Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 9

message: A new user just AfD'd it. - Denny 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem. The AfD will be dead from hypothermia within an hour. --tjstrf talk 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and it's disrutpion. I ask that a disinterested admin have a look, thanks. Gwen Gale 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also a vandal-only account.  - Denny 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What fun. Gwen Gale 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for my own education, is this an uncommon practice that seems to relate to a narrow range of controversial articles or is this something that happens quite often?  I don't spend a lot of time in AfD. Risker 20:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article is controversial, this is what happens. I've seen much worse. Welcome to Wikipedia! Mind though, a verifiable citation from a reliable source is truly so too handy at times like this. Gwen Gale 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean repetitive AfD attempts trying to wear down the community into giving the desired outcome? Those are pretty common on controversial/"offensive" articles, uncommon on everything else. --tjstrf talk 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is disappointing to see that this nomination was made by what is clearly a sockpuppet.  It practically illustrates the problem that led to this whole controversy in the first place.  prepares to be taken to the woodshed for stating the obvious Risker 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fwap! :) Gwen Gale 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPA afd 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEssjay_controversy&diff=114666596&oldid=114666344 Are we allowed to remove comments that are constructive criticism? The anon who is probably new here, is granted an AGF and welcome with open arms. Criticism is the best way to learn IMO. Learn from our mistakes. I welcome you, the newcomer, to contribute to our community. QuackGuru TALK 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused by the given link you gave, and the link it leads to. Are you saying the anon IP that trolled this page is those three editors and a sock puppeteer...? - Denny 23:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I put the wrong link from another edit I did earlier. I can't and I won't point fingers at anyone. There is another case at the moment. Come to your own conclusions. Sometimes things get strange and confusing around here. No worries. QuackGuru TALK 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructive Criticism 

message: I notice the title is "Essjay controversy."  I might be stating the obvious, but isn't this really about the "Wikipedia-Essay controversy"?  It's really about Wikipedia as it is about Essjay.  I know the article is on Wikipedia and thus that may be slipping people's minds, but why no mention of "Wikipedia" in the title when it is so central to the article.  Maybe "Essjay credentials controversy on Wikipedia" or something else similar?  --64.230.121.147 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just Wikipedia-specific. He lied to the media, he faked credentials which may have played a role in gaining employment for Wikia, etc., and is a bigger story than just Wikipedia. - Denny 05:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check the sixth archive. Because the article's been changed numerous times in a short amount of time, there's an appearent Moratorium of pagemoves on this article --wL<speak·check> 08:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title issue: why no mention of "Wikipedia"? 

message: Can whomever set that up change it to not be 48 hours? Things have calmed a fair bit, I'd say 5 or 7 days. - Denny 18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not auto-archiving. The "auto=long" means that until we have 20 Archives, each number is prefixed with the word "Archive". Currently, archiving is done manually. -- Avi 19:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't appear so.  I haven't figured out how to edit MiszaBot's settings, though, since it uses a separate request system and not a template on the target page... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes require a request to Misza13. I suggest the timeframe be agreed here first to avoid repeated changes. WjBscribe 20:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto archiving 

message: Article was just moved/renamed by a 'new' user: 
I reverted it for being out of the blue/no concensus. - Denny 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article moved 

message: * Events
Jordan later bragged on his Wikipedia user page about having fooled Schiff by "doing a good job playing the part."[7] Essjay also claimed to have used his persona's credentials to vouch for Wikipedia's accuracy in a letter he sent to a college professor.[7] According to the Vancouver daily paper 24 Hours, activist and Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt had discovered the Essjay/Ryan Jordan connection and reported this to The New Yorker.[8]
* Media
The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky, reported that Jordan had attended but never graduated from Centre College and Bluegrass Community and Technical College (formerly known as Lexington Community College). The paper also stated that despite his claim to have had a three-month special position with a United States bankruptcy trustee, the office had no record that Jordan ever worked there.[1]
This information above does not belong in the New York interview section. I suggest to move it in to its own and unique section. Any comments. QuackGuru TALK 20:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sentence about bragging and the sentence relating to the Vancouver paper are very clearly related to the New Yorker article. The Courier-Journal bit is actually the reference in the lead, so perhaps it need not be repeated.  That leaves the letter to the professor - and it makes no sense to have a single sentence anywhere, should we just leave it out? Risker 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't support your continued attempt to chavel and disrupt the article by forcing it into pre-labeled sections with snippets of text so you can fill them up with unduly weighted material. Gwen Gale 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is poorly structured, hard to follow, and cluttered. The readers deserve better. We can do better. QuackGuru TALK 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough then. After all this, and all the input which has scrolled by here, if you truly believe the article is cluttered and hard to follow I humbly suggest you work on your reading skills. Gwen Gale 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Interview 

message: I have mostly been a spectator to this page, but it seems to me that most of the "discussion" is being generated by the endless disruptive posts by Quackguru, whose opinions on the article as it stands are outspoken, strident, and in agreement with absolutely no-one else. Is this a fair summary of Quackguru's actions, or am I misjudging him? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More or less. User:C.m.jones has settled down lately, never mind his tips to Quack about "article warfare". Gwen Gale 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. My post was just to make sure that I was reading it right before posting to AN/I, but you beat me to it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for posting it, I have been hesitant to do so, but this has gone on for too long. Risker 21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quackguru's disruptive behaviour