay "sent" the letter. Gwen Gale 04:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see Quack is edit warring and has put it back in. I've already rm'd it once, I think it should be rm'd again. Gwen Gale 04:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already discussed it here and Risker identified the adjustments that were needed. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 04:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If ever anyone needs evidence about the hazards of sticking primary sources into an article...well, here it is.  Finkelstein is vague; and in fact the document itself says it was sent as an email rather than a letter.  To me, that is a pretty big difference.  The info in the original document indicates that it was written shortly after the Siegenthaler controversy, which was in September/October 2005.  With that in mind, the conditional clause at the beginning of this entry really does have to go and I will take that out.  Quack, have you found any other references at all that talk about the letter?  Risker 04:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have just read through all our cited sources, as well as the ones on Quack's user page, trying to find another reference to this letter.  There is none in anything collected here to date.  (Incidentally, no pictures of Essjay either, except for two 1.5 second distorted shots on the ABC news report.) Given there are over 40 sources altogether, a single vague (and somewhat incorrect) mention probably doesn't cut it to meet WP:BLP and WP:RS standards, let alone notability guidelines.  Risker 05:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree. The only independent source I've ever seen for that letter having been sent has been that Guardian article it looks like a reporting error. Gwen Gale 05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, WAS 4.250, the problem is that Finkelstein's comment wasn't picked up by anyone else.  The exact words from Finkelstein:  There was a letter sent to a professor, in which his phony credentials were used as part of an endorsement of Wikipedia's value and accuracy: "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia."   Nobody else even bothered to mention the letter - but of course it wasn't a letter, it was an email.  And given that anything that seems to have to do with those professorial credentials was essentially malarkey, it's entirely reasonable to question whether or not it was ever sent.  Risker 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "others" I was refering to this: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/03/head_wikipedian.php WAS 4.250 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity revealed

message: The Essjay controversy has been reported in many newspapers. Although newspapers which are worth their salt generally strive to be factual, neutral and unbiased in their reporting, surely some of them have expressed their views on the controversy? Perhaps we should add a section with quotes of criticism from (highly reputable and notable) newspapers?
Once the article stabilises, do you think it would have GA potential? I intend to nominate it in a few weeks.
Sorry if I just stirred up a hornet's nest (if I did, feel free to remove this section, stating so in the edit summary).
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a peer review request up for this article, but there hasn't been much movement yet on it. every article should be built with the end goal of full FA status, so no reason we shouldn't shoot for that here over time. - Denny 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media reaction? Potential GA? 

message: ::According to Radar Magazine, The New Yorker was informed that about the true identity of their interviewee after seven months.
I believe we are missing the 7 month time period when and how (specific details) The New Yorker finally realizing the real identity of their interviewee. I am neutral on any sources used for the article about the 7 month duration tidbit. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check the main article, it says that the New Yorker was informed by an outsider sixth months after it published the article; a month later they issued their correction. These statements are already supported by detailed sources, and, as such, I don't think we need another--especially not one that states that the New Yorker determined the error on its own. If the seven month issue is to be more clearly expressed, perhaps the following changes could be made (in italics): "Daniel Brandt then reported the Essjay/Ryan Jordan identity discrepancy to The New Yorker.[14] In late February 2007, seven months after the initial article, The New Yorker issued a correction." If there is support for this change, I recommend someone else making it, or I can do so next time I check the article. 100DashSix 05:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidbits Revisited

