Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 5

message: Some of the many media articles and blog entries are propagating misinformation and misleading info; I'm not sure if it should be mentioned in the article. Firstly, several outlets are mentioning that Essjay has had his 'editor privileges cancelled' - has he actually been blocked? I had thought not. And secondly, a recent article in the Telegraph has made Arbcom sound like an editorial board. Other news outlets have made the same implication. Anchoress 19:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there would have to be another reputable source that says something about "propagating misinformation and misleading info", with regards to the other sources... Smee 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I understand you. Are you saying that we have to wait for a publication to state that ArbCom isn't an editorial board before we can say that articles about EssJay have misrepresented ArbCom as an editorial board? Is that true? If an article stated that Wikipedia's servers were located at the bottom of the ocean, would we need to wait for another news site to refute it before we could identify the report as false? I admit that I'm not an expert on RS on WP, but wouldn't a link to the description of ArbCom suffice? And/or a link to EssJay's block log? Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding you, and if so, I apologise. Anchoress 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: These are the wonted journo errors which creep into any news item. Technically incorrect and sloppy, they're close enough but nettling to people familiar with the details. It happens all the time and to bring it up in this article IMHO would be non-standard and sound defensive and nitpicky. Gwen Gale 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I'm saying is that without satisfying WP:RS, to comment about what some may see as mistakes in news articles would be a violation of WP:NOR... Smee 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me... Smee 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's fine. Anchoress 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation and misrepresentation 

message: Essjay, with its redirect to this article, has been deleted, which will thwart many readers from ever finding it. Gwen Gale 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm beginning to think Ned Scott is a puppet of Essjay. He even called me an "asshole" here. Regards, --Jayzel 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck getting that one through RfCU. Ned edits manga articles, not theology. I'd suggest you at least do a modicum of research before accusing an editor in good standing of being a sock. --tjstrf talk 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor who calls other editors "assholes" has no good standing IMO. Good day, --Jayzel 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can let their civility slip from time to time, and your abrasive sarcasm in that conversation was just as incivil as his cursing. "Good standing" refers to their overall behaviour and editing pattern. Regardless of your personal opinion of him, he is no sock. --tjstrf talk 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, a*****e. ;) --Jayzel 21:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm nope, calling someone asshole is more uncivil than calling someone who has represented himself as a professor for two years professor. Gwen Gale 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: He has now kindly agreed to preserve the re-direct. Gwen Gale 21:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fairness, he wanted the redirect deleted so the article could be moved back to it. JoshuaZ 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all in all Ned did the right thing. We now have a NPOV title, redirects from Essjay and Essjay Scandal and we can carry on editing the article to be a NPOV record of Essjays (the editor) actions rather than a contentious bio or POV witch hunt - Munta 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Gwen Gale 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  meanwhile, down the memory hole 

message: There is a sad irony, with even his (probably) local paper gathering information on him and his name in the news around the globe, that right now Essjay really does have a legitimate concern about harassment and violation of privacy in Real Life. The picture doesn't serve any purpose; it doesn't add anything to the article. Please let's edit it out. Risker 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see discussion on subsection "Image", above. The photo is free to use under GFDL, is at the bottom of the article, and we have no idea in actuality who is really depicted in the photo... Smee 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored. --Jayzel 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep. I feel bad for Essjay but for all anyone knows that pic is as MUDdy as his CV was. Gwen Gale 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm becoming more concerned about the photo as we go along. Initially, I though it fair use as it documented the person behind the article. However, as the article has changed, it has become much more of a record of Essjay and his persona rather than a record of Ryan himself. On the other hand, there is a risk that we are saying that a "virtual person" is an entity in their own right and that is clearly ridiculous. Weighing up the pros and the cons, I feel that the text in the article is right (Ryan being named in time context) and for the respect of Ryan (as a falable human being, not as a former wikipedian), the photo adds nothing to the article. This isn't censorship - its common sense. I would be happy if it was removed and replaced at a latter date if the situation changes. - Regards - Munta 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's GFDL, no licensing worries at all. The photo was uploaded by User:Essjay as his WP:MUD avatar, it's presented with screenshots of Essjay's userspace and the name of this article begins with Essjay. Gwen Gale 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. All very good reasons to Keep, as highly relevant and useful in this article. Smee 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I realise that there are no licencing issues. I just belive that the inclusion of the photo blurs the distinction between Essjay and Ryan. The article is not about Ryan - so why do we need the photo? I've thought long and hard on this and I was very strong in my views about Essjay resigning and these articles staying. Perhaps its just my humanist nature but I just feel uncomfortable about this one. - Munta 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the Ryan Jordan article, or the Essjay article...it is the Essjay Controversy article. Nobody's whining abuot licensing. The screenshots make sense. But unless someone can show a reason that the article would be deficient without that photo, it should go. There are elements of WP:BLP here, even though it isn't strictly a biographical article. If ever there was an article that needs to meet the highest standards of ethics, this is the one. 216.95.209.50 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Get rid of it. Weighing up the serious harm we could be doing to someone in real life and the possible slight improvement the photo might bring to the article, I can't see how we can even hesitate over it. This is a human being, no matter what we might think of the scandal he caused. ElinorD (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Gwen. ElinorD (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Haha no worries! I've got a feeling we're gonna see a proposal to delete that image from the server anytime now. Gwen Gale 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries about Wikinews, they are a separate entity. And now that you mention it, Gwen Gale... Risker 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sooner the better. Those wikinewsfolks kept adding it back, though after a tactful suggestion it's been removed at the moment. .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, I'm only tryin to save everyone some time here :) Gwen Gale 22:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A pity we didn't act sooner then. --tjstrf talk 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we ditch the photo? 

message: There is currently some disagreement at Talk:Stacy Schiff about whether or not this controversy should be mentioned on her bio. Some additional opinions on the matter would be appreciated, to help determine consensus on the issue. --El on ka 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion needed 

message: Very nice addition, to whoever added it. :-) C.m.jones 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it was originally from Wikinews, but of course it can be expanded upon as things progress/are discovered in reputable secondary sources... Smee 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: See Template_talk:Did_you_know#March_1. Please feel free to improve my entry. Thanks.  — M (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you wearing asbestos coveralls or what. Gwen Gale 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They could have at least got the facts right in their summary - Munta 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for DYK 

message: The current name is protected but that isn't. Given Essjay is now all over global broadcast news... - Denny 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please semi protect [[Essjay]] 

message: The International Herald Tribune in Paris, an influential English language newspaper in Western Europe, has published a screenshot of an early version of this article. Gwen Gale 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that the same article that was published earlier by the NYT? --tjstrf talk 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, or a version of it, with the added screenshot. Gwen Gale 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Gwen, what was the template that was for articles that themselves were cited in major news stories...? - Denny 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't find it here, Gwen Gale 00:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  screenshot published 

message: The current lead as edited into the article by  reads false. The controversy stems from The New Yorker having to print an editor's note regarding a previous article they had published that had to explain that Essjay did not have credentials the original article said he did.  00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Gwen Gale 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the controversy stems from Essjay being exposed as a liar.  — M (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just following what is in the ABC news article : "This latest scandal, at one of the Web's most viewed sites, involves a prominent editor who forged his credentials and faked having a doctorate." -- Kendrick7talk 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: which is a bit sensationalist and makes errors.Geni 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but are you now copyediting a cited source???  — M (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Kendrick7]]'s lead is wrong 

message: ABC News broadcast a story on Wikipedia's accuracy tonight, and the Essjay incident featured prominently therein. Rklawton 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC Nightly News 

message: OK, Netscott, here:
: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.
From The New Yorker Article as cited. -- Kendrick7talk 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just posted to your talk page... I retract my statement. Kindly accept my apologies.  01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No lo problemo. -- Kendrick7talk 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay originally confirmed his credentials to the New Yorker 

message: I don't believe the current timeline is correct. I drew up a timeline a few days ago (see my email to WikiEN-l), and Essjay posted the relevant details to his Wikia userpage 7 January, not 15 January (although the Wikia staff have made this difficult to confirm, as past revisions have been deleted...). The timeline also omits Brandt's discovery of the Wikia userpage circa 21 January and Essjay's first message on the subject 1 February. These seem to be fairly important details. --Gwern (contribs) 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, add 'em in! :-) C.m.jones 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. I hope no one dings my additions for OR or something equally silly - they were there when I was researching the email! --Gwern (contribs) 06:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: On a side note, I'm unsure how much to include. Should we mention that Brandt did more than just be the first to notice and report it to the New Yorker? He flogged it pretty heavily on Slashdot and other places, and his website - note all the anonymous and other persons who seem to home in on Essjay rather quickly, from the Slashdot article itself, to the early anon edits to User talk:Essjay, and so on. --Gwern (contribs) 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without a reliable source that would be original research. We need to be very careful with this article. JoshuaZ 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know, after having read some of this, I appreciate seeing Essjay's side of the story in the article somewhere. It's a shame we don't have a secondary source for all this. -- Kendrick7talk 09:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Leflyman, I don't think the first entry is excessive or extraneous. The first item is about the first ever recorded mention of the discrepancy, and the second records Essjay's first ever comment and defense of his actions. I think those are important. It'd be like an article on the American Revolution not mentioning the battle of Lexington and Concord. These are important things, more important to what actually happened than some news articles or mentions on TV. --Gwern  (contribs) 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *And they are the very definition of Original Research.--LeflymanTalk 06:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline improvments 

