Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 1

message: This needs a move NOW.  Nothing in citations supports the name, and it's stupid.  I'm feeling "Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia)".  Or maybe even Ryan Jordan (internet personality).  Milto LOL pia 04:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is moved, make sure to fix the double-redirects, given it has already been moved once. Daniel Bryant 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I did.  Milto LOL pia 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: *News - For more information, here is the relevant Google Search:  "ryan jordan" wikipedia  Smee 05:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Done.  John Vandenberg 09:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources/References/News 

message: Why is the Wikia business being mentioned?  It's not sourced and not mentioned in the article, therefore there is no third part asserting its relevance.  Why include his ties to Wikia?  How are they relevant to this one incident?  As in, how have third-party sources said they are relevant?  Asking for input here.  Milto LOL pia 05:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but who can verify it?  Any of these sources?  And why is the infobox showing his Wikia userpage as the relevant website when clearly the Wikipedia one is more relevant to the actual reason for the article?  Milto LOL pia 13:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is his occupation.  Smee 13:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a profile website, it's supposed to show the info that makes him notable, not unverified vanity info.  Where he works is irrelevant unless it's covered by a news source; if that's the case, it should be included in the main body and cited.  Milto LOL pia 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see footnote in infobox.  Smee 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but where's the relevance?  It just mentions in passing.  On the other hand, his antics on Wikipedia are what the article is actually about, so why would it not make more sense to include that link in the infobox instead of one with no asserted relevance?  Milto LOL pia 13:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  As per the article and other sources, both are relevant.  Smee 13:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In your opinion they are likely to be false.  I think they are likely to be true, but I don't have any sources backing me, nor do you.  Milto LOL pia 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, he claims to be 24 and have had 5 years experience as a paralegal. That would mean he started as a paralegal at age 19. Quoting from Paralegal's ABA definition "A legal assistant or paralegal is a person qualified by education, training or work experience who is employed or retained by a lawyer." This would mean his training would have had to occur prior to the age of 19. However, this neglects the readily apparent fact that EssJay has been spending just about all of his waking hours editing Wikipedia since 2005, so it is necessary to trim 2005 and 2006 off from the available years. This isn't my opinion, I am just saying the maths do not add up. Oh plus he attended three separate universities, simultaneously to all that. Quatloo 16:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but is there a third party source saying that it isn't possible, or just your math?  Original research that turns out to be correct is still original research.  My disagreement is not in your conclusion (well, it is somewhat, but that disagreement is just a difference of two unqualified opinions and so is not relevant), but in whether or not that info is verifiable via third-party sources.  Milto LOL pia 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the math is original research, I am not disputing that, and importantly, I was not trying to insert this into the main page of the article. The original question on the talk page was why the Wikia information was not included in the main article. My answer on the talk page is that biography of EssJay on the Wikia site does not add up and should probably not be considered accurate. Quatloo 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  Milto LOL pia 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikia 

message: *http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=0  28th August 2006, 3:57pm "It's possible that he has made up all of his biographical details. He's too busy on Wikipedia to be a full-time professor, maintain a relationship with Robbie, and eat and sleep too." 
*http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=20 20th January 2007, 5:40pm "I might write to The New Yorker and complain about their fact-checking, and ask for a retraction and investigation." 20th January 2007, 11:54pm (copy of letter sent) WAS 4.250 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Brandt says 

message: I keep seeing this statement, but AFAIK, nobody, including Ryan in his Wikia bio, has asserted that he holds any degree or even a high school diploma.  Any idea on why the articles are making a distinction on "advanced" degree? —Doug Bell talk 20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that's the distinction made in the sources.  Milto LOL pia 20:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I didn't ask very clearly.  What I was asking was does anyone have an idea why the source articles are making the distinction? —Doug Bell talk 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  Maybe they assume by his age he's got a diploma, since many more people get diplomas than PhDs, or maybe it's just because he never said anything about a diploma so they aren't worried about it.  Milto LOL pia 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that the level of assuming by at least the New Yorker would be minimal on this subject at this point.  No?  I mean, how do they know he doesn't have an advanced degree?  It just seems that there is likely to be something behind such a specific statement. —Doug Bell talk 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, probably just lazy reporting and jumping to conclusions, like the original failure to confirm his credentials.  Milto LOL pia 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No advanced degree 