message: thumb|right|400px|Wikipedia daily donations for the first 81 days of 2007 through March 22 (source: Wikimedia)
I agree entirely with the reversion of the "Effect on donations" section. The section and its accompanying graph were misleading in the extreme, because the first part of 2007 prior to the Essjay controversy was purposely omitted. The complete graph of daily contributions for the first 81 days of 2007 through March 22 clearly indicates that the Essjay controversy had little if any effect on donations. The overwhelming trend is downward for the entire year, as the last fundraiser ended and the usual pattern of small daily donations (with occasional random upturns) took over. The Essjay controversy, which erupted about day 60, didn't alter the trend at all. Casey Abell 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I too concur.  Not only was the information incomplete - it should also have had comparative values for the prior year, as was pointed out when that graph was discussed on another website - it is a definitive example of WP:SYN. Risker 15:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've tagged the original image for deletion.  22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct. It's not eligible for the article, it just shows graphically that the Essjay incident really had no effect and that the drop-off in donations was a trend that was in existence since at least 1/1/07. -- Avi 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really doesn't show anything about anything.  The linear fit, for example, suggests that donations will cross zero soon and Wikipedia will start sending money out to donors instead of the other way around.  64.160.39.153 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I show a log fit, since linear does not make sense when there exists a pre-determined asymptote, namely 0  People like to see straight lines, and understand the concept of linear trend better. Also, it still shows the net downward trend beginning way back. Perhpas I'll try and aggregate some 2006 data and see if the pattern extended further back. -- Avi 11:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The very fact that it "shows nothing" is significant in that it shows there was no effect. A blank photograph when you were looking to find something does have significance. --tjstrf talk 02:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good catch! I was wondering about that small uptick myself. It does seem to coincide with Florence's doom-and-gloom in early February, which would have been right around day 40. The reverted section tried to link the small uptick to Essjay's appointment to ArbCom, which I thought was ridiculous. A reaction by donors to Florence's comments looks like a much more likely explanation. At any rate, the Essjay hullabaloo doesn't appear to have affected the overall trend in donations in any way. Casey Abell 12:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to make any claim that it does or doesn't is original research unless one of us gets this published in a reliable source; I'm not holding my breath . -- Avi 13:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All very interesting, but unless such information is presented by a reliable source we cannot use it, even then we should only use their interpretation of the information. What we have here is known as a novel synthesis of information from multiple sources to put forth a new idea(one source says controversy happened on X days, another source shows donations over that time, new idea: The effect on donations from this scandal was Y). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As Avi already noted, nobody's suggesting we use the information in the article. These comments and graphs are only presented to justify the reversion of the unreliable and misleading "Effects on donations" section, which attempted to show a link between the Essjay rumpus and contributions to Wikipedia. Casey Abell 12:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So in other words, "My OR refutes your OR"? I wonder what policy says about using that as a removal reason? --tjstrf talk 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, more like "OR is OR and does not belong. But while we're on the topic of OR, let's use a little common sense here in talk pages" or something like that :) The initial reversion is justified as OR, and needs no further support. -- Avi 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted "Effect on donations" section 

message: It might be time for turning off the archive bot as things have slowed down. Also, a number of threads from the last few days have disappeared . -- Kendrick7talk 19:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for saying that Kendrick - I remembered this thread clearly but could not find it earlier.  I understand there may be some sort of server problem?  I also could not get the history for the article for any edits after March 11th earlier today; it seems fine now.  Risker 20:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two issues here. Page histories can be a little eratic at the moment- seems to be a fault with the mediawiki servers. Also, at the moment all threads older than 48 hours are archived. If there is a concensus here for a different timeframe a request can be made at User talk:Misza13. WjBscribe 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've extended the archival delay to 5 days given comments. Lets see how that works.... WjBscribe 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing threads / archiving time 

message: Another article discussing Essjay, out today. - Denny 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article discussing Wikipedia vandalism and its control.  There is one sentence about Essjay in it.  There is also one sentence about Steve Irwin. About half of the story consists of an interview with admin Theresa Knott, discussing how she and other Wikipedians fight vandalism. It is an interesting article, however.  Risker 02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another source 

message: I restarted the peer review and added it to the Community Portal. People have made comments here, which you may wish to read. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed some basic formatting issues that need correcting, but beyond that, can anyone consider any compelling reason why we should not nominate for FA? The edit wars have died down, every sentence is referenced, and there is little press coverage any more we need to keep an eye out for. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe start with GA? - Denny 22:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Why? If it's good enough for GA, we may as well put the little effort in to reach FA, no? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the peer review is favourable, then I agree with trying for FA. If it fails FA we can always fall back on GA. --tjstrf talk 22:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, nevermind me. :) - Denny 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um ... Essjay controversy is not going to become a mainpage featured article, for obvious reasons that I truly hope I don't need to adumbrate here. It was considered inappropriate a couple of weeks ago even as a "Did You Know" item. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it have FA status bestowed by the community while not being on the front page (hypothetically)? - Denny 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, yeah, but there's no reason it can;t be featured, is there? I like to think that the lack of feedback on the peer review indicates there's not a lot to say. :) Shall we get someone from the League in to copyedit, I'll fix the formatting I referred to, and then go for it? I think everyone here has done a fantastic amount of work on it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Articles can be Featured, but never be on the main page. Prodego talk 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul says he keeps a list of FAs that he will never put on the front page, which seems justified. It would be incredibly narcissistic to put up Wikipedia for example, when it eventually passes again. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though it will never make front-page this will still be a rather momentous occasion seeing as it has not only been built at max-level citations from the ground up, but hammered out between a coalition of meta-editors and trolls. --tjstrf talk 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um ... remind me again why this is a good thing? Newyorkbrad 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking it would help discount the opinions of the WP:1FA-type people who think Wikipedia space editors aren't capable of writing good content so they just sit around and argue all day instead. --tjstrf talk 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restarted peer review 