message: I reverted to the previous version of the timeline from one adding excessive, extraneous detail. Content such as this should be attributed to outside sources, within the body of the article:
* January 21, 2007 — An SBC IP address self-identified as Daniel Brandt contacts Essjay on his talk page and asks him to "Please explain the tremendous disparity between the personal information you have volunteered on your user page on Wikipedia since you started in February 2005, and the new information you provide at wikia.com."Relevant revision He provides a screenshot dated 18 January 2007. Essjay never replies.
* February 1, 2007—A Wikipedia user contactsDev920's edit Essjay on the same subject as Brandt did; Essjay confirmsEssjay's first discussion of the topic that the Wikia profile is accurate, and that to avoid "trolls, stalkers, and psychopaths who wander around Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects looking for people to harass, stalk, and otherwise ruin the lives of", Essjay's "approach was different: I decided to be myself, to never hide my personality, to always be who I am, but to utilize disinformation with regard to what I consider unimportant details: age, location, occupation, etc."
--LeflymanTalk 07:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, after having read some of this, I appreciate seeing Essjay's side of the story in the article somewhere. It's a shame we don't have a secondary source for all this. -- Kendrick7talk 09:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Leflyman, I don't think the first entry is excessive or extraneous. The first item is about the first ever recorded mention of the discrepancy, and the second records Essjay's first ever comment and defense of his actions. I think those are important. It'd be like an article on the American Revolution not mentioning the battle of Lexington and Concord. These are important things, more important to what actually happened than some news articles or mentions on TV. --Gwern  (contribs) 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *And they are the very definition of Original Research.--LeflymanTalk 06:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive timeline

message: Essjay uploaded this picture of himself, I don't see any encyclopedic reason why it shouldn't be used. I suggest we put it up on the main article. The same thing was done with several fraudsters articles at Wikipedia, why should it be different for Essjay ?? Arcticdawg 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say a picture of Essjay he himself loaded adds to the article, it is the same one he used when he came out of the closet at Wikia. Arcticdawg 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image adds to the article. A picture is worth a thousand words. Readers want to know what the person of interest looks like. --QuackGuru 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As the title says "no evidence if it is Essjay or not". Does wikipedia now include information where we have no evidence of what it represents? It does not add anything to the article. We do not know if it proves it is Essjay and we do not know if it proves if Essjay was duplicitious. - Munta 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We know he uploaded it. We know he claimed it was him. We know reputable media outlets have run it as part of their story. We don't need to know whether it is him or not so long as we don't claim it is him. Our caption is correctly stating the known facts about the image. Johntex\talk 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The famous picture was used by the media. One of the most notable pictures on Wikipedia. --QuackGuru 02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I think the below noted links are informative and should be allowed in the article. Arcticdawg 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, people keep deleting them from the article ! Arcticdawg 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Informative does not mean approrpriate. Read WP:EL to gain an understanding about why they've been repeatedly removed.  02:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Please note, copyright law only allows for short samples from articles. You cannot add extended paragraphs. Rewrite the graphs in your own words and add a citation. --Jayzel 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your characterization of copyright law is not accurate. In fact you can quote an entire work if your purpose is to then criticize it. Wjhonson 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed copyright violation 

message: I'm a bit concerned that all those links to external secondary sources are just dangling there without comment in the article itself. Some sort of reference within the article to the extensive coverage of the controversy would be appropriate. As it sits, the only sources are the New Yorker and Wikinews, which are hardly in the same calibre as the BBC, NYT, and American television networks (as botched as their articles might be). Comments? Risker 04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we work some of those stories into the article? 

message: This lead still isn't right:
The Essjay controversy arose after The New Yorker magazine disclosed that a prominent English Wikipedia editor and administrator known by the name "Essjay", who was also briefly employed at Wikia, had "forged his credentials and faked having a doctorate."1
It makes it seem that the quote from ABC News came from The New Yorker which if one follows the sources we know isn't true. With the first ref. leading to ABC News this lead is a bit of a bait and switch.
This earlier version:
The Essjay controversy occurred after The New Yorker magazine was obliged to add an editor's note to a prior article that a prominent English Wikipedia editor and administrator, and brief Wikia employee, known by the name "Essjay" did not have academic credentials he was originally reported as having.
makes more sense. This bait and switch bit makes the article lose credibility and needs to be corrected. Perhaps we can come up with a version somewhere in between these two that doesn't bait and switch?  04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur that the lead needs to be specific to what is said in The New Yorker, and actually the original lead is more correct. Perhaps using the description of the problem from The New Yorker article and breaking it down into two sentences? The ABC stuff doesn't belong in the lead, they came into the picture days after the controversy set in. Risker 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We could just remove the quotes around what ABC says, though "...did not have academic credentials he originally claimed to have" would be ok. Your version buries the lede. It's not the reporting that's the scandal, it's the erroneous claim. -- Kendrick7talk 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you're citing lede then know that Wikinews is over that way. This is an encyclopedia, let's write like it is one.  05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Today's Papers jargon which column I read daily, but article writing is article writing. No point in not cutting to the chase; please don't refer me to wikifilms! -- Kendrick7talk 05:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well given ABC News' Justin Timberlake and Star Wars spin in their report I don't have much confidence in relying upon them as a source for this article and this is even moreso true in terms of citing them in the lead sentence.  05:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For those of us who didn't see it, what was said about Starwars and Timberlake? JoshuaZ 05:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ABC News sensationalized the news by mentioning that Essjay had edited on those two articles. Regardless of the circumstances that type of thing is not all that uncommon for editors to do on Wikipedia when it comes to combatting vandals and other nonsense. You can watch the video here.  06:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as we don't editorialize and report what reliable sources say the controversy is, I'm open to anything. -- Kendrick7talk 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead as it stands is false - he didn't forge or fake credentials; he lied about having them, which is bad but different. The note is not to the New York Times as it suggests. The source is ABC news, which is not a reliable source for such things - on trivial complicated things, journalists invariably make errors, and this is a good example. Metamagician3000 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agreed; while Wikipedia's newly consolidated Attribution policy (formerly "verifiability") is about verifiability, not truth, we should as a practice attempt to be accurate, and find sources that get the facts correct -- referencing those which properly explain events, rather than are just in the ball park and come from a more impressive media outlet. Journalists make mistakes, but our aim is to be a bit more precise; even Ms. Schiff's original article notes, "At the same time, the site embodies our newly casual relationship to truth. When confronted with evidence of errors or bias, Wikipedians invoke a favorite excuse: look how often the mainstream media, and the traditional encyclopedia, are wrong! As defenses go, this is the epistemological equivalent of “But Johnny jumped off the bridge first.”"--LeflymanTalk 17:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead again 

message: I'm not sure about this, but I have trouble seeing these as plausibly GFDLable since they are copies of GFDL content without the attached attribution they are essentially only justifiable under a fair use doctrine and can't (I think) be put under GFDL. Now, if to each image the history of the page was attached, then it would be a valid derivative work and thus GFDLable. Am I correct here? JoshuaZ 06:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, is no one else concerned about this? JoshuaZ 07:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would probably best be an issue to take up on the individual pages themselves of those images. Smee 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh. I was hoping someone who had mroe knowledge of the image issues could just tell me I was wrong. I'll go deal with this tommorow. Need sleep now. JoshuaZ 07:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The text in the images is GFDL'd; the images in the images isn't necessarily, but they aren't really important. It would be trivial to blank them with the right tool. Volunteers? -- Kendrick7talk 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the images are GFDL too and as for those which may not be the resolutions are so low they're but splotches. There's nothing here to worry about. Gwen Gale 07:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, the splotch argument seems to be the most convincing issue, my real concern (maybe I didn't state it well) was that if these screenshots are considered to be derivatives of the pages from which they came then in order to comply with the GFDL they need have the histories of the pages attached. Does that make sense to anyone? JoshuaZ 14:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, spot on. Meanwhile try arguing that the attempted erasing of content and histories for the Essjay RfC and article were vios of GFDL and one might easily get banned for making a legal threat. Gwen Gale 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deleting them wasn't a GFDL problem by itself since the content wasn't used elsewhere, the images however are still a problem, JoshuaZ 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the GFDL only requires a history when the have been modifications. There aren't modifications here. This falls under section 2, not section 4. -- Kendrick7talk 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, they are derivative, but if we just link to the history of the page (as other sites do with our content), it should comply with the licsense. But you're right; with the histories deleted they're fair use. I think they should be removed for purely editorial reasons, however. At best they're redundant with the webcites. Cool Hand Luke 14:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, editorially, they add nothing and hence could be taken as swaying the article into PoV. Gwen Gale 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, editorially, they add a lot. People are visual creatures - they like to see images to help them understand. We should keep the images. Johntex\talk 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have they ever heard of youtube then? :) Gwen Gale 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Under what WP:FU:Fair use criterion? JoshuaZ 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GFDL/GPL is not only for wikis ya know. Gwen Gale 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The image of the editor has been published and doesn't pose any serious problem, and I agree it might add some humanizing to the article. But can you honestly say that screenshots of a website are the sorts of images humans respond to? Like Glen Gale, I also suspect the images are a POV problem. I would favor cutting all of them, but at least the screenshots. Cool Hand Luke 19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Gwen Gale :) Gwen Gale 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand how they are POV. Who's POV is being represented by them? -- Kendrick7talk 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some may take it as a pileon as all, others won't. Gwen Gale 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image liscenses of the screenshots 

message: Please see this discussion and reply there. - Denny 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: License review

message: I think the following paragraph should be added but it got deleted, I put it back for now:
In addition, Jimmy Wales, has requested further discussion about increasing the standards for checking credentials of editors at Wikipedia, such as, but not limited to, a proposal for power at Wikipedia to be accompanied by accountability Wikipedia:Administrators accountability and a proposal for credentials to be verified Wikipedia:Credentials. Arcticdawg 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallout section 

message: * User:Dexterreneer had added this: He was actually Ryan Jordan (actually known as Steve Jordan when at Centre College), ... - DIFF, which was then removed as unsourced. Are there sources/citations for this information? Smee 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not seen any but will keep my eyes peeled. Gwen Gale 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be very easy to verify but are we crossing over into cyberstalking in doing so?  16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's' in public and RS records... I guess if the source itself is fine for inclusion, it's fine. No one can argue that the person is wholly private at this point given the amount of media coverage. - Denny 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If an editor is doing the leg work to try to discover facts that can't be attributed to a published source otherwise, it would fall into Original research. Wikipedians are not journalists, nor should they attempt to be private investigators.--LeflymanTalk 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * oh, I know. Thats why I said if it's already in RS, I don't see the harm in including it... - Denny 17:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced info? 