message: The comments by Jimmy Wales, and Sanger's response to them, do not, on the face of it, have anything to do with the subject of the article. Just more Sanger-Wales fun. If the article were renamed or merged, they might have a place, but not now. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that stuff is hilarious to see edit warred over, but not really relevant.  Just link to their articles, that's why wikilinks are great.  Milto LOL pia 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait, I misunderstood.  No, I think Wales' reaction is highly relevant, though I question the importance of Sanger's.  Milto LOL pia 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including either comment would be reasonable in an article on the controversy (if that article was on Wikinews; this here is an encyclopedia, not "the news magazine that anyone can edit"), but not in what purports to be a biography. Of course Essjay's pal is going to say good things; that's what friends do. No need to include it in the article. Now if the opposite were true, then that would be noteworthy, and merit inclusion. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the Wales and Sanger material provides important context to the article. C.m.jones 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sense? It adds nothing about Ryan Jordan, which would be my understanding of "important context". If the article were about the "controversy" I'd agree, but it purports to be biographical, making the Sanger and Wales remarks seem only loosely related to the subject. "Content...should be about the subject of the article specifically." I don't see that Sanger's remarks can be remotely described as "about the subject of the article specifically". Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you have never noticed, Wales comment is completely central to this issue. Let me say it real plain. This article is about Essjay, a Wikipedian. Wales is the head of Wikipedia. Wales talked about this issue from his place as head. Wales comment should not be left alone.  The long-standing context is that people predicted this scandal would happen by reason of WP's model. Sanger is the central figure in that.  Therefore, both Wales and Sanger give the crucial context needed to help readers understand this did not crop up in a vacuum. Sanger's comments are about "Essjay’s lies", which in case you are having trouble seeing, is what this article is all about. Sanger discussed that while also discussing Wales' centrally important response. If this is hard to see, you might seek a parent's or teacher's advise to help you. Of course, you probably do not care one rip and actually see it plain as day. You just wish to bowdlerize the article for damage control. 72.153.142.146 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tangential material has no place here 

message: *As proposer. --LeflymanTalk 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Two questions.
#Does any mention of Justin Stewart belong here?  I'm thinking not, but Essjay claimed this was an alias at one time.  I'm also thinking there's no point to putting it in, but thought it ought to be considered.
# Maybe we should qualify any statement about Essjay's real name being Ryan Jordan...we can say that so-and-so reported this, but can we really know this or Ryan Jordan's credentials for that matter?
Sorry to sound so skeptical of basic facts, but that's the new reality with Essjay's personal claims now. —Doug Bell talk 09:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justin Stewart 

message: I know some are really willing to add information, however remember about not using primary sources, about no self references, about looking for reliable secondary sources? I think we can wait a couple of days until a reliable source picks the information up. We are not Wikinews to ignore basic attribution policies. At least, that is what I think. -- ReyBrujo 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, none of this stuff is allowable for something in the article space. Gwen Gale 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that just hiding behind wiki policy with the very real danger of appearing to censor details? This is a new type of event where wikipedia has created a news item in its own right and therefore must reference itself in order to document what has happened. I feel the same way about references to blogs such as Larry Sangers. In this situation - shouldn't we be referring to WP:Bold. After all, wiki policy can never be set in stone and must adapt to situations as they occur. Munta 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self references 

message: Why are we using them? - Denny 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be gone. I think this article got itself muddled with being a blog somewhere along the way. Gwen Gale 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a mess. This is more a gossip column than an encyclopedia article. WarpstarRider 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize at first this was all so referenced to blogs and WP. If I was brave I'd start skiving text out of it. Gwen Gale 19:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll have a look, I saw you'd rm'd them but I thought the rv would take it back to a state where they'd also been previously rm'd. Gwen Gale 23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see what happened. RMs within RVs within RMs... bleh. Is that web citation cite an ok source for citing on-wiki statements? Never seen it before. - Denny 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All those should be gone too, they're cheats, but anyway I don't see it now. Gwen Gale 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The blog stuff had already been removed previously, but they were then restored by User:68.215.30.127, which is what you saw. Gwen was reverting that anon's edits, so the blogs are still gone. WarpstarRider 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs as sources 