message: This one shows the entirety of the academic claims discussed in the article. The image is at :Image:User-Essjay.png. -- Kendrick7talk 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I think that would be workable. - Denny 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. It is usable. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No no no.  It is from six months before the article was published, and we cannot tell how many times it was modified in between. We have no evidence that this is the user page the journalist referenced when writing the article. It also is a low quality image; nothing can be seen unless people click on the image and then know how to work through the wiki-world to actually view the image in a legible format.  It is also a primary source, when we have already fully included the information from secondary sources.  The image adds nothing to the article, and moves it back to being an article about Essjay rather than the controversy. Remember that the controversy we are reporting is how the world outside of Wikipedia reacted and observed things. When the controversy arose, this was not the user page on display, either. Incidentally, it is not a "new" screenshot, it was removed from the article three weeks ago for these very reasons. Risker 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It is the user page of Essjay. Enough said. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt it is a screenshot of his user page on one particular day.  You have not responded to my points, Quack.  There are at least four different screenshots of his user page around that I have seen; each one is different.  None of them are contemporaneous to the article.  That still doesn't answer any of my points, which are:
*No evidence this was seen by the journalist
*Poor quality image that is very user-unfriendly
*Primary source, when relevant information already covered in the article from reliable secondary sources
*Changes focus of article from the controversy to Essjay personally
As soon as this article reverts back to what it was in the days following the start of the controversy - that is, an article about the actions of one specific individual - we are back at AfD and quite rightly the article is no longer viable.  Quack, please stop trying to insert personal information about Essjay into this article.  Risker 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The article as currently scoped says, in the first sentence, that the controversy is about the lies he told on his User page. These are them. -- Kendrick7talk 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've compromised the issue in the same way that Criticism of Wikipedia handled Essjay's deleted user page. I have footnoted the Internet Archive version of the user page, to show the actual claim of the false credentials. I hate to add more footnotes to the article, but I'd like to settle this controversy. Casey Abell 13:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've also added a link to Essjay's archived Wikia user page of 1-1-07, alongside the Martyn Williams footnote about how Essjay "came clean." Otherwise, the reference might be somewhat unclear. If we keep this stuff in footnotes, I think we can compromise the controversy about including the material while still informing the reader completely. Casey Abell 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, I added the footnote to show how Essjay identified himself as Ryan Jordan. This Wikia user template been blocked from The Internet Archive but is available directly (go figure). I misspoke slightly above - Essjay's actual Wikia user page with the (supposedly) correct information on his background has been deep-sixed and protected from web crawlers. I can't find a copy of it anywhere. Casey Abell 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there is a copy of it on Wikipedia Watch, but there's no way I'm going to footnote that. Casey Abell 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New screenshot of [[User:Essjay]] available 

message: Folks who've been editing on this article should be aware of this redirects for deletion discussion.  20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect for deletion 