message: I've rephrased "what he said" in the intro because he didn't *say* it as far as I know. If you can cite where he says he is a dropout, please post that citation into the lead. Thanks. Wjhonson 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again someone has changed it to *imply* that he said he was a dropout. Can we just stick to what the cited article actually states, and cite it to that author instead of Essjay? Thanks. Wjhonson 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What he said 

message: The timeline states Essjay retired, yet on Jimbo's talk page he said he asked him to resign. Did he "retire" or "regsign"?--167.80.244.204 18:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being asked to resign and being fired are not the same thing. The latter can follow the former if the person refuses but the two actions have legally distinct consequences. It is very unclear whether Jimbo could legally have dismissed Essjay given that he was aware of his true identity when he gave him the Wikia job. WjB scribe 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo distinctly said that he "fired" Essjay. Let's face it, how long would essjay have been able to retain his arbcom seat if he had refused to resign? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired or ''Resigned''??? 

message: From The Times, the leading UK newspaper, is some interesting sourceable content of Jimmy Wales's take on EssJay's disinformation persona and its repercussions: 
--LeflymanTalk 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional source, The Times 

message: Can I point out to everyone that Essjay was fired, not because he lied about his job, but because he used those lies to win content disputes and to enhance his standing when writing to professors. Jimbo has been very clear on this point. Although the press believe it was because he simply lied, Jimbo statements are unambiguous on the subject and the article needs to reflect that. Please bear that in mind when you edit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Jimbo's statement on Essjay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Essjay was fired 

message: I'm glad to see that the article is now more about the incident rather than the individual. In that respect, would some comment about Essjays accusation of 'Unethical Journalistic Practices' on the part of Stacy Schiff be mentioned in the article? Perhaps in the 'Essjay's response' section. Essjays accusations are really very serious and, in my opinion, quite noteable. They where made at the same time that the quote currently in 'Essjay's response' were made, and follow directly from the initial controversy. I'll gauge opinion here and maybe throw something together later and put that up. Source can be found here . Malbolge 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO Essjay has zero credibility as any kind of a witness in all this. He is documented as capable of lying repeatedly and consistently, both online and offline. Thus, his accusation that Schiff offered him compensation (which was likely made in utter cluelessness to begin with) is trivial. In other words, he can't hurt her reputation if no one believes what he says. Gwen Gale 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether the accusation is founded or not, they where made by Essjay and denounced by Schiff - so the accusation was made and was denied. Unfortunately, the only sources for the accusation and denial are the one I provide above (from WikiNews) and from blogs... aswell as from Essjays TalkPages where the accusation was originally made. As I have said, I'm not 100% with protocol and procedure, but (going on what you, Gwen Gale, said to my discussion of WP:SELF as not being criteria for the deletion of the Essjay Incident article) it appears that these cannot be used as a reliable source. Is this correct? Is Wikinews an external and verifiable and therefore acceptable source?Malbolge 19:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think we've developed a policy about WikiNews yet. In general, Wikis are considered not reliable, but plausibly WikiNews might be an exception for articles which have been looked over, published and protected. However, one issue with reliable sources is the problem of anonymity and Wikinews is in general anonymous. JoshuaZ 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's easy, if you can't find a verifiable, published secondary source reporting Essjay's claim about having been offered compensation, you can't include it in the article, the end. Meanwhile one reason it's not being reported by reliable sources is because it's a trivial claim made by an individual who is already documented as, please forgive me, a liar and unreliable source as to anything having to do with himself. If nobody believes what he says, it's an unbelievable, negligable claim, a non-starter as news because it would besmirch her without a shred of evidence aside from his worthless word. Sorry to be so hard on Essjay here but that's the pith of why it's not showing up anywhere. Truth be told I could point you to a single independent source which has reported it but why bother? Gwen Gale 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I myself put no weight in Essjays accusation. I feel that it was made to make himself appear more tragic/sympathetic in light of the whole controversy (as in "oh look... I gave up money"). It does not appear that he was accusing Schiff vindictively, but rather trying to frame himself in a certain light (much as Lih says, he made the comment without realising that it was an accusation of seriously unethical journalistic practice). However, what I THINK of the accusation, and what any of us THINK of the accusation is irrelevant. The accusation is noteable (because of its severity) and it is directly linked to the controversy. So, if it is verifiable should it not be included? I apologise if I'm getting in beyond my depth on this one, but we've all got to take the plunge sometime huh? Malbolge 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm convinced that for a lot of people that was the final straw that made them turn from "it was only an innocent mistake years ago" to "he has to go". But the important thing is to stick to published reliable sources and not blogs or independent research. It is our process and it works. WAS 4.250 20:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. If it can be found in or appears in a reliable publication then I'll go about putting it up. Thanks for the comments. I'll soon get a handle on all this protocol and policy and procedure. Malbolge 20:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essjays accusation of unethical journalistic practices perpetrated by Stacy Schiff 

message: What about Reliability of Wikipedia as well in the 'See also's? Totnesmartin (who really is called Martin and really is from Totnes!) 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it. WAS 4.250 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was wary of blundering in and doing it myself. Totnesmartin 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: What is the exact date he retired. Did he really retire or under pressure he resigned. Lets get the facts straightened out and the exact day of the month he quit put in the article. --QuackGuru 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's quote reliable published sources and not get into "truth" not only because that's policy but because that's what works or wikipedia. Otherwise we wind up arguing over the definition of "resign" vs. "retire" vs. "fired" and what evidence is allowed. Date he last edited? under which alias? Stick to reliable published sources . WAS 4.250 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As of March, 2007, Jordan is retired from Wikipedia. 

message: While it's true that ITWire reported it, it's false that it's occurring or will occur. It still may have a place in the article if only to demonstrate the wild rumours swirling around and the misinformation being published. Wjhonson 20:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False? Sez who? -- Kendrick7talk 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Says me. The liklihood that every editors credentials are going to be validated is slim to none with the great majority of weight on none. Wjhonson 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know we deal with reliable sources. What were you born on the moon or something? -- Kendrick7talk 21:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Wjhonson, but that's Original Research. It's certainly been proposed, not just now but endless times before, but the idea that they'd waste the money on it for anyone but maybe the ArbCom/Stewards crew is pretty much laughable. --tjstrf talk 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checking editors credentials 

message: The folks trying to get the screenshots removed are making some of the most asinine wikilawyering arguments I have ever heard.
The screenshots are referenced to DEAD LINKS. One is right now in Google cache HERE. Now, from What to do when a reference link goes dead:
* If you cannot find the page on the Internet Archive, remember that you can often find recently deleted pages in Google's cache. They will not be there long, and it is no use linking to them, but this may let you find the content, which can be useful in finding an equivalent page elsewhere on the Internet and linking to that.
However, The other is not in Google cache. Now again from What to do when a reference link goes dead:
*If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced.
End of discussion!
C.m.jones 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous, we have long-standing precedent that images have much less in the way of verifiability that is required. Otherwise we could never have  users upload images of locations where they personally took the photographs (for example). Let's not wikilawyer about this. JoshuaZ 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: END OF DISCUSSION

message: Hey guys... that pic was a screen I snagged when this mess all began, as I was figuring on adding some but never got around to it. It's a cropped pic of his wikia page before Angela erased it, not google cache. Please see this discussion and reply there. Basically...
(someone with historical access to the Essjay page archives on Wikia.com will need to demonstrate what license the page was under)
* Copyrighted by Wikia?
* GFDL by Essjay?
* Covered by the Wikipedia/WMF license tag?
If it's GFDL or #3, it's free to use as I understand, or it's fair use if it's Wikia's. Right? - Denny 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_copyrights, it's free to use. - Denny 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifically on the Essjay Wikia page 

message: Can we knock it off? Its just disruptive... I posted a suggestion here to the blocking policy. too much of this going on, it should be blockable. That was done just to cause trouble... - Denny 00:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to AGF. The article is under a different title and the previous AfD notice was very small at the time of the nom- Cool Cat may not have known about the previous discussion. In any event assuming the nom acted "just to cause trouble" is totally uncalled for... WjBscribe 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, nevermind. Given how much disruption the past week, that was uncalled of by me. Cool Cat, would you mind commenting? My apologies... - Denny 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to adress the two issues that the nominator put forward for the AfD ('notability' and 'avoid self reference'). Firstly, I think its widely established, due to the amount of media attention that the article has received, that the incident and the article is notable. Secondly, WP:SELF does not concern writing articles about Wikipedia, it is a style policy guideline, rather than a subject policy guideline. Infact, WP:SELF states that an "article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia.". I've seen alot of people state WP:SELF as an argument for deletion. To me, it would be a criteria for a rewrite of an article, but not its deletion. So, if/when the AfD does get resurrected can we try to limit the number of WP:SELF as a criteria for deletion. Malbolge 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry... but I should have said "the amount of media attention that the incident that the article deals with". Malbolge 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions/afd 

message: Archiving comments less than 2 hours old is not acceptable, comments should be left for a number of days to ensure that the section topic is closed, SqueakBox 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hasty archiving 

message: I was just thinking this is prbably the most-well cited stub in all of Wikipedia. Quick, someone call Guiness Book of World Records! LOL Regards, --Jayzel 01:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most well-cited stub in all Wikipedia 

message: Am I the only one thinking that the actual quote, "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." as found in The New Yorker article that User:Jayzel68 keeps removing should stay in the article? Given the circumstances of this story I think the article'd have more credibility repeating the quote rather than interpreting it.  01:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott, listen carefully. The lead of an article is to give a brief rundown of what the article is. It is not to be used to give detailed explanations or nitty-gritty information. That is the job of the main body of the article. The main body explains the lead in a more detailed fashion. Regards, --Jayzel 02:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, User:QuackGuru made a decent attempt at moving away from a partial interpretation of that quote.  02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I readded Jordan's name because I noticed that it didn't make sense without it. --Jayzel 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Yorker quote 