message: The lead sentence now has a string of six (6) footnotes tagged in a row at the end. Let's go for twelve! Casey Abell 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is going on here? I mean. A small portion of the article - vanished before my eyes. Am I seeing things? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are seeing things. :-) All that happened was the writing in the lead was tightened, and the citation templates in the lead were removed and replaced by regular refs. The removal of the templates makes the text look significantly shorter, but it isn't. It also makes it easier to edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So tell me. Where is this ref that was in the article a little while ago. ^ Peter Meyers. "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You", New York Times, September 20, 2001. Retrieved on 2007-04-27. “It's kind of surprising that you could just open up a site and let people work," said Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's co-founder and the chief executive of Bomis, a San Diego search engine company that donates the computer resources for the project. "There's kind of this real social pressure to not argue about things." Instead, he said, "there's a general consensus among all of the really busy volunteers about what an encyclopedia article needs to be like.” There is a lot more that was also removed. Very strange. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I was writing the above response, even more information is disappearing. (He said with a grin.) :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed a reference has the link to the source missing. How is that a fix to the reference? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Content is missing, a reference has a missing link, and the meaning of content has been altered. Unbelievable. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a link is missing you could always fix it :-). I don't see that any valuable content has been lost though - looks like a good tidy-up. WjBscribe 02:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the edit summary by the editor who removed the link, it is fixed. Removing the external linkage was fixing it. Edit summary: removed name from lead, fixed ref According to the intial response by WjBscribe: SlimVirgin's edits to the page seem a marked improvement as far as I can see... Wow. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend a full revert before the article got hacked and work on it from there. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the link you're refering to, it seems to be dead - just a 404 error message. I presume that's why SlimVirgin delinked it... WjBscribe 02:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There was previous lengthy discussions and consensus reached. A lot of information has been recently deleted without any discussion. One editor in one day should not drastically alter the article. For example, what happened to the other missing refs such as: Peter Meyers. "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You", New York Times, September 20, 2001. Retrieved on 2007-04-27. There are too many things to name. Can someone fix all this. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should ask SlimVirgin then. --MichaelLinnear 03:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what this talk page is for. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It happened again. More content and refs have been deleted. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It happened yet again. I can't believe this. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=140663544&oldid=140644561 This is massive content deletion. QuackGuru 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sometimes you just gotta smile... 

message: If our we're going to include a quotation in a  ref, it really needs to be about the article its in. The quotes that accompanied references 26 and 27 were nothing to do with this article. They are reference to the fact that Sanger is editor-in-chief of Citizendium and that he left Wikipedia. As those sources say nothing about the "Essjay controversy" we don't need quotations from them.... WjBscribe 02:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant quotations from sources 

message: I added a mention of Gator1 and Katefan0 specifically to show that they did, indeed, have credentials. Really, it is to try to get the reader to think about Brandt's attitude and approach because the real interaction here was between Brandt and Jordan. They are the two people whose situations change in thie saga. Another point that I am trying to imply but not come right out and say is that Gator1 and Katefan0 have real credentials. It may or may not matter, but it contrasts with Essjay. All three were good editors and good admins.--76.203.124.55 05:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin removed that paragraph as "not relevant".  Well, I thought it made a relevant epilog to the story and provided some closure.-76.203.124.55 05:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gator1 and Katefan0 had credentials 

message: The New Yorker time *publishes* its stories on a the Monday a full week before the nominal date of issue. For instance, Wales' "Making Amends" apology was published March 12 for the issue that is dated March 19 on the cover. It does not really matter about the original July 2006 article or the apology, but it might matter in correctly describing the events around how people found out about the correction and how relevant their response then was to the growing controversy. It seems like Nick Carr wins the prize for blogging about it first, but I do not see that his blog, nor the RadarOnline entry got much notice.--75.36.170.208 02:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: Since User:SallyForth123 just used a semi-bot (peerreviewer) to edit the main article, I'd like to raise a small question about the Manual of Style. 
The semi-bot changed the following sentence from Business Week's Steve Maich who used the contraction "isn't" instead of "is not" in his article. Now it reads on Wikipedia:  If credibility is not an essential part of Wikipedia's business model, does it have a hope of surviving? Are we allowed to correct/alter direct quotes to account for grammar, spelling, racial epithets, etc.? (I'm just asking.) J Readings 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly did restore the contractions.  Also, I used [ and ] for the square brackets so that the auto-PR tool would not interfere with those bracket-in-quotes again.--SallyForth123 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting/editing direct quotes 

message: This is just a thought, everyone, but perhaps it would benefit the reader to create a subsection below "Academics" with a title like "Legal aftermath" or "Legal fallout" or "Courtroom Precedents" or something along those lines. I suspect that the Essjay affair will be cited by more than a few cases moving forward (for whatever reason), and it might benefit readers (law students in particular) to track its evolution over time. As we can see, it's already starting. What do other editors think? J Readings 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only legal reference cited so far in the Australian decision, which does nothing except recount the controversy in a very few sentences. Sorry, but unless Essjay starts showing up in a lot of court cases, and in much more detail, I don't see such a section amounting to much. Casey Abell 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I acknowledge that it's only a thought at this stage. I subscribe to a few legal database search engines, so I'll be keeping a look-out for legal cases citing the Essjay controversy in some form or another. Perhaps we can revisit this issue of a new section on the talk page at a later date. J Readings 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New legal section below 'Academics'? 