message: As a follow-up note of policy, as it pertains to myself, TJstrf, Bramlet and DuckGuru: please be mindful of not violating the Three Revert Rule. This is a pretty strict requisite to avoid edit-wars, which is what has been set-off here due to the differing positions of particular individuals (myself included). So at this point, please take a breather from further reverts. Thanks, --LeflymanTalk 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And why was protection removed from the article again?  --wL<speak·check> 08:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: Is wikipedia more like AP and reuters or more like an encyclopedia, can someone explain why this is in main space? As time goes on wikipedia seems more and more like a newspaper. David D. (Talk) 07:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it earned major publicity and is a notable event. Read the AfDs and archives for our exhaustive lists of sources that have mentioned this. --tjstrf talk 07:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly it was an event.  Is this type of news really encyclopedic? There appears to be massive activity in wikipedia documenting day to day events. To me it seems that wikipedia is losing its focus. David D. (Talk) 07:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly. -- Ned Scott 07:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem to me that an event that directly impacts processes on one of the top-10 most referred-to internet sites would be noteworthy enough for an article here. To be sure, the final fall-out of this event hasn't been determined. Perhaps now that the article is in a relatively stable, NPOV form, those who objected to its existence/deletion because it was biased (on both sides of the issue) just find it boring.  Risker 07:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think that anything we can write an informative and accurately attributed article on might as well be kept, so you're not getting any sympathy for deleting breaking news type articles from me. The first couple days I agreed that it didn't need a page, but then it made the evening news which sort of blew that idea out of the water. --tjstrf talk  07:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not refering to this article particularly but Portal:Current_events is far more newspaper and far less encyclopedia. I wonder how many of the nearly two million articles here represent newspaper-like stories. May be that is our role here? But that debate should be held somewhere else. David D. (Talk) 08:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Contemporary events can be encyclopaedic, even when they involve Wikipedia. See also, Seigenthaler_controversy and Blocking_of_Wikipedia_in_mainland_China. In this case, the EssJay controversy has become a touchstone for the use and dangers of anonymity on large-scale collaborative projects such as this one. Plus, it has been now been extensively covered in the media. --LeflymanTalk 07:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WP articles do read more like a collection of news articles intended for other Wikipedians than solid introductions to topics for people who really need one. It does not have to be so, however. See this version of this article. - C.m.jones 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That version was rejected as being highly POV, sensationalist in tone, reading like a tabloid, and demonizing Essjay. We aren't reinstating it. --tjstrf talk  00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you refer to we, who are you referring to? C.m.jones 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The commentators at /Archive 5#Major problems with article rewrite and several other topics on that page. --tjstrf talk 03:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess that settles it once and for all, especially since the version remained up for what, 3 minutes, thus making it so page viewers (you know, at article space where lots of people see it so some real consensus can then build back here in talk) were oblivious to it?  And let's definitely ignore Leflyman, for sure. C.m.jones 06:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not quite sure how to take that last sarcastic comment, but since you brought my name into this discussion: What TJ is trying to get across is that your version, whatever merits you may think it had, wasn't encyclopaedic-- it meandered all over the place, discussing unconnected issues, making questionable claims, using sophomoric language. It was in a word, bad. Sorry.--LeflymanTalk 07:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: C.m.jones, yes, that version was only on the screen for 10 minutes. That is because it was your own personal article, completely ignoring every word of discussion, consensus building and editing that had taken place involving dozens of editors in the previous six days.  Not a link to your sandbox, where you had obviously developed it. The cavalier way in which you introduced this version was in opposition to just about every Wikipedia policy I can think of. As to Leflyman, he is one of the editors whose work you proposed to overwrite; he was working on the article before I was.   Risker 07:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this an article? 

message: I've nominated four forks of this article, which I found in userspace, for nomination at WP:MfD. Everyone is, of course, welcome to comment.  Sorry if it looks a bit messy, there were slightly different criteria and I've never done an MfD nom before, let alone a multiple, so someone might well come along and clean up the links. Risker 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI - Four forks nominated for MfD 

message: This dispute is about the foundership of Wikipedia and how it has weight on this article. 08:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for Comment: Essjay controversy 

message: If you are calling about the Essjay controversy protection, please note that it was first put on to avoid the edit war. Since unprotection, the only edits made were the same warring ones. An RfC has been opened on the talk page. Please come up with a solution before I even consider unprotection. User:AzaToth (the person who protected it first) is aware of this protection. --wL<speak·check> 06:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reprotection 

message: Can I please point out to everyone (and I'm especially looking at Quackguru and other edit warriors) that footnotes come after a punctuation mark, usually the full stop/period. Additionally, only one footnote per sentence usually suffices. Please stop adding or proposing sentences that have five footnotes after one apparently random word: it looks crap. Thank you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small point concerning references. 