message: Well it was sucessfully in DYK…for a whole nine minutes. —M (talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! I was thinking of nominating Essjay controversy as a Featured article! --Jayzel 03:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is certainly heavily cited...  Smee 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it wouldn't pass due to stability concerns and it being listed as a current event. --Jayzel 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about upgrading its article quality assessment to something like "A" or "Good Article"  ?  Smee 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured on main page 

message: Gwen writes a lot of opinion. Here is one:
:"It's easy, if you can't find a verifiable, published secondary source reporting Essjay's claim about having been offered compensation, you can't include it in the article, the end."
The irony of course is that by RS we are quoting news reports which for the most part are opinion pieces rather than accurate and in depth news reports. I think I read one which ended with a note that acknowledged "at least his edits are not at issue."(pp)
A number of articles have used Wikipedia talk pages as "reliable sources" - are we quoting them quoting us?
:"Meanwhile one reason it's not being reported by reliable sources is because it's a trivial claim made by an individual who is already documented as, please forgive me, a liar and unreliable source as to anything having to do with himself."
This is an example of an opinion. Interestingly, its an opinion which says "we can ignore anything the actual subject of the article says."
:"If nobody believes what he says, it's an unbelievable, negligable claim, a non-starter as news because it would besmirch her without a shred of evidence aside from his worthless word."
Its not ours to judge, we just report. Why should we quote Essjay in one aspect and not in another? To do so asserts some external value judgement - in this case that the statement is a "trivial claim" by a "liar and unreliable source." Note that this was not the view of Essjay just a week ago. (Where were you then?) I suggest you familiarise yourself with NPOV. -Ste|vertigo 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular reliable sources 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter&oldid=112644578 User:Essjay/Letter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Google Archieve of Essjay/Letter page: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:t9xVi2aqwoEJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter+Essjay/Letter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Here are some fun quotes from that page: 
"I am also a tenured professor of theology; feel free to have a look at my Wikipedia userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials."
"I expect my students to check their facts, regardless of where they originate."
"Well credentialed individuals (myself included) participate in the project in the hopes that our involvement will help to make Wikipedia a better source, and dispel the misconceptions held by the public."
Irony--"it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity."
TheChosenWon 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in the article. It was a letter to a professor where he posed as a professor proclaiming the greatness of Wikipedia. There is no cover-up. Regards, --Jayzel 05:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? Possibly, it could be more than just a letter. There may be additional information. I want to read the whole letter. Transparency by Wikipedia is important. I do not understand the reason I can't read the original letter. A quote from or a link to the letter may indeed improve the article. --QuackGuru 05:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny how there's actually a link from the "Primary sources" section of the article to what appears to be the letter.  05:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just double checking. The article is up to par now. But wait. We will never know if that is the whole letter if Wikipedia does not let us take a peak at the User:Essjay/Letter page. --QuackGuru 05:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh for pity's sake - this is a copy of what Essjay posted. Only he and the professor involved would be able to confirm or deny if this is the entire content of the letter.  Risker 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are precise. This is a copy of what Essjay wrote. --QuackGuru 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cover Up 

message: Does this article have such an enormous section on Wikipedia at the start? Its not necessary - if people want to learn about Wikipedia they can click on Wikipedia (duh) Glen 09:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called CONTEXT. C.m.jones 09:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted to prior version, the one written by C.m.jones was very POV and sensationalistic. Although nicely written.  Risker 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice job - much much much better Glen 09:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why oh why... 

message: With all respect to the effort c.m. obviously put into his rewrite of the article, it has numerous flaws that make it an unacceptable alternative to the current article. It bears no in-line citations, which is my key concern. These are absolutely vital in this article to prevent creeping Original Research and under no circumstances should be moved away from on such a volatile page. A harsh demand for citations on every substantial claim is all that stands between this page and the people who wish to turn it into an attack piece. And speaking of WP:NOR, it's full of it. The very first sentence makes the unsupported claim that this is Wikipedia's most reported scandal, and it only gets worse from there. Even the stuff that is cited is impossible to tell from the uncited content due to the non-inline system chosen. I require sleep at this point, so I won't be able to work on or discuss this any more tonight, but please c.m., at the very least go back to the inline citation system and clean the possibly true but unattributable statements out of the intro. --tjstrf talk 09:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not averse to reincorporating inlines, although they are NOT required in any policy. C.m.jones 09:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I made a similar point here - the current version (linked above) is much preferable IMO Glen 09:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But please cease, whoever, with claims of OR. I have no other way to know info about this than any one else! C.m.jones 09:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one was accusing you or OR, rather, making the point that without the citations inline it is very hard to determine what is verified and what is OR. Glen 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am afraid that I must agree with tjstrf. This version is very sensationalistic, and it reads like a newspaper article, not an encyclopedia article.  The language is flowery and unencyclopedic.  There is also undue weight given to many sections, particularly the lengthy history of Wikipedia and the attention given to Larry Sanger.  This article is intended to be about a very specific episode, and should focus entirely on that episode. I think we need to revert to the factual version with inline cites that, yes, definitely still needs work.  Risker 10:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major problems with article rewrite 

message: At the time of writing this entry the article is protected and I am now leaving my computer, would an editor please copy and paste the following news articles, when the protection comes off.  thank you Arcticdawg 11:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. You can also use the  tag to make such requests. -- Avi 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News Articles 

message: :zh:埃斯傑事件,thank you.--Iflwlou 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this, I assume this is not controversial, so I added it despite the protection. If it was controversial, you can revert(or ask me to revert if you are not an admin). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please add this 

message: Does evidence exist that Essjay actually sent the letter to an actual professor?  I do not trust Essjay's statements at face value, so "Essjay claimed he sent..." may be appropriate pending verification.  Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 17:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the page accordingly.  I trust that this is noncontroversial and unrelated to the edit war that provoked page protection. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Essjay also wrote a letter to a real world professor" 

message: I would appriciate any comments about the removal of the links to history on Essjay talk page Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents#Essjay Talk page History - Regards - Munta 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think this question belongs here- not related to the editing of the article. I believe the matter is already being discussed at WP:ANI? WjBscribe 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know - thats why I included the link to let people know it was being discussed :) - Regards - Munta 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essjays talk page history 

message: Quack Guru feels we should add in the fact that Essjay is not "indefinetly blocked", using his block log as the source. Is this relevant to the article? I do not think so, but I don't want to get into an edit war over this. I believe this is both a non-neutral statement and also original research. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Risker 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only relevant if a reliable third party source referred it it, then only their interpretations is relevant. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Omit. Not only is it irrelevant and a self-reference, but Quack's being highly POV about it both in motive (as he just showed above) and in phrasing. --tjstrf talk 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, as is, it's utter SR. Gwen Gale 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep. If and when he returns then it will become even more relevant. People are allowed to lie on Wikipedia and continue to edit here. There is no policy against confirmed liars. --QuackGuru 20:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. Last I checked we also didn't have rules against edits by shoplifters, adulterers, drug dealers, or cannibalistic murderers. What's your point? --tjstrf talk 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Omit - not being indef blocked is the default state for an account. Should we mention other default states of his account, such as being able to edit semiprotected pages and so on? I don't think so. If he had been blocked or banned at all, it would be worth enumerating as another of the negative consequences attendant upon him. --Gwern (contribs) 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for further discussion.  has been keen to enter OR into this article and this is just another example of it.  20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is his block log relevant? 

message: The Guardian has been slow to give this coverage, but today has Read me first | New media| MediaGuardian.co.uk Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive, Seth Finkelstein, Thursday March 8, 2007. This gives some thought to the social dynamic of Wikipedia, commenting that "The lifeblood of Wikipedia is selling heavy contributors a dream that their donated effort will give them the prestige of an academic.... And "Essjay" - Ryan Jordan - was that dream's poster child." and that "One of Wikipedia's major public relations successes has been in misdirecting observers into a narrative of technological miracles, diverting attention from analysing its old-fashioned cult appeal. While I don't mean to imply that everyone involved in Wikipedia is wrapped up in delusion, that process is a key factor." These seem to me to encapsulate the MUD analogy that has been raised in various discussions here. Lest we get too gloomy, the issue was mentioned in passing in Students marked on writing in Wikipedia, Donald MacLeod, Wednesday March 7, 2007, which reports that "Wikipedia... has been made compulsory reading (and writing) for a new course at the University of East Anglia... Nicola Pratt, a lecturer in international relations, ... is now convinced it can be a great opportunity for students to see at first hand how knowledge is produced.", and "is undeterred by the revelation this week". On the same day Something wiki this way comes discussed the :Middlebury College ban" without mentioning Essjay, and pre-controversy, Wikipedia: Jimmy Wales of Nov 2006 quotes Wales as an 'anti-credentialist'. In my opinion the first two articles should be linked here, and given a brief mention which I'll try to add asap. ... dave souza, talk 11:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Dave souza, the Guardian article was being used as a reference already (Reference #8). I don't see anything from the second one; perhaps we can change headline currently titled "Reaction from other media sources" to "Reaction from outside of Wikipedia" or something to that effect.  Nice find, btw. Risker 11:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, apologies for not noticing that: would it not be a good idea to list all the sources in the News sources section so that they're easier to find and relate to sequence? Of course it either means some duplication, or changing to Harvard referencing (ducks), but in my opinion the sequence of the NYT coverage was quite a crucial part of the shift from internet phenomenon to mainstream news. Couple of points: the Grauniad piece appeared in the TechnologyGuardian Thursday supplement as an opinion piece with a pic of Seth showing his dramatic beard, rather than in the main paper, and is datelined Thurs 8th and not the 7th when it presumably was retrieved from Guardian Unlimited, perhaps a time zone artefact. . dave souza, talk 22:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian coverage 

message: Wikipedia has to be very careful here in appearing apologetic and sad but angry at this betrayal by Essjay. As much as some of you might be friends with him, he has done significant damage through his lies.
You need to give up protecting him and simply report his lies and report what damage he has done, as well as what is being done to avoid future betrayals of the Wikipedia concept.
Protecting and making it seem like he did nothing wrong is only further harming Wikipedia's credibility. Berym 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me Berym, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia.  What the editors here are doing is trying to write a high quality encyclopedia entry about a specific incident, meeting all of the standards we have here at Wikipedia. This is not an apology page OR an attack page - or at least it shouldn't be.  The protection is on right now because an edit war developed between two versions of this article, and the issue has since been discussed on this page.  I believe the forum you are looking for is WP:CN or possibly WP:VP.Risker 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, for the article itself, of course. I was more referring to the comments page :) Sorry, new here... I should have clarified. -- Berym 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damage to Wikipedia, and Damage control BY Wikipedia 