message: Somebody is trying to remove the fact that Larry Sanger is a Wikipedia co-founder from the article claiming only Wikipedia:Manual of Style reasons for the removal.  They used following explanation: I'm deleting the cofounder bit because we can't put a ref in the middle of a sentence which already has three citations, and we can't mention the cofounder thing without a ref. So I'm removing it.  This is just another one of the bizarre excuses people are using to remvoe referenced content from this article. --Oakshade 09:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What incredible bad faith. Did you not stop to consider the fact that I might have made that edit summary because that's actually the reason I removed it? Or do you see everything as a conspiracy against Larry Sanger? I have just nominated this article at FAC; so unsurprisingly, I tidied up the few MOS violations I could immediately pick out. Maybe you could assume good faith before screaming on a talkpage about "important referenced content" being removed with "bizarre excuses". I don't give a damn whether Larry Sanger is the cofounder of Wikipedia or not, it's not important in this article, so if the easiest thing to deal with the ref problem is just to change the sentence, that what I would do, and did. And I'd appreciate it if my efforts to improve the wiki were not immediately deemed cabalistic without even the courtesy of discussing the issue with me first. DevAlt 10:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All I'm saying is what WP:CONSENSUS has decided was important referenced content (other editors "give a darn" that the quoted Larry Sanger is a Wikipedia co-founder) should not be removed simply due to an interpretation of the WP:MOS guideline.  If you feel so strongly against having a citation that doesn't follow a punctuation, for aesthetics or WP:MOS or otherwise, and to avoid the perception of bad faith, write a way to preserve the referenced content that adheres to your specifications without deleting the content.  At best this appears the proverbial throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  --Oakshade 15:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And I second that if I'm going to get abuse for the crime of touching a sentence on Larry Sanger. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Not liking an edit war is a very poor basis in making editorial decisions, especially that you propose to erase "anything about Sanger" because of it.  This seems to indicate that the attempted removal of this content had little to do with WP:MOS and more to do with simply not liking a referenced quote on the Essjay manner from a Wikipedia co-founder.  --Oakshade 16:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my God, will you give it a rest? I do not give a flying fuck whether Larry Sanger is, or is not, the co-founder of Wikipedia. How Wikipedia started is of supreme irrelevance to me, and also to this article. What does Larry Sanger's involvement with Wikipedia seven years ago have anything, whatsoever, to do with a scandal that happened seven months ago? Thus if there are going to be edit wars over it, and I am going to be attacked with shockingly bad faith for going anywhere near it, then the simplest answer is to simply remove Sanger's part entirely from the article, like Risker suggested. Stop assuming I have some kind of an agenda, will you? This only started because you freaked out about the changing of the specific phrase "co-founder", so I don't think it's me that got an agenda here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dev920 understands entirely where I am coming from. The selection of which critics to include in this article (and I can assure you there are plenty) is an editorial decision. Sanger is one of many equally notable critics saying roughly the same thing; if having his criticism as part of the article creates instability in the article - not because of what he says but because people can't decide how to describe what he did years ago - then it should be replaced by a comparable critique from a comparably noteworthy critic.  The article comes before the completely irrelevant political battle. Risker 16:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So it's clear now that removing the content for the sake of WP:MOS was not the real objective, but the removal of Larry Sanger was.  If you were honest about it from the beginning this thread would've been much smaller.  On that note, WP:CONSENSUS disagrees.  Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia (yes we know you don't "give a flying fuck" about that) is a noted critic of Wikipedia due to the Essjay affair and being a Wikipedia co-founder demonstrates he's an important authority on the topic. If you don't agree, don't try this sly backhanded "because of WP:MOS" method to delete the referenced content. --Oakshade 18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up. There is no point even trying to engage with you, Oakshade, as long as you read every action in some preordained conspiracy theory you are writing in your own head. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "who played an important war in the founding of Wikipedia", a freudian slip, maybe? ;D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilarious, wasn't it? I did notice and correct it, but I'm glad somebody else caught it as well. Casey Abell 17:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, it is disputed between Sanger and Wales. But those two aren't the arbiters of the issue, so what they say is irrelevant. The objective evidence is clear: it was a totally settled matter until 2004 and then Wales singlehandedly tried to rewrite history. Recognizing that the objective evidence happens to agree with Sanger is not "siding with Sanger" in any inappropriate way. Bramlet Abercrombie 19:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lulz! Lulz! Lulz! Casey Abell 19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More important referenced content attempted removal 

message: Is blank. Just thought I'd let you all know. I would assume it may have been part of a repeatedly used source and the primary was deleted for some reason or another. Anyway, someone may want to fix that.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation #29 

message: "Several students interviewed at Cornell indicated that they would continue to use Wikipedia as a quick source of information, though they would not cite it in scholarly work"
This sentence seems a tad unnecessary imo. I cannot think of any university setting where it would be appropriate or acceptable to cite not just Wikipedia but any encyclopedia in scholarly work. This has nothing to do with the Essjay controversy. IvoShandor 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that that sentence shows that the people who actually USE Wikipedia are going to continue to use it, but they're going to be more wary of it from now on. Which is quite important to the article if we lose credibility among our users because of it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Dev920. The gen-X (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary 