message: "Identity revealed"
Please add this tidbit to the beginning of the identitiy revealed section. Everything is fully sourced. All references are already in the article. We do not have proof Essjay sent the letters but we have proof Essjay "claimed" he had sent the letter.
Tidbit >
At some point, Essjay claimed he had sent a letter to a real-life college professor using his invented persona's credentials,
 vouching for Wikipedia's accuracy. In the letter he wrote in part, "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to stay in Wiipedia."
< Tidbit
"Removal of cited information and solid references"
An editor continues to remove references, undo my edits, and make disingenuous edit summaries.
#
#
#
#After Ned Scott had been advised his behaviour is "grossly inappropriate" and to "stop," another editor has made a comment to encourage him on be stating: "You're my hero." Risker 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quack, this appears to continue to be an area of dispute; the last time the issue was raised, it was removed by another editor, and discussed at this section above.  .  Perhaps we have two areas that need to be hammered out in the RFC that WikiLeon would like people to contribute to.  Risker 16:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Quack is further confused about appropriate use of sourcing. Just because a blog author is quoted about his opinion does not mean the blog entry is sourceable for facts. The Guardian piece by Seth Finkelstein is based on his blog -- it is an editorial/opinion, not a news report. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not cite itself (nor, for that matter, other Wiki-like sites) which is what Quack wishes to do. Finally, whatever additional claims Essjay made about his faux-identity-- among which was that he had been a department head, and multi-honorary degreed, etc. -- are meaningless; the article isn't "Lies that Essjay told", it's about the controversy surrounding the use of a fictitious identity, and the fallout thereof.--LeflymanTalk 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Essjay used his fictitious identity to vouch for the accuracy of Wikipedia. He claimed he had sent a letter. The Guardian is already accepted as a source for articles on Wikipedia. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everything published is worth including. In the scale of reporting done surrounding this controversy, that was practically a trivia point. --tjstrf talk  00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Duck continues to try the patience of the community. At this point, I can only take the denseness of his responses as misplaced criticism intent at disparaging Wikipedia and its participants. I would suggest that an RFC on user conduct will likely be an outcome, considering the misuse of his User space which appears to be ongoing.--LeflymanTalk 01:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: One of the difficulties I have with including mention of the letter is that even if it was sent (which I wouldn't bet on), there isn't a university professor who would have accepted any encyclopedia (online or hard copy) as a reference source in an academic paper, let alone one recommended by someone who used a pseudonym. The fact that many at Wikipedia seem to feel the letter is so very relevant now, despite relative indifference from the independent third parties who commented on this entire situation, makes it seem more like self reference than the other claims.  Risker 01:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: . As long as this page is protected, it would be inappropriate for anyone to make significant edits.  CMummert · talk 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Essjay is a board member? 
* 03:22, 4 March 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Essjay@enwiki from boardvote to boardvote
* 03:21, 4 March 2007 Jon Harald Søby (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Essjay@enwiki from boardvote, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, sysop to boardvote
What is that? If he was a board member I don't think we mentioned it? - Denny (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boardvote permissions are for the use of election officials during the elections to the foundation board. Essjay, along with several others, was an election official with access to vote information not visible to the rest of the community. As it turned out, he went on an extended break during the 2006 election process and was not so actively involved in the election work. Other boardvotes were added to cover the work involved. (see Election officials 2006 and Resolution:Election officials)  NoSeptember 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, thought that meant board voting as in on the board. Wonder why they didn't remove that bit, when he asked for them all to go... - Denny (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation is here - NoSeptember 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essjay is/was a board member...? 

message: Folks, can we please avoid any further edit wars on the Wales/Sanger issue.  AN/I and the editors above are quite correct, this is an incredibly lame excuse for an edit war. The current descriptions are correct, even if they may not be as complete as some people would like. Let us accept this as a compromise position, and move on.
As to the letter - Quack, the letter is so incredibly unimportant to the real world that only one blogger even editorialized about it, and was later quoted by another one.  Two bloggers - that's it.  Neither of them picked up on the real concerns about the letter and what it illustrated, but maybe if you stop worrying about getting it into the article and spend some time thinking about the real problem with it is, you might learn a bit about Wikipedia. Since we have pretty good evidence this article has been mined by bloggers and journalists for their reports, I will invoke WP:BEANS instead of explaining.  Risker 04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection will expire soon - no more edit wars please 