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: I'm not convinced we are ready to move on from the current protected status without having some idea of the direction that we want to go in.  The routine free-for-all editing to date has resulted in an article with a lot of good information, but it is disjointed and disorganized, and there are still POV and appropriate weighting issues.  I propose that we work toward restructuring the article as follows:
*Opening paragraph - keep it short, two or three sentences maximum.  Most of the info about the New Yorker should be moved to the section specifically discussing the New Yorker. Propose that limited  sorry, typo Risker 00:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that there are dozens of news stories about this, care has to be taken in selecting citations and sources for this section. We should avoid blog or editorial-style articles where possible, unless the author can be demonstrated to be an expert in the field.
*See Also - include more internal links to general information about Wikipedia; C.m.jones may have a point about the new reader who may not really know what WP is.  
*References (as per standard format)
*News Sources - the number of sources is too long to list now.  Any more experienced editors know if we can have this list as a subpage of the article? Otherwise, suggest that we might need to start a new article listing just the articles. 
*Primary sources - should only include sources used in the article. 
Is this a framework that we can agree on?  Can we proceed with this? Risker 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with your framework. This will gut the article against established consensus. I do agree with the Reaction to controversy section though. I suggest to take it one step at a time rather than to face lift the article. QuackGuru TALK 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it a lot, when dealing with biographies of living people it is essential to stick the the facts, and keep it simple. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment, QuackGuru and HighInBC. Most of this proposal is a rearrangement of current content.  By now it would be easy to find over 100 media references to this controversy; I am particularly curious what ideas people have to keeping this list manageable without making the article "bottom heavy" or skewing the results. Risker 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The lead is fine as it is, IMHO. It is exactly the right length for a lead to what will end up being a substantial article. It also states the main facts in clear, objective language. It is a good summary of what should be elaborated in the body of the article. When the dust has cleared, we should add one sentence to the end of the lead stating what impact the controversy had, e.g. "The English Wikipedia subsequently introduced such and such action to reduce the possibility of similar occurrences." However, it would be premature to say anything like that now. Await an outcome and a subsequent announcement in a reliable source. Metamagician3000 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to list media coverage any more than we'd list every media story about, say, a political scandal. If we just want to make the point that there's been a lot of media coverage we don't do our own survey to prove the point - that is original research. We find a reliable source that already makes that point. If it has not been said somewhere reliable it doesn't go in the article. Without being silly and putting in things we actually know to be wrong (and there's plenty of that in news reports), we are only here to synthesise what has already been said about this controversy, not to create an original interpretation of it. Metamagician3000 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Restricting the sources to those that support the article text, with perhaps a sentence of the form "The story was carried by the AP, CNN, UK Times…" to show its widespreadness, would be sufficient. The laundry list that is there now is overkill. -- Avi 02:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed structure of article after protection removed 

message: Is this...
    * Lead section
    * 1 New Yorker interview
    * 2 Reaction to controversy
          o 2.1 News media
          o 2.2 Educational and other institutions
          o 2.3 Wikipedia
    * 3 Fallout from the controversy
    * 4 Essjay's response
    * 5 See also
    * 6 References
    * 7 News sources
          o 7.1 Audio and video
    * 8 Primary sources
          o 8.1 Essjay's userpage images
What exactly is wrong with that? all it needs is a lawn mowering later of 7-8 somewhat. I wouldn't object to the comprehensive list being moved to a sub page that we can link from here for research purposes or whatever, for people to build the article off if there is good information in some (no one just delete it please). But that structure is good. Chronological, sequential, easy to follow. Why change it? - Denny 05:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The current structure

message: I suggest to create a new article ASAP called the List of articles related to Essjay. QuackGuru TALK 02:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest to create a new article called List of things that Essjay lied about 67.70.70.58 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about no and no. Neither is useful or necessary. JoshuaZ 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: exactly. stuff that is in article space that directly relates to him/the scandal would go under "See also" if not already linked in the text... - Denny 05:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of articles related to Essjay]] 

message: What is the next course of action? Any suggestions? QuackGuru TALK 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One Step At  A Time." 

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: Is there merit in an implications section? Many of his bans may now have to be reviewed in the interest of fairness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.132.221.157 (talk • contribs).
:Huh? What, you mean you think any blocks Essjay issued need to be reviewed? Gimme a break. His "lie(s)" had zero affect on his absolutely stellar administrative actions. Glen 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two things to say. I can tell you Essjay made his mistakes as an admin but these IMO seem to have been unrelated to his MUDdy CV. Meanwhile, the question itself deals with rather wee and internal stuff, it's not encyclopedic at all (unless evidence of widespread and looming abuse by Essjay emerges, for which there is no hint so far). Gwen Gale 11:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications 

message: "We're not happy about it," he said. "To discover that someone had been deceiving the community for a long time really was a bit of a blow to our trust. Wikipedia is built on the idea of trusting other people and people being honest and we find that in the most part everyone is, so it was a real disappointment."
"I didn't think it was all that important because I didn't realize he was relying on credentials as a professor," he said. "He treated it really as a bit of a joke and the actual credentials he claimed were a bit ludicrous. After the fact you can look back and say, 'Well that was a bit odd,' but I never really looked into it and that was the big mistake that I made in the whole process."
"My view is when he first came on the site he made up this persona not really thinking very much about it and not realizing he was going to become very active and respected in the community and then I think he felt a bit trapped," he said. "I talked to him the other day and of course he's not very happy about all of the press coverage. One doesn't want to become famous for something like this but he feels a bit relieved that it's all over so I'm hoping the world will let him grow up in peace and he'll be successful in life."
Read it here. Truth be told I agree with Wales about how it happened, Essjay got stuck in the MUD. Gwen Gale 14:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: more comments by Wales today

message: Essjay is not notable. This article belongs maybe on wikinews, but not wikipedia. 64.236.245.243 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed in several places (eg. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Essjay controversy). There is no concensus on this point. In my opinion, it amounts to a Catch 22 situation. If we have an article, its self-referential and overfocuses on current news rather than being particularly encyclopedic. If we don't have an article, it will be suggested that Wikipedians wish to cover up the circumstances that lead to Essjay's retirement. For now, the best option seems to be to ensure that this article meets WP:NPOV.... WjBscribe 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The topic has been heavily covered by news outlets worldwide, Wikipedia is notable and this scandal (Jimbo's word for it by the bye) is notable. The article is thoroughly sourced and has already survived an AfD. Essjay may not be notable but the controversy is, hence the article's title. Gwen Gale 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again my original points stands. This article has NO place in an encyclopedia. It's not notable enough. It belongs on a news site, wikinews is fine, but not here. As for the "cover up" reasoning, I see it another way. I see it as glorifying what essjay did, and encouraging others to act the same way. He gains publicity for doing something wrong. I don't think we should encourage that. In any case this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia anyway. 64.236.245.243 16:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any event, Wikipedia operates by consensus and there is certainly no consensus to delete this article. WjBscribe 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki deletion is NOT a popular vote. 64.236.245.243 16:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is not, and WJBscribe said exactly how it operates — by consensus.  You have yet to explain how the article "is not appropriate for an encyclopedia."  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Using phrases like Article must be deleted will make it appear like you are trolling. This has been discussed many times before. If you feel the article should be deleted then you may raise an AfD. Note however, that the last AfDs were in favor of keeping the article. Munta 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your problem. I can't be held responsible for the way you percieve statements. The article must be deleted. That's my opinion. I can dress it up and say, "article's authenticity in question", but in the end, it's saying the same thing. Don't complain about the way the topic is phrased, discuss the matter at hand. 64.236.245.243 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Attitude and presentation have a major impact on interpretation.  If it is your opinion and not a statement of fact then you should say, "in my opinion, blah blah blah".  Also, the dictatorial tone you take in speaking to others greatly undermines any valid points you may have. --StuffOfInterest 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Facts come before your sensitive emotions. 64.236.245.243 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How is recording what he did glorifying it? Are we glorifying dictators by giving them their own articles?  --  Zanimum 16:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: While Essjay/Ryan Jordan may not be notable, what he did has had an effect on the perception of a very notable subject. As this article discusses the impact, and is not Jordan himself, it seems to be valid as a topic. I agree with WjB, it's best to just make this article the best that we can, and re-evalutate it at a later date.  --  Zanimum 16:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictators tend to be infamous already. Essjay was just a kid on the net. I actually talked to him on AIM once, can I cite that convo and what he said on this article? It's ridiculous. This is a news story, but not an encyclopedia entry, there's a BIG difference. You will NOT find Essjay in a printed encyclopedia. In 10 years no one will care about him, or this incident. Article must be deleted. 64.236.245.243 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's speculation. Meanwhile you can't cite a personal conversation you had with him unless you get it published in a reliable source. Gwen Gale 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  *slaps forehead* Look up sarcasm please. 64.236.245.243 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok :) Meanwhile have a shufti at WP:OR. Gwen Gale 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That ruling has nothing to do with this dicussion. Original research deals with adding information to articles. It is completely irrelevant to discussions on deleting articles. 64.236.245.243 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right when you said your AIM discussion wouldn't be included in the article, you're mistaken as to why. Gwen Gale 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well it's a good thing that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, then. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That ruling has nothing to do with what we are talking about. That ruling simply deals with the infinite nature of the net and the number of topics wiki can cover. My point was, a printed encyclopedia would never cover this topic because it's not encyclopedic, nor notable. 64.236.245.243 16:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it true? Can you support your assertion with a verifiable citation from a reliable source? Gwen Gale 16:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gwen, you are badly confused as to what we cite. I have to cite stuff that I try to include on an article. I don't have to cite words that I say on a talk page because I want it deleted. I'm the exclusionist. You are the inclusionist. I don't have to prove anything. You have to prove that this is somehow notable. Oh and don't revert my AFD on the main page. Munta suggested that I nominate this for deletion. I'm going by that advice. 64.236.245.243 16:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, how many times is this going to be nominated for deletion? ElinorD (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Twice.  Once closed and once speedy closed.  He keeps trying to point back to the one which was speedy closed.  Next time he does it will probably be a 3RR or just plain vandalism. --StuffOfInterest 16:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going by Munta's advice. I don't know how to make a new AFD, this one just keeps directing to the old one. 64.236.245.243 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The software only allows signed in editors to create new pages, which is necessary for a new AfD discussion to take place. WjBscribe 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, what makes you think the result will be any different that the other two AfD discussions closed in the last few days? --StuffOfInterest 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please AFD this article for me? Thanks in advance. 64.236.245.243 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to - but I think the article should stay - paerhaps you would like to register on Wikipedia and do it yourself Munta 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't let me. Much appreciation to whoever AFD's this. 64.236.245.243 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? When? If I did, it was an honest mistake, I can assure you. 64.236.245.243 17:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, this article can't be AfD'd so soon again. Gwen Gale 17:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? How about in a week? 64.236.245.243 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno. I've brought up running new AfDs on articles after months have passed and been blown off. Once they stick... they stick. Gwen Gale 17:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd concur, but unfortunately I'm involved having undone his revert once.  Best to put a report on WP:AN/3RR, but I see there is a backlog there. --StuffOfInterest 17:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, I only see 3 reverts. You can't count the first time I posted the AFD. Besides I was just going on Munta's advice, so I took the reverts as vandalism. The rules do say I should watch the page for vandalism does it not? Not after the 3rd revert did someone mention that the afd was directing to the old afd so it wasn't working. An honest mistake IMO. 64.236.245.243 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've indeed broken 3rr, all of those count as rvs back to the other anon's edit. Chill, is all. Please. Thanks :) Gwen Gale 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think I have, but I don't think you should be mocking me. I reported you for blanking, but I didn't rub it in your face right? 64.236.245.243 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah and you were told to stay away from me and brush up on a couple of WP policies. Meanwhile I'm not the grass here am I 'n this wee tidbit along with everything else could get you blocked for personal attacks and trolling but hey, who's keepin' track? Gwen Gale 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability concerns 