message: I have reviewed this article forGA status, and overall, I think it is very well written and well referenced, and mostly meets the GA criteria. My comments are based on this version of the article.
Per criterion 1, it is well written, the prose is clear and understandable, and the lead section is a good summary. I am a bit concerned that the article contains a bit too many quotations, and more actual prose could be used. But, unlike the FA review, I don't think excess quotations should hold up a GA (unless, perhaps, if the 'cquote' template was way overused, or something).
The article mainly passes criterion #2 (references) as well, though I do have a few concerns about some of them. Specifically, citation #5, which cites WikiEN-L, a mailing list (are email listservs a valid reliable source?). Reference #12 cites an archived copy of Essjay's wikipedia user page. I don't have a problem with reference #20 (the wikipedia signpost), a valid 'publication', albeit by wikipedia itself. But reference #27 refers to Talk:Imprimatur, and reference #29 cites Wikipedia:Credentials. While we normally don't cite wikipedia itself, is it ok to cite ourselves when talking about ourselves?
I don't see any major problems with criterion #3 (broad/completeness). It appears to cover the significant parts of the topic, from introducing Essjay, to what he did and was accused of, and the controversy that followed.
Criterion #4 (NPOV) is very important. While I don't see any major neutrality problems that are glaring right out at me, it's very difficult for one person to judge this, especially for an article on wikipedia about wikipedia. That's one of the main reasons that I am seeking the opinions of others by listing this at WP:GA/R instead of the passing it like a normal article at WP:GAC.
I don't see any major stability (criterion #5) problems today. There were some reversions and edit wars back in July & August on this article, which is of a minor concern, but it appears to have stabilized by now. The stability was brought up at WP:FAC, and some suggested that we should wait several more months on for FA on this article there. Though I think that GA can be a little bit more lax here, as long as there are no major WP:3RR reversions and major edit wars, I don't think that's a problem.
Finally, regarding the images (criterion #6), all check out fine. I wasn't expecting this to be a problem for an article about wikipedia itself anyways.
So, there's my review. I am listing this at WP:GA/R instead of promoting, as I think a second opinion (or more) on this is necessary for a controversial article such as this. Thanks! Dr. Cash 23:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mailing lists and blogs aren't verifiable, and if that citation is needed to pass, then it has to fail. GreenJoe 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, mailing lists and blogs can be reliable for some purposes. For instance, there's no question that the mailing list citation on Jimbo's request for Essjay's resignation was completely reliable. After all, Jimbo wrote the mailing list post himself. (The cite now been replaced with another source, not that it needed to be replaced.) Hard-and-fast rules about reliability are, well, unreliable. I really don't care if this article gets to GA status or not. But this objection is unreasonable. Casey Abell 11:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really a big deal, either way. I replaced one citation with a more universally accepted one without changing the text. When I (or someone else) gets the chance, we should replace or remove the last few question mark citations. I continue to assume good faith among the reviewers, so once these minor issues are quickly corrected there shouldn't be anything preventing an upgrade to "good article." J Readings 01:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Frankly, I think the only thing preventing this article from becoming an FA is its controversial nature. If it becomes a GA, that's nice, but I wonder how long it will survive as a GA. Anyway, the automatic rejection of blogs or mailing lists as reliable sources has always been a pet peeve of mine. Such sources can be reliable for certain purposes, as they were for the Jimbo cite. Casey Abell 13:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail:  GreenJoe 19:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a self-admitted hater of Essjay. That said I read the article with as much neutrality as I could, and with a keen interest of the subject. I felt it was neutral, and broad in its coverage. It is very well done. I didn't go through every reference though. GreenJoe 19:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously didn't have much contact with Essjay. He was one of the best users on Wikipedia, and never abused his authority. I have my own theories as to why he lied about his 'credentials' (which Wikipedia doesn't really care about). He was an excellent user, but what he did was not acceptable, especially to the the New Yorker. He made a serious mistake, but he does not deserve to be hated. </defense> Prodego talk 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rather irrelevant, don't you think? I thought the article should pass. GreenJoe 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I was trying to admit my own bias as per WP:COI. GreenJoe 20:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment The "Academics" section doesn't start by saying where specifically these academicians and students are, since the only sources are for England and America, that should probably be spelled out more explicitly. Homestarmy 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Another editor has given their own opinion already saying it should probably pass, is there anything to do here? Might as well take off the hold if there's nothing... Homestarmy 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Dr. Cash. I was getting worried that it was never going to happen no matter how much work was done in good faith on the article. J Readings 09:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail:  GreenJoe 19:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a self-admitted hater of Essjay. That said I read the article with as much neutrality as I could, and with a keen interest of the subject. I felt it was neutral, and broad in its coverage. It is very well done. I didn't go through every reference though. GreenJoe 19:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously didn't have much contact with Essjay. He was one of the best users on Wikipedia, and never abused his authority. I have my own theories as to why he lied about his 'credentials' (which Wikipedia doesn't really care about). He was an excellent user, but what he did was not acceptable, especially to the the New Yorker. He made a serious mistake, but he does not deserve to be hated. </defense> Prodego talk 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rather irrelevant, don't you think? I thought the article should pass. GreenJoe 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I was trying to admit my own bias as per WP:COI. GreenJoe 20:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second opinion