message: I have proposed a community ban from this article for Quackguru, who I think has disrupted this article long enough. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ned, let's work with Quack on viable compromises rather than just revert any change he makes.  Saying things about another editor like they just don't "get it" is rarely helpful, in my opinion. Please remember we "comment on content, not contributors". Johntex\talk 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Johntex, I'm not sure how familiar you are with this situation, but Quack Guru has been undeniably disruptive on this page and a few others. Something needs to be done about it. -- Ned Scott 02:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not at all familiar with his work on other pages, but I have read all the discussion on this page and most of the archives and I don't think that he has given any worse than he has gotten. The fact is that until/unless he is banned from editting this page, we need to keep working with him, and that means avoiding blanket reverts of his changes when they are not overtrly problematic. Johntex\talk 03:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Community ban proposed 

message: Given the various quotes with respect to ongoing consideration of the credentialling issue, I am curious to know if there has been any policy change related to it at this point.  I confess that I've lost track.  If a course of action has been decided, it would be good to try to find a way to include it in the article.  Risker 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has anyone been keeping track of the credentialling issue? 

message: User talk:QuackGuru suggests on my talk page that my two cents might make a difference here. So my two cents is that the Essjay letter is relevant, sourced, and important. Exactly how it is included in the article is not too important. May I suggest putting all talk of it in a footnote? I mean, I don't think it should go in a footnote, but sometimes that is a workable compromise. I suggest we all accept this compromise and move on to other issues. And if you implement this idea and Quack still quacks, then I'll side with you guys on deleting it altogether; so Quack if they go for this then take your vacation from wikipedia or at least from this article, ok? WAS 4.250 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have supported this suggested compromise in my post above. Risker 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this postion if L and Q do. Johntex\talk 00:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I support including the letter, too. Relevant, &c., &c. --Dookama 10:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is relevant! C.m.jones 23:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to the letter has been added in accordance with the proposal above.  Risker 01:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The letter 

message: I have unprotected the article again in hopes the participants in previous scuffles have settled down. Any edit warring will result in blocks without warning. So please behave. Picaroon 22:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected again 

message: I think its silly the timeline doesn't have when he first posted the information on his page, it makes it hard for people (like myself who don't know much about what happened) to understand the sequence of events. The only external source I can find for when he first did it is a screen capture apparently taken several months after it was put up, in any case it proves the info was at least put up in 2005 and that should probably be mentioned in the timeline, afterall it is the instigating act of this whole contraversy. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/essjay5.png and obviously I do not know if peoeple would consider that source valid.--Dacium 22:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your assessments. These are the facts and this is where the whole story began in the first place. I will add this bit of info to the timeline. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=126292979&oldid=126291876
An editor has removed footnotes without discussion. This was quotes from the references which is part of the story. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have to discuss every change on the article, especially straight forward ones such as this.  -- Ned Scott 03:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, does that mean I can straightforwardly replace this whole article with one that actually reads well and includes the whole story plus context and background? C.m.jones 17:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it actually does as you say, and follows applicable guidelines and policy, then be bold. -- Ned Scott 18:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have given extra time for an explanation on the "blanking incident." The Wikipedian in question has not responded. I will add the tidbit back. Please discuss before removing the facts next time. I hope the article will be stable now. Thank you. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, here is a tip, let me know you have asked for my input and I will respond a lot faster. I am not sure what your complaint is, the edit summary reflected my understanding of the edit. I may have been incorrect, but please don't attribute dishonesty to me, because it was a good faith edit. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Edit 

message: The Essjay situation resulted in Jimbo calling for a credential policy which resulted in this straw poll which resulted in the community rejecting every policy proposal except "This is a proposal to ask the Foundation to make it a formal policy that checkusers' identities are known to the OFFICE. It is said that they are but it is not formal policy." titled "meta:Talk:CheckUser policy#Real name policy". Which up to now has only resulted in the change of Jimbo's proposal into an essay. We now we have an actual policy change in that its contents match the policy approved by the community. Kat Walsh announced May 1 that the board approved a Resolution:Access to nonpublic data on April 11 that requires "all users with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in." People with existing access have 60 days to get their ID data to the foundation. WAS 4.250 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We finally have a conclusion to the Essjay situation 

message: It seems that this controversy may indeed continue to follow Wikipedia.  This is an April 24/07 article from New Zealand. This was just a 2-minute google news search that pulled this up; I haven't done any real research on continuing references in the media.  Do other editors feel that this should be mentioned in the article?  Risker 00:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued discussion in media