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: *Wikipedia:Administrators accountability - a proposal for power at Wikipedia to be accompanied by accountability
*Wikipedia:Credentials - a proposal for credentials to be verified
*Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons - a suggestion to extend the BLP policy of sourcing contested claims to user pages
*Wikipedia:Honesty
*User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification
*User:MikeURL/Credentials
The result of this scandal is the most important part. WAS 4.250 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Move this section to article space? Views please. luke 03:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section does not belong in the article. Adding them is a blatant self reference at this point, without external sources. Most of these are in discussion phase and are nowhere near consensus; perhaps once consensus is reached, one or more of them might fit into the "See Also" section, and/or an external source will write about them and they can be included in the article.  Risker 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response. Yes avoid self-reference, but what if the article is at least 50% navel-gazing? It's an attempt partly to take a long hard look at what happened and to draw the appropriate conclusions from history. Is it REALLY encyclopedic otherwise?--luke 04:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, slowly but surely the navel-gazing sections of this article are being weeded out. Wales himself is a notable person, and media discussion can be used as a reference in the article proper (there is a section about outcomes of the controversy). The issue of whether or not this entire episode is notable is still open for debate, but this article having recently survived AFD, the current focus is on making it a high quality article rather than warring over whether or not it should be here at all. Risker 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to Wikipedia as a result 

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: I know there's some discussion above which is related to the matter, but why is it necessary to link to external caches and screenshots of external caches of Wikipedia content in order to cite Wikipedia? The rule about not making references to Wikipedia makes sense if you're using Wikipedia articles to back up other Wikipedia articles, but when the article itself concerns Wikipedia, linking to Wikipedia pages would seem to be very sensible. Linking to caches of Wikipedia pages just before they're not hosted on wikipedia.org seems rather like we're trying to find a loophole in the rule about self-references, rather than just stating that it doesn't apply on this situation. They're no more verifiable than an oldid of the original pages, considering they're just a copy of them.
The whole thing just seems like trying to say that an original newspaper article isn't acceptable, but a photocopy of that same article somehow becomes so? I think we should just link to the oldids rather than do it in such a roundabout way.. if you believe that we should never cite Wikipedia, even in a story about Wikipedia, then it wouldn't make sense to support citing a copy of Wikipedia anyway. -- Mithent 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have asked for it several times. When a mistake as big as that is made, the evidence--all the evidence--should be preserved intact. DGG 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the deletion of his history, given his m:Right to vanish. As a wiki, we need to respect that. As an encyclopedia, we also have an obligation to document this. Hard to be of two minds about it, which is why is has prompted so much discussion. -- Kendrick7talk 04:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I am inclined to remove all of those "primary sources" currently posted if they are not specifically and directly referred to in the article; even then, there are secondary sources for much of this now, which should be used instead.  The absence of those links will not affect the accuracy or quality of the article. Risker 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to external caches 

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: Daniel Brandt himself has said that he didn't discover it; the discovery was first made by a poster on Wikipedia Review.  Brandt was just the one to confront Essjay about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a source for this? Otherwise, we are stuck with the secondary source brought :( -- Avi 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: top of  "2. His Wikia user page was noticed in January. The details at the bottom of the page are sharply at odds with his Wikipedia user page, and set off alarms for researchers at The Wikipedia Review." He's referring to this, where Somey first spotted it on January 11. 142.157.19.40 17:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first discovery 

message: ; February 28 2007
* 
* 
; March 1 2007
* 
* 
* 
; March 2 2007
* 
* 
; March 5 2007
* 
; March 6 2007
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
; March 7 2007
* 
* 
* 
*
* 
* 
*
;March 8, 2007
* 
*
*
*
* 
;March 9, 2007
* 
;March 11, 2007
* 
</div>
=== Internal link ===
* Essjay's response in his own words on his talk page at 16:06, 1 March 2007 Wikipedian time. My response Retrieved on 2007-03-07.
Please note that this is a cross namespace link and needs to stay out of the article. Guidelines say doing this is wrong.  05:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think such links are probably OK given the subject of this article. That guideline seems to be more intended to cover self-references as in "this Wikipedia article" or references to the site interface, or links to non-article pages that aren't formatted as external links, which they should be so they still point back here if the site is mirrored and only the articles are copied – Qxz 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to polciy [sic] the internal link is O.K. because their is no specific policy against using this internal link.  QuackGuru TALK 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will put the internal link back it since there is no specific rule against it. QuackGuru TALK 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because something is not outright forbidden by policy, does not mean it isn't subject to normal editorial decision making. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News sources 

message: * Essjay's response in his own words on his talk page at 16:06, 1 March 2007 Wikipedian time. My response Retrieved on 2007-03-07.
Please note that this is a cross namespace link and needs to stay out of the article. Guidelines say doing this is wrong.  05:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think such links are probably OK given the subject of this article. That guideline seems to be more intended to cover self-references as in "this Wikipedia article" or references to the site interface, or links to non-article pages that aren't formatted as external links, which they should be so they still point back here if the site is mirrored and only the articles are copied – Qxz 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to polciy [sic] the internal link is O.K. because their is no specific policy against using this internal link.  QuackGuru TALK 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will put the internal link back it since there is no specific rule against it. QuackGuru TALK 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because something is not outright forbidden by policy, does not mean it isn't subject to normal editorial decision making. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal link 

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: The internal link is a historical event. It is the offical "My response" from Essjay himself in its entirety. QuackGuru TALK 22:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the response on the "internal link" (which should have a clearer name) and feel strongly that it should be included. Someone learning of the user Essjay and his actions would want to see how he presented himself on his talk page, I imagine--I know I did. Especially telling is comment #17 on his talk page, where someone who was burned by a content-specific decision attacks him and his fake credentials. These types of real responses are extremely important. 100DashSix 22:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Internal Link 

message: Now this might be a nitpick but those blockquotes seems awfully over-dramatic to me. Wales and Essjay aren't Charlotte Bronte and Karl Popper, for example. Why not straight quotes like, uhm, a text? Gwen Gale 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think quotes that are too long and included in text are ugly. Put 'em in a block quote just for style. (This is just me voicing personal preference, I have nothing to back it up other than "I think long quotes look prettier as block quotes") --Dookama 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But two sentences are not "long". According the the Chicago Manual of Style, Section 11.12, block quotes are usually reserved for >100 words or eight lines of text. There are other exceptions, but the quotations here do not seem to fil those requirements either. My opinion is that both gramatically and æsthetically speaking, these  tags for tiny excerpts are improper. -- Avi 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockquotes 

message: to deal with really controversial topics--and this one counts as such at least around here--is to rely on quotes--and the screen shots are essentially quotes. The article should be built around them.DGG 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But not quotes from a reliable source. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting what the screenshots say (and using the screenshots as a source) is one thing. But what does including the screenshots achieve? They are not readable in the size they would appear in the article, so are just pictoral links. What does having them achieve? WjBscribe 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't quote what the screen shots say or use them as a source. That would be WP:OR. All we can do is present them as they existed as such. Of course, you realize these thumbs act as links the curious can click on and see a bigger version? -- Kendrick7talk 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the way 

message: Based on the active threads on the talk page right now, the following issues remain to be resolved in this article:
*Lead section is weighted on the inciting activity rather than the controversy itself (identified by User:Kendrick7)
*Reaction section should be refactored/split up, or may be too long (identified byUser:QuackGuru, splitting up supported by User:Risker)
*Images of Essjay's Wikipedia user page, Wikia user page, and photo uploaded by Essjay continue to be an issue based on comments from several editors
*Whether or not the full text of Essjay's post to his Wikipedia user talk page, dated 15:06 on 1 March 2007 and titled "My response" should be included in the article as a direct link to userspace, or if the quoted section of this post currently in the article is sufficient (identified by User:QuackGuru)
I think this is an accurate summary of the key issues to be addressed at this point.  Is there anything else I have missed?  Risker 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually perfectly happy with the lead as is. Not sure where we are on that one.... -- Kendrick7talk 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. OK, the new lead is rather more succinct. -- Kendrick7talk 06:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think you were right on target there. After working on the same article for so long, it was easy for us to get some tunnel vision. Good to have a fresh set of eyes on board. Risker 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues remaining to be resolved 

message: I have revised the lead to be more in keeping with the title of the article, that is, the focus on the controversy.  I've left the citations blank for the various media right now, because I'd appreciate input from other editors on how many citations we would need to add for each one.  The easy way would be to use references we already have in the article, and we certainly couldn't include all of the outlets that have referred to the story (which is over 100, if I remember correctly).  Opinions? Risker 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, Gwern is of the opinion they are not needed.  Risker 06:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already had to make some changes. "Jordan" appeared out of nowhere in the third paragraph after your changes, because he now wasn't identified until later in the article. The fact tags in the second paragraph were redundant at best, because the first paragraph already referred to media sources. There were even spacing problems between paragraphs. Gwern and I fixed these problems. Really, though, the new lede seems less informative than the old, and I almost did a complete revert. But I didn't want to set off another edit war. Casey Abell 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Casey Abell and Gwern for jumping in.  I have no intention of reverting anyone, so feel free to make the changes you feel are appropriate, including reverting to the previous version if you feel that is best. The intention of my changes was to redirect focus on the controversy rather than the actions of an individual; however, I have no doubt my efforts can be improved upon. Risker 07:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised lead 

message: Serious Questions:
Currently the quotes are gone from the "Wales response" and "Essjay's response" and there is an abnormally huge Reactions section. I could fix the clutter and improve the article. First, the quotes should be put back in the article. Second, the reactions section should be divided into two sections because it is undue weight to have such a long section. Third, someone recently changed a sentence that is now factually false in the Essjay letter's section. Fourth, a link to the offical "My response" of Essjay is of historical significance that belongs in the article. Fifth, many editors already wanted the images to stay in the article. Sixth, this is becoming a story within a story. Some editors want to delete the article. Since deletion is not possible. Then, they want to make the article cluttered, unreadable, and short as possible. Removing the images and the internal link is just some examples to shorten the article. The huge reactions section is just one example of clutter and improper structuring. I do not know what is the next step forward in this kind of environment. Currently they are trying to suppress pictures of screenshots and images of Essjay's for no valid reason. A few minor cosmetic changes, organization, and direction will dramatically improve the article and flow of reading.
Any suggestions? QuackGuru TALK 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there you are on the talk page! Good. Your overdramatization with this headline seems slightly disruptive but better than mindless non-discussion reverting.  Which line is factually inaccurate?  01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Whoever is reading this: eyes in the sky above; notice the words above: disruptive and mindless) The first sentence of the Essjay's letter. Compare it now to the prior version earlier.  QuackGuru TALK 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Which line is factually inaccurate? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm tired or something but I'm not seeing a factual difference between the two versions myself.  02:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I took them out, see above section for why. -- Avi 04:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not ignoring your comments, QG.  I've taken the opportunity to review this whole page and ferreted out a couple of other issues that need to be addressed as well. I've grouped them together here: .  Can you please review this list and add in any issues that are not identified there? This might be an appropriate time to seek out opinions from "fresh eyes", and it would be easier for them to see what we know still needs to be resolved.  Thanks. Risker 05:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus has not been reached. The neutrality is now disputed. This article is in need of an expert to organize the sections for better flow of reading. Clearly, its "undue weight" to have such a long reactions section. Please divide the reactions section into two separate sections. QuackGuru TALK 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Is A News Worthy Story About How Wikipedians Are Editing the Essjay Controversy Article. 

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

message: Also, question for Dab... but your logic in your reply to me we should delete/merge John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Agree/disagree? And why, compared to this article? I am curious as to how you differentiate the two and why, and future articles like this, of this nature. Note that WP is notable enough itself to generate these stories more and more with each passing year... - Denny 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth be told, following his highly PoV logic, one might merge Jimbo Wales with Internet. Gwen Gale 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the Siegenthaler case is already notable for the history of Wikipedia. It has resulted in major new guidelines (BLP) and software updates (semiprotection). Once the "Essjay" case gives rise to similar consequences, I will admit it deserves its own article, but not before. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So by your logic articles on things related to Wikipedia should only be kept if they significantly alter/change how WP does things... and discard the policies we use for every other article? Why should Essjay get extra protections/provisions that other articles dont? - Denny 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: like what policies? My entire point is that this is unnotable off-WP. People who keep removing the   tag without addressing my concerns are trolling in my book. dab (𒁳) 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  q for Dab 

message: Gwen said: "dealing with a widely reported scandal (Jimbo Wales' word for it) having to do with one of the world's highest traffic websites, Wikipedia."
 
Do we have a source for this? Would be good for the article. - Denny 16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not seeing it in there... I wasn't able to find it on Google with some searches of Jimmy refering to it as that? No worries if it was a paraphrase, just got me thinking that having that with RS would be great to settle some of the semantic squabbling. - Denny 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for this? For the article 

message: QuackGuru has thrown up a neutrality tag. With all due respect to good faith editors who may not agree with me, I believe this is disruption following the warnings Quack was given by an admin about his edits here yesterday. Gwen Gale 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree.  17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've asked for an explanation because, as far as I know, neutrality hasn't been raised as an issue yet. Trebor 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In this case I would say the tag is less about neutrality, and more about not getting what he wants. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There may be errors occuring with MediaWiki judging by other edits on this talk page.  17:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag 

message: I don't think anyone is blanking anything... my history/contribs lists are all screwed up somehow. anyone else seeing odd things? - Denny 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here, so let's not jump to any conclusions about anyone's edits for the next little while. Very odd.  Risker 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's happening at other pages too. See this post, which deleted a previous one, and which I fixed here. Perhaps people should be extra careful to check the diffs for their own edits as soon as they've made them, until this has been sorted out, because it's easier to replace eaten-up posts if you do it immediately! Or perhaps we should even stop posting for a while, and gather our thoughts together about what we want to post! ElinorD (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, just a few minutes ago I saw a removal of a large swath of text by HighInBC with the edit summary 'blanking', and it was the last of several edits in a row by that editor. The edits are now gone. Anchoress 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh weird, now they're back in the history again. Anchoress 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking 

message: whatever happened to "no self-reference"? Wikipedia:Recentism? WP:UNDUE? This article is pure omphaloskepsis. Speedy merge into Criticism of Wikipedia. dab (�) 13:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recentism may be a problem, but this also is an international story.  No merge required, or warranted. Also, please read WP:SELF - articles about Wikipedia are not bad "self-references." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No merge: Let this article mature and let the dust settle and then let's revisit the idea of deletion/merging.  14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you read WP:N recently?  This is getting to be silly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No merge, clearly notable, don't see WP:UNDUE issues, we are fighting against self-references. That same issues would exist in the Criticism of Wikipedia, but it would be too large for it. This is fine, it just needs plenty of attention from people who uphold policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: um, you cannot just claim it is notable. You'll have to show it is. Unless you do that, I would ask you not to remove the templates. It's not like I deleted the article: I placed these templates in good faith, and they should not be removed until the issue is resolved (as Netscott puts it, until the dust has settled).  The article is categorized in "History of Wikipedia", "Scandals" and "Internet culture". I ask you, is it notable in the history of Wikipedia? Not yet at any rate, and "Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball". Does it qualify as a notable scandal (think Dreyfus or Abu Ghraib)? Don't make me laugh. Is it a notable part of Internet culture? Notability is not popularity: popular Internet fads may be the subject of few or no reliable sources and fail to be notable. I suggest we can branch the article off "Criticism of Wikipedia" once "Essjay" appears in hacker's jargon on similar. At this point, simply no case is being made as to why there should be an article on the topic except that it concerns Wikipedia (which is not a valid argument per "no self-references"). dab (�) 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  e/cDbachmann, with all respect due you've had two people revert you with a third gesturing to do so (User:JoshuaZ who apparently hadn't seen that the tags were already removed). This is becoming disruptive (in particular given the strong evidence of consensus right here). Kindly self-revert before someone has to revert you again.  16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't just claim anything, I stated my opinion... which is backed by the AfDs and everyone's opinion. We have articles on Wikipedia also. This one is heavily sourced, and too big to merge I think, but no one person gets to make choices thankfully and have them stick (yours, mine). Everyone decides, but opinion seems to be to keep it seperate... - Denny 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Notability is based on almost 300 articles now showing on a Google news search for Essjay, dealing with a widely reported scandal (Jimbo Wales' word for it) having to do with one of the world's highest traffic websites, Wikipedia. Gwen Gale 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The plethora of mainstream sources brought in the article about the event and fallout should more than adequately suffice for a reasonable claim for notability. The  tag is not warranted; further discussion of notability needs to be handled through AfD, which should be on hold for now as well. -- Avi 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More I think about this, I believe the notability tag is a tactic of disruption and I would like a disinterested admin to have a look at it, thanks. Gwen Gale 16:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Already gone... - Denny 16:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: A 24 hr window sounds ok to me. Gwen Gale 16:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no need to wait 24 hours... general consensus is clear on this.  17:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there is plenty of consensus already, this has been demonstrated to be notable 10 times over. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with extreme prejudice 