message: I have listed this article for two weeks at WP:GA/R, and received the following comment, in addition tot he aforementioned second opinion.
:Comment The "Academics" section doesn't start by saying where specifically these academicians and students are, since the only sources are for England and America, that should probably be spelled out more explicitly. Homestarmy 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor has given their own opinion already saying it should probably pass, is there anything to do here? Might as well take off the hold if there's nothing... Homestarmy 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Dr. Cash. I was getting worried that it was never going to happen no matter how much work was done in good faith on the article. J Readings 09:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA update: pass

message: Thanks to Casey Abell for removing the Steve Maich quote until it could be verified . I re-checked Lexis-Nexis and, to my embarrassment, I found that the Steve Maich quote (in bold below) was from MacLean's, not BusinessWeek. I don't know what I was thinking (I probably was rushing.) In any case, I hope the quote can be reinserted now that the appropriate citation has been found. J Readings 04:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I rummaged around for Steve Maich on Google, and he never seems to have written for BusinessWeek. So I checked old copies of the magazine in the library and couldn't find the quote anywhere. I did find a lively quote from BusinessWeek on fakery, which I substituted in the article. I'll add back the Maich quote, which goes more to the business implications of the Essjay controversy. Casey Abell 12:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Maich: ''MacLean's'', Not ''BusinessWeek'' 

message: If the ComCom had performed its function, then there would have been no controversy. On the contrary, the reputation of the Foundation would have been enhanced because The New Yorker could have published the ComCom's correction that they now knew that the prestigious Essjay was a complete fabrication and that the reality was that Jordan was a college drop-out. At least one member of the ComCom, Angela Beasley, definitely had that information. That would have been a better outcome, especially for Essjay who might have even then been able to keep his employment at Wikia. I do not put all that much credence into the notion that Jimmy fired Jordan over a few edits from long ago. That sounds a lot more like a lame excuse. I tend to believe the much more typical scenario that Jimmy had to protect the reputation of the Foundation and that situation required that some heads roll pronto. That is how it works at other corporations and non-profits because both usually require the goodwill and money of others to survive and, in that sense, the Foundation is no exception.--Mightyms 06:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is your opinion. While I agree with it, opinions of wikipedians do not belong to artcles. Please get yourself familiar with the corresponding bunch of policies (sorry for the alphabet soup, but I don't remember full names and I am lazy): WP:ATTR, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NOR. Mukadderat 06:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already mentions this issue in the "Wikipedia critics" section, by referring to Orlowski's criticism of Jimbo for hiring Ryan Jordan at Wikia and appointing him to ArbCom though he knew about the identity discrepancy. There was more specific opinion on the issue, which should be added to the article. I'll rummage around for correctly cited quotes. Casey Abell 12:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Added more quotes from Orlowski and Ratcliffe. Casey Abell 13:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Added a dead-on-point quote from Sanger, which is the most accusatory I could find on the Internet. The article does not endorse (or dispute) the criticism, merely notes its existence and gives a verifiable source. Casey Abell 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ComCom exists for a reason 

message: A number of edits have been added to this article recently. Some are not helpful, or need style redaction. I have tried to address these by reference to this diff, as follows:
# Date of claim fixed - the claim was first made in May 2005, and is cited and verifiable to that date. 2006 is merely the first date someone has found it in the Internet Archive.
# Remove 2 random </div> tags.
# Removed a large morass of overloaded "criticism of wikipedia" -- theres a separate article for this; the impact here is to note the effect of the essjay case, and crossref, not add large amounts of wordage on "criticisms of wikipedia".
# Remove reference to letter which doesn't actually seem very relevant to the affair.
# Reword to avoid Sanger founder/co-founder dispute issues in future.
# Remove duplication of Orlowski comment - stated once as a description, then as a quote. A characterization is enough here.
# Cleaned up other critical responses, to list the matters described better.
# Merged 2 sections of comments by Sanger into one paragraph, no need to split them.
# Refactored Sanger section and beesley/patrick refs, and summarize the section.
# Removed Blacharski reference and brevify Finkelstein and Bozell, low weight general comments compared to the other more serious citations. Likewise many others. Keep the core points which these make, in addition to previous cites, and refactor for ease of reading (one solid block is too much for all these).
# Remove WP:OR about student popularity after the incident.
# Cite essjay's own explanation, important for NPOV to give his comment as well as the in depth comments of others, since it was pivotal in the controversy, how he explained it.
FT2 (Talk | email) 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update - refactored intro. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing of article 