message: I completely agree with both tags. For the NPOV tag, a small group of abut 4 or 5 editors have apparently considered they WP:OWN this article and gone about bowdlerizing it. For the EXPERT tag, yes, an expert writer.  Good gosh, this thing reads like it was written by a bunch of teenagers and like a hodge-podge of news stories rather than an encyclopedia article.  See WP:FA?: (a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. - C.m.jones 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, does the word civility mean anything to you, or was this worded that way on purpose?  17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My reply to C.m.jones: Codswallop. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Thank you. Gwen Gale 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Um. Read the  tag. "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" (emphasis added). If you believe the writing is poor,  would be far more applicable, but I request some examples of where it can be improved before you add the tag. Trebor 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  connotes a few minor corrections and/or formatting. This article does not need minor but major re-writing work. C.m.jones 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We're not owning anything, we're discussing it. Concensus right now is just against these. 1. User:Gwen Gale, 2. User:HighInBC, 3. User:Avraham, 4. User talk:Trebor Rowntree, 5. User:DennyColt, 6. User:JoshuaZ, 7. User:Netscott, 8. User:Badlydrawnjeff, and 9. User:Risker all seem to be against the tags. Once consensus is achieved they can go in... if you are unhappy with something in the article, make suggestions here. Trying to edit war force tags onto the article against consensus is disruptive... - Denny 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 - User:Munta - Munta 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The expert tag is not warranted by any stretch of the imagination. As for the NPOV tags, do you have any specific concerns? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: C.m.jones, you previously made a complete revision of the article; that revision left us with the article protected because of disputes about its sudden and mass change.  But during the protection, it seems you were unwilling to consider modification of the revision you had developed, despite the fact that several editors were providing you with commentary on it.  If you are willing to incorporate that critique into the revision you developed, then we'd have something to talk about here.  I don't think anyone is expecting this article to get anywhere near featured article level in just over a week, with all the new information that has come in since it was initiated. (and yes I would be against the tags if I could get a post in edgewise) Risker 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain why, with some specific examples. At any rate, you can see the  tag is inappropriate, as it suggests an expert on the subject, rather than in writing. Trebor 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying the article needs it (I haven't read it in a bit), but what about: ? Anchoress 18:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's supported. Anyone, pls provide specific examples which can't be swiftly fixed, thanks. Gwen Gale 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be more specific than "better," thanks. Gwen Gale 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please be specific about the way in which this article fails NPOV? Issues cannot be resolved until they are identified.  Risker 19:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: C.m.jones, unless you take the time to explain on this article's talk page why you feel those tags are necessary, there is really nothing for other editors to "see and comment on" per your edit summary when you put the tags back on just now. Even I am finding this disruptive.  Risker 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: jones, Risker is right, explain what you mean or stop adding the tag. You are in violation of 3RR right now, I gave you a warning instead of a block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and EXPERT tags 

message: This is a good idea, I appreciate the idea. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems the only way. Let's get this to GA status, then aim for FA. that is the only reason we're here, isn't it...? Link to the peer review. - Denny 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be satisfied of the article can be kept within policy. But hey, FA is a noble goal. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peer review is a good idea. Thanks. Risker 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is still too new and fluid IMO, but I've already posted that on the peer review page . -- Avi 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review of article 

message: As this has mostly to do with Wikipedia, should this article be moved to Essjay Wikimedia controversy, in the same vein as John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy? --wL<speak·check> 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does fall more in line with the pattern established by John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. I don't know how many articles of this type there are, so I cannot tell if it is an exception or if it is the common naming convention. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be okay with it if it said "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikimedia;" the notability derives from the controversy as it affected Wikipedia, not Wikimedia. Risker 19:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that title is a bit limiting myself. The Seigenthalere case revolved almost exclusively around what occured here on Wikipedia. The Essjay story involves The New Yorker, etc. I'm open to other titles though.  20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the first one. Why not boldness? --wL<speak·check> 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I think that this:
The Essjay controversy arose in February 2007 after The New Yorker magazine reported that prominent English Wikipedia editor and administrator Essjay, who was also briefly employed at Wikia, had posted false information on his Wikipedia userpage about his age, background, and academic credentials; and the Wikipedia community noted he had cited these false credentials in the context of discussing article content and had used his persona's credentials to vouch for Wikipedia's accuracy in a letter he claimed to have sent to a college professor.
Is blatant self-reference and unsupported advocacy, never mind the semicolon in the first sentence of an article (never a hopeful sign). IMHO. Gwen Gale 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, especially as the reference source says no such thing. It says a lot, but not the part after the semi-colon. Risker 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's the part after the semi colon that worries me. Gwen Gale 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems Kendrick7 agreed with this position and has deleted.  Risker 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: F'k! Kendrick7 and I wholly agree on something! Yay! :) Gwen Gale 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-reference in header 

message: While it may be fair to say that Brandt reported it to the New Yorker, I have no doubt that many other people including many Wikipedians "discovered" the discrepancy in the personas back in January too.  I'm not inclined to promote this fact, it would be original research of the worst kind but at the same time let's not give the man more credit than he is due.  Risker 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I revised the sentence. Risker 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I stuck in another sentence, sourced to the (actually very good) Martyn Williams article, which describes how things started to come unglued when Essjay posted his Wikia profile in January. There really wasn't much "discovery" by anyone. It was just a matter of noticing what Essjay posted himself. The timeline makes this clear, but the article itself was kind of fuzzy. Casey Abell 13:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hold on a sec about Brandt.... 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&curid=9875104&diff=114992698&oldid=114986879 I believe this edit should be reverted. A lot of well sourced information and references just happened to vanish. I believe this edit should be reverted. This edit was drastic. QuackGuru TALK 06:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: QuackGuru, if you had read above in the heading "Blogs?" you would have seen that I have gone back to the source material to ensure that this entire section is attributed to reliable third party sources rather than directly to Larry Sanger's blog.  The actual quotes have remained the same, and only minor edits to the text itself were required.  Sanger remains credited for what he said, just not directly from his blog.  I made this change specifically to address a weak point, which is that blogs are not always considered a reliable source.  Risker 06:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Sanger's blog is a reliable source that was previuosly discussed. You made these changes that eliminated a lot of information. I going to revert now. QuackGuru TALK 06:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: QuackGuru, I have not eliminated a single, solitary bit of information.  In fact, additional editors had questioned the use of the Sanger blog today. The only thing that has been eliminated is a reference source that is shaky; instead of eliminating the information, I found the exact same information in reliable sources and ensured that the information was properly attributed as quotes from Sanger. Risker 06:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Refer to this discussion please:   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Risker (talk • contribs) 06:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked over the changes and it appears no content was removed. QuackGuru, if there is something removed, could you cite it specifically? I see no changes other than citing better sources for the same information. -- Kavri 06:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Quack, you're not helping, knock if off. The crap you're putting us through is completely needless. This issue is over, move on. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quack, quoting your own opinion is not helpful here.  My error, I misread your message; this was another editor's opinion. Risker 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quack, what I meant by that statement was that I think the Sanger blog could be considered proper attribution for his direct quote, not that it should be reliable for the claim that he is the wiki founder. *I* could set up a blog in a few minutes claiming that I am the wiki founder (which I was, by the way, AND discoverer of the Internet in the jungles of Borneo, and a mean shortorder cook, to boot), it is NOT a valid source for that claim anywhere outside the Larry Sanger article. I hope that clears my quote up for you. Further, questions of attribution in no way shape or form answer questions of relevance. I can reliably source that Jimmy Wales has a beard, but is this necessary in the article? Sanger's quote may not be any more relevant than any oher blogger, now that it has been years since he parted ways with wikipedia. -- Avi 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think perhaps QuackGuru might have posted because of my asking him to cite specifics, though I meant that in the context of removal of content if he thought there was any. I think that the outside sources for Sanger's remarks make for stronger references. I think Sanger's remarks are relevant due to the fact that his new enterprise is directly focused on issues of accountability. If any other public information gathering online was happening, whether a dictionary or 'how to' or whatever, and their emphasis is on security/credentials, then if their PR person or CEO or whatever made comments regarding their perceptions of what is 'wrong' with Wikipedia, then I would think it relevant and should also be included. The fact that Sanger has a past with Wikipedia should not de facto preclude his comments from being included. -- Kavri 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor does it de facto grant him any more status than anyone else. It should be judged on its own merits, and should definitely NOT be used as a source for his being "co-founder" (in any wiki page OUTSIDE of Larry Sanger or pages that specifically discuss the dispute) any more than EssJay's user page should be used as a source for his doctorates in theology . -- Avi 07:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not talking about undue weight or co-founder in this section here. We are talking about modifying quotes and removing references. And we are talking about removing information because Risker is stating the source is "shaky." Shaky is not a policy. The rewriting is poor and has eliminated some quotes. Here is a revert by an editor modied sentences and also removed verifiable references. This is important for the Peer Review Team to evaluate. Removal of references which meet Wikipedia policy without justication is a serious matter. QuackGuru TALK 07:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The "Peer review team" is just any editor who decides to comment, you know :) -- Avi 07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Quack, I went to a lot of trouble to make sure I did not remove any content; if anything, Sanger is credited more directly with his quotes than he was before.  For any editor reviewing the changes made, here is the diff between the previous version and the one using only secondary sources instead of Sanger blogs as references. Risker 07:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Kavri.  Actually, I think we finally resolved the "co-founder" issue by calling both Wales and Sanger "a founder." Took three days to get there, it will be interesting to see if the same logic is applied in other articles. Risker 08:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Risker, just didn't want to see Avi's mention and my response cause it to re-ignite. I supported Denny's solution, and actually proposed it become policy here (scroll to bottom) -- Kavri 08:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not a bad compromise if one reads the talk page discussions, but the situation on the article page is still not optimal because the cited source doesn't back up this claim. I was confused when I clicked on the link to the cited article and the text is: Sanger, who at times calls himself the cofounder, and says he got the idea of using "wiki" technology... Wales's profile says he got the idea from someone else, and last week he said "it's preposterous" to call Sanger the cofounder. I now noticed this same source is used for Jimbo as well, so there is no doubt the intentions have been to be extremely NPOV here, and the compromise idea is good in general, the problem I see is that it doesn't match the cited source, which obviously doesn't use this "a founder" approach. I mean you can't expect me to read all the discussions on talk pages to understand why the sources are being interpreted in this way. --Merzul 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Edit