message: I've removed the image of essjay. It really doesnt add much to the article, it's prurient only. The gain from adding an image of the person isn't really that much, the article is on the controversy not the person, and the privacy concern is significant.
FT2 (Talk | email) 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This article is about the controversy, and the image was not part of the controversy. (It's possible to imagine how it could have been relevant, as it revealed the subject to be a young person, but that never came up during the incident).  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand. If you "don't much care" why did you restore it? What does the photo have to do with the controversy?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct, my mistake. It was restored by J Readings.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Seconded. I would also add that the claim that the image is "prurient" could be held to the vast majority of images on our articles, and this is, in fact, why they are there - because people want to see them. I do not see why this is a negative and/or invalid reason for an image's existence on an article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article1480012.ece
This [refactor] blocked me for "vandalism". I demand to know who is going to apologise to me now?Anwar (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he blocked your account for "Disruption: personal attacks, was warned". That was the first of many blocks you've received. There's no evidence that the block was incorrect, regardless of whether Essjay claimed to be a professor or an astronaut. Rather than asking for an apology it'd be better to focus on improving your editing behavior.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As of course we should all try to improve our editing behaviour. I removed your attack from your user page, do not repeat. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens now? 

message: The fact that this page exists is a testament to the vanity of Wikipedia. Now, I'll wager either this edit will be reverted, or I will be warned or blocked for making it, thus proving another point that I don't even need to make. Graestan (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How much are you wagering?  Can I place a counter-wager?  --Chris (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see how it's a vanity piece. It doesn't put Wikipedia in a very good light. It displays how easily the community can be duped by someone stating dubious credentials. This is something that could happen again, if not already, since Wikipedia refuses to implement any vetting process. BTW, I hope you don't ferret out my Ben Burtt sleeper account on Wookiepedia. If your comments are removed it will be because talk space is for improving the article. But perhaps if you feel that the article is biased towards a good review of Wikipedia you can edit it. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "We're important and here's why." – This is the message I get from the whole page. I mean, Essjay is not that important of a topic to have an extensive article in Wikipedia. Look at all the important real people that get nothing. At any rate, it was momentary expression of disgust. I don't see why this whole Essjay nonsense can't be water under the bridge. Also, Miss Ann Thropie, I don't operate in that fashion. Graestan (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No point arguing any more: there was an attempt to delete this article, documented here cojoco (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: If there are important real people you think deserve articles that don't yet have them, or articles that should be more extensive, by all means be bold and help out the project by making/updating them. As to why this whole "Essjay nonsense can't be water under the bridge"- As I'm sure the AfD covers, it meets all the 'pedia criteria to warrant inclusion, and encyclopedias don't care whether or not something is old news.--Hawkian (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having taken part in the credential verification debate I would like to comment that this whole affair occupied Wikipedians for a long time. Many people participated in this debate and filled the archives with their ideas. Yet the debate is far from settled. Credential verification is still a bogeyman rearing its ugly head from time to time as the comments above suggest. Far from being a storm in a teacup this affair made the news extensively and made Wikipedia stand still and take notice of its core values. To consider this event as water under the bridge we have to construct a mighty big bridge and risk being accused of whitewashing. Dr.K. (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This event is important. I'm new, but it seems that there are no "article limits"; you can create as many articles as you can. Articles should be supported by "reliable references" I believe. Articles about "important people" can be created. This event made lots of news & made Wikipedia take notice of its core values. The gen-X (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please 

message: I don’t want to waste a lot of time on this. The WP article stated “Several students interviewed at Cornell indicated that they would continue to use Wikipedia as a quick source of information, though they would not cite it in scholarly work.”  How many students? How did they indicate it? Did they draw stick figures or did they say it in words? If the latter, why didn’t The Cornell Sun quote them? Can anybody identify the students who said they would use WP as a quick source of info but not cite it in scholarly work?  The students interviewed said something similar but they certainly didn’t say what WP says they said. This is just basic fact-checking and copy-editing; not a big deal — why make it so? Questioningly, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: GeorgeLouis: I don’t want to waste a lot of time on this. Neither do I, that's why I'm puzzled why you just don't tweak the sentence to what you feel is an appropriate summary of what's being said in the article. I asked you to do that, but instead you insist on deleting the entire sentence. That's not very helpful. Perhaps you can just make a suggestion on the talk page of how you would re-write the sentence based on the source? J Readings (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it out, for heaven's sakes. The article is too long anyway. Who cares what a few college students have to say? Anyway, the editor who added the section in the first place should have the responsibility to make sure it is correct, not the poor schlub who comes along later and tries to correlate the WP version with what was in the original source. I am outta here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: GeorgeLouis: The article is too long anyway. Maybe. Maybe not. I doubt continually deleting one sentence of sourced information is going to change the length. GeorgeLouis:Who cares what a few college students have to say? Well, apparently John Albanes, the journalist who wrote the article for the Cornell Daily Sun.  According to its own Wikipedia article, The Cornell Daily Sun is an independent daily newspaper published in Ithaca, New York by students at Cornell University. It is the oldest continually-independent college daily in the United States. GeorgeLouis: ...the editor who added the section in the first place should have the responsibility to make sure it is correct. Risker and I both think the citation accurately reflects what's said in the article. It doesn't make sweeping claims about the United States or academia in general, but what's stated in the article; its focus is Cornell University. If you disagree with how the sentence is worded, please feel free to contribute a suggested tweaking of the sourced sentence. J Readings (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I accidently checked the minor box. So, I redid my edit. I could not find where several students to verify the text. The students may is more correct. Stating that they would is misleading. I hope this helps. QuackGuru 02:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine by me; I think mentioning the students is important, and your wording seems to be closest to the text so far.  Risker (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornell students 'indicating' 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:L Sanger.jpg Nominated for Deletion 

message: The main body of the article states that the "Who is Essjay?" was started on July 24 2006, while the timeline states July 26 2006. The sentence in the article's body that mentions the "Who is Essjay?" thread is also poorly phrased and confusing. I don't have enough knowledge on the topic to make corrections. 137.215.44.150 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction and confusing description 

message: I think the title is misleading. In a controversy, there are two sides arguing from two different points of view. There are no multiple valid points of view on Essjay. There's the reality of what he did, and how it was perceived (and acted upon) when the scandal broke. But I'd just call it the Essjay scandal, because that's what it was, not a "controversy". Also, I know that Essjay scandal redirects here. My point is not about ease of finding the article. It's about the big letters at the top of the article, which currently downplay the scandal to a "controversy".  --89.0.241.3 (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy", what "controversy"? 

message: "Wikipedia Review found definitive proof that Jordan made false claims about his qualifications and experience, including that he was ***not*** a "tenured professor", a claim that was used to describe Essjay in the interview for The New Yorker." Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  To be or not to be - so is he or is he not? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Essjay controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Essjay controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While writing a commentary about the Wikipedia community, I happened to recall the Essjay controversy. I'm wondering if anyone has made any effort to reach out to Essjay and invite him to consider becoming active again. I think he made some mistakes, but that was five years ago, and notwithstanding those mistakes, he also did some good volunteering and had many friends and supporters here.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldon Rampton (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 August 2011
:I wonder. Essjay has probably moved on. --The mediocre Wikipedian (talk to me.) 14:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has anyone reached out to Essjay since the controversy? 

message: An unregistered editor has changed "Wikipedia" to "English Wikipedia" in about fifty places in this article. User:Moriori reverted the edits and they were re-reverted, possibly by the same unregistered user from a different IP address.
I have looked at most of the edits, and in every place "Wikipedia" is the correct term. For example:
*The Essjay controversy was an incident concerning a prominent English Wikipedia participant
::He was a prominent Wikipedia participant, no need to specify.
*Jordan held trusted volunteer positions within English Wikipedia
::If they were within English Wikiedpia then they were also within Wikipedia
*the impact of this deception on perceptions of English Wikipedia
::A deception would have had an impact on the whole of Wikipedia
*Essjay states on his English Wikipedia user page that he teaches graduate theology
::There is some justification for "English" here, but in the context it is unnecessary.
*The New Yorker publishes an article on the English Wikipedia
::No evidence offered that the article was restricted to English Wikipedia
*Jordan retires from English Wikipedia altogether 
::No evidence that he did not retire from other Wikipedias
*He insisted that English Wikipedia editors still would be able to remain anonymous if they wished.
::It is likely that Jimmy Wales was referring to all Wikipedia editors
*However, the article argued that English Wikipedia could not become a "net police" of reliability on the Internet.
::The article in Business Week does not specify English Wikipedia.
I will revert these changes. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For Henryk Batuta hoax it says Polish Wikipedia. What is wrong with precision? The different wikis have different policies. For instance, I think that the German Wikipedia has Pending Changes on all articles.--208.54.32.235 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary to specify English Wikipedia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Essjay controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070309130922/http://blogs.zdnet.com:80/Ratcliffe/?p=271 to http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/?p=271
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified