User talk:Essjay: Difference between revisions

User talk:Essjay/Top User:Essjay/Talk TOC

Congratulations on the promotion to Arbitrator. You will make a great addition to the Committee. Geo. Talk to me 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Essjay (Talk) 23:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Essjay. What do you think of moving User:Essjay/Never pee in the sandbox to Meta? It describes a tendency that is common on many wikis, not just on the English Wikipedia. A copy with {{mirrored}} could be left here, to benefit from the shortcut. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:53:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to copy it over if you like, but I'd really rather keep the version in my userspace, and here's why: When something's in your userspace, you maintain control over it, so it never ends up saying something you didn't intend it to. I've seen it happen, at least a couple of times, that someone writes something (either in their userspace and it's moved to the projectspace, or directly in the projectspace) and it is later changed to the point that it no longer matches thier original intent, yet, because they started it, and in many cases, have the greatest number of contributions to it, they are identified as the "primary author." I'd rather make sure that any essay's I'm identified as primary author of stay safely where I can make sure they say what I intended them to. Essjay (Talk) 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you have looked at the facts in this case of mine: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_User:GordonWatts

I'm not the only one who thinks I have a case. Since I last posted, many new people have posted in my support!

Besides having over 4,500 edits with no major discipline or major problems, I now note that Thatcher131 suggested that: "I think a rebuttal to the votes of the arbitrators is a reasonable addition, but can you do something about the rest? If your main concern is that there was insufficient agreeement to constitute consensus, a link to the discussion and a brief recap should be sufficient; I would normally expect the arbitrators to follow significant links and verify them as part of their determination. Thatcher131 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)" [1][reply]

I hope you do as Thatcher suggests and follow the links! I know I have posted a lot, but several statements by other editors were well-over 500 words, so please indulge me if I go a little over too: I'm being falsely accused!

To grant Thatcher's request, I have created a new section for you:

• 1.4.3.2 Rebuttal to the votes of the Arbitrators
  • 1.4.3.2.1 -No Consensus existed to support Guy's admin action-
  • 1.4.3.2.2 -These editors support my claims of innocence-
  • 1.4.3.2.3 -These editors desire ArbCom intervention-
• [2]

If you mess up, it isn't my fault: I've done my part, and I have little to add to the somewhat lengthy ArbCom page in my matter.

--GordonWatts 06:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements on RFAR are for showing us that there is a case to be heard. They are not for making every last point of your case; if they were, we would have no need of evidence pages. Your statement passed 2300 words at one point; we don't need 2300 words worth of why we should open a case. Chosing to end with "If you mess up, it isn't my fault" doesn't particularly encourage me to believe that the community was wrong in their actions. Essjay (Talk) 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could possibly do that myself, but since I found no guidelines on removing a RfA just wanted to be careful and not create a 'mess'. The reasons are firstly, it doesn't seem to have any chance to succeed and secondly, I don't like the way pro and contra develop. Wandalstouring 11:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay, hope you don't mind but to avoid opposes continuing before you could deal with this I explained to Wandalstouring that if he was sure he should withdraw on the RfA page. He did so, I then closed and delisted the RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wandalstouring. I know non-crat RfA closes are under some discussion at the moment but it seemed an uncontroversial matter. WjBscribe 12:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he withdrew, then there is really nothing controversial about it; had you made the decision to end it, that would have been controversial, but just cleaning up after a candidate withdrawal isn't, so nothing to worry about. Essjay (Talk) 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, I'm using your MonoMonobook, but I don't want sysop etc tabs on it. how do I get rid of them. Also, I want to change text colour how do I do that? thanx a bunch Essjay, lovin your work... --Andrew Marsden 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking for User:Essjay/user/monobook.js. Also see my version, based heavily on Essjay's. Prodego ^talk 21:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Essjay - I'd appreciate if you could re-enable the talk page archiving - hopefully the problems will be largely cleared up very soon, and i've got a temporary phone line for internet until then :). Thanks, Martinp23 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Essjay (Talk) 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly :) Congrats on becoming an arbitrator - it's about time :) Martinp23 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please read this: [3] I do not belong in the Arbcom, I hope you understand and remove me from it. Thanks.Azerbaijani 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee has had this type of requests a number of times, and our response is this: If you have not been part of the dispute, then you won't be part of the remedies. Being listed as a party in an Arbitration case doesn't automatically mean you're going to be sanctioned. If you haven't done anything, then you have nothing to be concerned about. Essjay (Talk) 23:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Essjay, I hope you are still doing well. Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could do me a favor. I have been waiting in m:OTRS/volunteering since January 7. Could you expiate the process for me, I know you are a good person to contact for just about anything :-). My thanks if you can help me, Prodego ^talk 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm; I'm really not active with OTRS anymore, and I don't have the ability to add anyone. I'll poke around to see who the active OTRS admins are and let you know. Essjay (Talk) 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told that Bastique and Jredmond are the ones you seek. Essjay (Talk) 00:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Prodego ^talk 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at this page, because since you have left, no usernames have been changed (as far as I can tell).

Regards,

 ~Steptrip 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is controversy regarding that page at this time, and I have elected not to be active there until the controversy is over. Essjay (Talk) 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know.  ~Steptrip 01:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sure I can say there's any discernible consensus that's been formed, the controversy/discussion seems to have died down - approaching 24 hours with no edits to the discussion now. I'm sorry to see that controversy seems to be trying to follow you around recently, I certainly don't think you deserve it, your contributions to Wikipedia are too valuable to lose. Obviously, your decision to return to CHU is your own, I just hope you agree that the controversy is dying down and return soon to the great work you do there. Thanks, and don't let the detractors get you down - they obviously don't understand your reasoning, and have no desire to do so. —Krellis (Talk) 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I'm not sure why but I am guessing you might have an answer to my question: For the first time ever, starting today, I have started seeing a new error page, from time to time, when trying to edit. My guess is that the error page is new and/or something has changed with respect to the servers. Please do not think I am complaining; I am genuinely curious and wondering if you know anything about it. If not, do you know the best user to ask about it. Katalaveno^T_C 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the "Wikipedia (or Wikimedia) is experiencing an error" page? I get it every once in a while, but usually a click of the back button and a resubmission solves it. If that is the one, and it's just intermittent, I wouldn't worry about it. If it's a different one, let me know what it says, and I'll poke around and see if I can find anything out. Essjay (Talk) 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clicking the back button and resubmitting works for me, too. It's a Wikipedia error page (it has error in about 25 of different languages on the top of the page). The thing that caught my eye, however, was that... I started editing four months ago, and now, over 2000 edits later, I had never got this error page... until today. Maybe I was just lucky? Again, just curious... In any event, thanks for your response. Katalaveno^T_C 04:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Essjay, if you're still around, can you close Georgewilliamherbert's RfA? I'd close it as a clear success, but I did vote in it. I don't really consider that a conflict considering my comments, but I'd prefer if someone else closed it. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed it; for some reason, I thought it was closing tomorrow morning. Essjay (Talk) 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I'll never get thoroughly used to UTC. - Taxman ^Talk 03:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use a neat little to-do list that sends me an instant message when tasks are due, and it makes it really easy to catch things quickly; I've been adding RFAs to it lately, but I think in converting from UTC to local time, I completely messed that one up. Essjay (Talk) 04:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I caught that in your congrats message, you'd inadvertently linked to the candidates earlier RfA rather than the current one; I mention it only to remind, in case there's another 2nd nomination closing anytime soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, thanks; I use the PAGENAMEE magic word for that (so the log links work too). Since the person knows where the RFA was, I could probably just delink that. Essjay (Talk) 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a way to set up one of your bots to archive the talk page at Talk:Josette Sheeran Shiner ?? Thank you for your time. Smee 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, as long as there is consensus to do so; just propose it on the talk page, get agreement for it, and settle on how old posts should be before being archived, what the archive scheme should be, and how big the archives should get in KB before the next one is created. Essjay (Talk) 14:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this and posed those points on the article's talk page... Smee 14:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You may want to take that link down

Just a heads up -- there's an old link on your user page that says, "I was mentioned several times in an article about Wikipedia in The New Yorker." You may want to take it down now. The editor of The New Yorker appendeded a note to the article that says you're a liar. 68.89.128.115 15:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above appears to be by Daniel Brandt. His motivations aside, you should probably be made aware that there's a discussion about this going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales#The New Yorker quotes you (also triggered by Mr. Brandt). I have a great deal of respect for your work on Wikipeda, Essjay, and I think it's important that you respond to this matter. Did you misrepresent yourself on your user page and/or to the New Yorker reporter? Can you explain this? If this was a simple error of judgment, you would do well to acknowledge it.

Respectfully yours, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have; there was a considerable discussion right here on this page, triggered by Mr. Brandt and his Wikipedia Review cronies, and I made myself quite clear on the subject. I consider the matter closed, and see no reason to repeat myself every few weeks when someone else finds out about it "for the first time." Jimmy has made his support for me known, the people who actually know me have made thier support known, and that is good enough for me. Essjay (Talk) 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only just found the previous discussions in your archives. I now understand the reasons behind your "disinformation". That said, given the New Yorker's correction of its story, it is likely that more people will be discovering this in the near future, and to a newcomer's eye it doesn't look good. It is also an unfortunate truth that the New Yorker correction will damage the reputation of Wikipedia, unless it is answered clearly and forcefully. (Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?) The New Yorker correction doesn't provide any context for the apparent misrepresentation. I think it's important for the sake of Wikipedia that you provide that context, preferably somewhere more easily accessible than your archives. This goes beyond your own reputation and affects that of Wikipedia as a whole. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my place to make a public statement on this; anything I say at this point is going to be repeatable in the press, so the best thing for me is to say nothing at all. Wikimedia has it's own press team, and Wikia has a PR firm; when I receive communications relating to the press, I refer them to the appropriate press division (in this case, Wikia's PR firm made my response to The New Yorker). At this point, my role is to say "No comment." Essjay (Talk) 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting more media attention for some reason. Freakonomics Blog Killerdark 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. :) Essjay (Talk) 00:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay, to be honest, I find your lack of transparency on this troubling. Why can't you post on a subpage an essay or statement that summarizes your position as to why you gave one identity to a journalists who you (I assume) corresponded with personally, instead of having us hunt through the edit history and archives to divine what the situation is. Also, I think to shrug it off on Wikipedia's press team and Wikia's PR is disingenuous -- Wikipedia is a community made of its members who act on their own accord. If there is an issue with the actions or edits of an individual, the individual is responsible. That's how Wikipedia can maintain safe harbor as a forum and why Seigenthaler and Fuzzy Zoeller have to look for the individuals in question, and not the Wikimedia Foundation office. Putting the burden of your (NPOV: discrepancy | POV: deception) on the backs of the Wikipedia press team I think is unfair to the rest of your peers, to put it mildly. (I had to take a 30 second timeout to prevent writing something I would regret.) -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I say now is likely to be repeated in the press. The press teams are trained in making statements that should be repeated in the press; I am not. It is best for Wikipedia that I not say something about this that then is repeated all over the world, making the situation far worse. I'm afraid I have to stick to "No comment." Essjay (Talk) 03:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay, you're probably being advised by the PR folks not to comment, but I hope that you and they can craft a reply early tomorrow (Thursday). This story is only going to spread, and with the current information at large it will reflect badly on you, Wikipedia, and Jimbo. A story in the press which includes your account of events is better for you and for Wikipedia than a story which presents only the New Yorker's correction, or even the information that can be gleaned from your archives. Also, I have to agree with Fuzheado — you have already presented yourself to the press as a representative of Wikipedia. It's not fair to your fellow Wikipedians to back out now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay & Josh, It's hit Metafilter, so the volume of inquiries is going to skyrocket. And you're way behind the curve in formulating a response. If you've got stuff in archive to represent your position, get in front of this, and post linkage. At this point you're in Damage Control, and listening to the PR Flacks whenever they get back to you isn't going to do YOUR reputation any good. Mikelieman 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real disgrace. I hope you understand how you are shitting all over the thousands of people who have made real effort to turn Wikipedia into a credible source of information and not a place for freaks like you to enact their misguided fantasies. It's a sad, sad day for Wikipedia and all it stood for... And no, MichaelBillington, it doesn't matter how many times you revert it -- that's the sad reality and you cannot change it by simply erasing it from Wikipedia, you know.--131.246.137.16 12:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just comical. "...repeated all over the world." My, we do think highly of ourselves don't we? Like any of this actually matters. Who's the troll now? Lying troll even. I'm laughing heartily that this made slashdot as an actual "news" story. Pfft. Singingjim (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

But of course

this explains everything [4]. Thatcher131 07:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it does! Essjay (Talk) 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Let's Get This Straight...

Speaking as a top award-winning particle physicist, race car driver, neurosurgeon, and rock star, I have a few questions... You're 24 now, and you where at one time an account manager with a Fortune 20 company? For How long? Let's just say a year for the sake of argument. But before that, you where a paralegal for five years? I'm just trying to do the math on this. You became a paralegal at 18 or 19? So, you must have started school for this licensed trade at what? 16? Ok...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.22.200.64 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This was indeed discussed in IRC when this first broke, and a few questions floated around about your current story. While I have nothing to say about this whole mess, I do hope that you at least issue a statement about this matter (not the age, the whole professor thing), in the interests of the Wiki. Cheers. – Chacor 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am 24, I worked for the company for 5 or 6 months, and left it to work for Wikia. I started as a paralegal at 18, and didn't study for it at all; it's not a licensed trade in Kentucky, you merely have to be under the supervision of a licensed attorney. SCR 3.130(5.3) I worked directly for attorneys for three years, and went freelance after that. Essjay (Talk) 14:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-/

Greetings... I'm sorry but I must take this back: edit 65682140 -- I feel a bit cheated, lying to wikipedians to get ahead is one thing... but lying to the media... that's another. You have irreparably destroyed trust in the wikipedia administration, shame on you. Mineralè 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny! 131.22.200.64 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it

Always knew you were lying scum, with your backing up certain users on a certain medical article to enforce status-quo cultural POV in contradiction to medical fact and human rights. You're scum, and you're the reason why this is my first wikipedia edit in 6 months. You disgust me.

I even talked to jimbo about these, i warned him about you and some others. This source is crap. 12.226.103.252 14:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a good writer with web knowledge in Louisville, KY

Hello Essjay,

I noticed an article referring to you (http://slashdot.org/articles/07/03/01/1313251.shtml). What most caught my eye was that you were a) a caring person, b) facile with the web and with wikipedia, c) articulate and d) in Louisville, KY (where I am).

I am involved in project that requires a good writer with encyclopedic range.

www.implicity.org/tour1.htm

www.childrenofthecode.org

I am planning on distilling the essence of over 100 interviews, over 3000 paper page equivalents, into a book. I need someone to help me write it who has an interest that spans 3500 years of history, an understanding of the web, and most importantly a deep care for humanity as a whole.

Credentials are less important than the quality of production.

Perhaps this won't interest you. Perhaps you know someone else that it might?

I wish you all the best in weathering whatever storms may come at Wikipedia...

Be you well,

David Boulton davidaboulton@gmail.com

Slashdot

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Slashdot_again - you made the front page. Well done. Just as a precaution, I've protected the three pages they linked directly to, as you don't seem to be around - I figure if you want them to remain unprotected (can't think why, but stull) you can do so when you get back on. Proto ► 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response

I would like to clear up an oversight on my part. I was, until this morning, under the impression that in my initial post on this subject (in response to a question from Dev920 made some weeks ago) I had made an apology for anyone who felt they were hurt by my decision to use misinformation. In speaking to various different people, including Jimbo, I did make it known that I was sorry that anyone felt hurt by my actions, and I believed I had done so in my initial statement. On re-reading that, I find I did not; it was a rather lengthy statement I had been thinking about for some time, and I seem to have left out a rather critical element of it. So, I rectify that now, with further apologies that it was not included originally, as I pointed people back to that statement in the belief it was complete.

I *am* sorry if anyone in the Wikipedia community has been hurt by my decision to use disinformation to protect myself. I'm not sorry that I protected myself; I believed, and continue to believe, that I was right to protect myself, in light of the problems encountered on the internet in these trying times. I have spoken to all of my close friends here about this, and have heard resoundingly that they understand my position, and they support me. Jimbo and many others in Wikipedia's hierarchy have made their support known as well. I'm also sorry the New Yorker chose to print what they did about me; there seems to be a belief that I knew they were going to print it, and that is not the case. I spoke with Stacy Shiff for over eight hours; in that time, she asked me about a variety of subjects related to Wikipedia and I gave her much to write on. (Those who know me will know I am rarely ever brief in my comments.) That she chose to focus on two rather trivial reverts to Justin Timberlake and what my userpage said came as a complete surprise to me; it was, quite honestly, my impression that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be, and that in the absence of any confirmation, no respectible publication would print it. I did not have an advance copy of the article, and indeed, didn't even get the complimentary print copy that others were given when it was published; I asked Stacy to send it to the Foundation for thier use instead. Further, she made several offers to compensate me for my time, and my response was that if she truly felt the need to do so, she should donate to the Foundation instead.

For two years, I have poured my life into making this site a better place. That many people feel hurt by my decision pains me greatly, and to them I am genuinely sorry. To the stalkers, the trolls, and the vandals, I am not sorry; they are abusive, hateful people, and they have done far worse things than those whole of the Wikipedia Community, myself included, have ever thought about doing. Now, I am going back to what I have always done: Making Wikipedia a better place. (In the immediate present, I'm going to bed, as I've been up for quite a long time.) Tonight, I will be back to my normal routine: Blocking vandals, closing RFAs, tending to the mailing lists, etc. I have no intention of going anywhere, because to do so would be to let the vandals, trolls, and stalkers win.

I have no doubt that others will continue to debate this matter; I have no intention to say anything further, as I have made my statement complete. If anyone needs me, look where the work of keeping the encyclopedia running is being done, and you'll probably find me there. Essjay (Talk) 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from the rest of Wikipedia

I'm putting this up here, because I feel that this message has to be read. This user page has been linked to by Slashdot, and as a result, has attracted a large number of the native Slashdot trolls. Essjay has explicitly said not to remove trollish comments. Just ignore the comments and move on. Cheers, PTO 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored discussion following Essjay's comment because it deserves and needs to stand on its own --Durin 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Essjay. – Chacor 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bloody liar is what you are..

You're a bloody liar is what you are.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.9.213.10 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Strong support. Just wanted to express my 100% support for everything you do around here. I think you were totally entitled to protect your identity. Don't let all the fuss get you down! WjBscribe 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay, having personally witnessed so many examples of stalking and threats (of death and otherwise) on Wikipedia in my time editing here I can fully comprehend inclinations for editors (and particularly administrators) to dissemble their personas on Wikipedia. Your response here is very enlightening and gives a fuller picture of how this chapter in your Wikipedia story unfolded. Having read your and Dev920's prior exchange I too had the impression that the knowledge of your dissembling was common. It is unfortunate that you did not have an opportunity to read a copy of The New Yorker story prior to its publication but I'm sure that you would have set the record straight from the get go. As well it is a bit surprising to read that such details weren't either confirmed with you or otherwise. Here's to looking forward to a potential quick end to this chapter of your involvement with the project. Sincerely, (→Netscott) 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me get this straight: you created a pseudonymous (thanks, Jimbo) identity to protect yourself from the evil people on the internet. Okay, fine. But where in your response do you address why you created so many (or such grandly) fictitious credentials? Your fake identity, frankly, is a little fat. Bloated. The degree (literally) to which you inflated your reputation (to protect yourself!) definitely IS a problem, and I think belies some rather unethical ambition and intentional obfuscation. I believe you didn't enter into it cleanly to protect yourself - I believe you also entered into it (or entered it in) to inflate your reputation, to lend undeserved credence to your edits and opinions, etc. In other words: nice try, but with some elementary scrutiny, you still appear to be a lying ass. But don't worry - I don't intend to hurt you or stalk you or anything. I'm just sayin'. Snackycakes 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So what? A little dissembling would have been "ok" then? This isn't the proper forum to debate this but Snackycakes (a user I've never even heard of before in two years of editing here) your criticism is unduly harsh in my view. (→Netscott) 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So, you haven't heard of "Snackycakes". So what? That automatically invalidates the statement? I see how it works here... 131.22.200.64 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't claim to be a major player in the Wikipedia universe, or handle more Spam than Hormel, but I have faithfully attempted to contribute to the project for the past six months. Essjay, and the Wikipedia community's defense of him, have completely soured me on spending any more time trying to improve the site. Snackycakes 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Does it really matter? So long as the work he's done is good (and it has been) that's all that matters. A userpage is a userpage, he can write what he likes there. Did you know that I'm a talking cheetah named Boris, with a Masters Degree in Computer Science? I wrote it here, doesn't mean it's true. So long as the work is good, it's all that matters clearly. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose what really matters is that in Wikipedia people take these things at face value. All of these articles are written by random people, yet we take them in stride. Essjay could've created any number of other identities for himself, ones that did not imply that he was an extremely educated individual. I've personally never gotten involved with the wikipedia politics, but I imagine it must've given some weight to whatever he was saying if he could pretend he was knowledgeable - it's just human nature. Had he said he was simply a tow truck driver in New Jersey, or a store owner in Vancouver or an account manager in a Fortune 1000 company, his identity would still have been protected, but he would not be inviting people to attribute to him expertise he doesn't have. Pseudonym or not, I thought Wikipedia was aiming to be an internet-repository-of-information, not an elaborate MUD. The problem is not that he made up a past, the problem is that his embellishments might have given him undue credit, all the while rising to a significant community position. As for his current identity, there might be some problems with that as well. hif 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      The particular question you link to about the current identity is addressed above. —Krellis (Talk) 17:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have high regard for your work on Wikipedia, and absolutely 100% support Wikipedians protecting their identity. This can be done without faking credentials, such as a Ph.D. Something less than a Ph.D. would be okay and you can say you live somewhere other than Kentucky, and change up other details. But, these fabrications were way excessive. Sorry to say, it will be a while before I (and many others here) can trust you again. I think it would be prudent for you to step down from Arbcom. At present, there is no way I'd be comfortable coming to Arbcom with any matter. For the benefit of people working on articles and other things, it's important that we have a comfortable editing environment, which includes trust in arbcom and others in "high" positions. I only wish the best for you, but it would be prudent for you to step back and give us time for this all to shake out and regain confidence. Regards.--Aude (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I felt the need to come here and say something regarding your misrepresentation of your credentials. Aude has captured my sentiments well, so I'll just say per Aude. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolute support of all the good work you've done for Wikipedia. I fully understand wanting to keep yourself anonymous, and while I may not have done it in the same way, I support what you did, and think your contributions speak for themselves. —Krellis (Talk) 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Less than nil support! I don't even know where to start! Softwarehistorian 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support based on your work on Wikipedia. However, may I recommend you that, for the time being, recuse yourself from the Arbitration Board since your trust as been called into question. SYSS Mouse 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I may be bringing this case to Arbitration Committee. SYSS Mouse 18:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Banned You need to get banned from wikipedia for using fake credentials to promote your religious ideas on wikipedia. There should be a committee formed to review your past edits to make sure that they are not biased. 72.209.65.29 18:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)wikiuser[reply]

  No. PTO 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any evidence that Essjay was trying to promote a religious agenda. That's not the point. And a call for banning is seriously disproportionate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support - Come on, people. Does it matter who Essjay claims he is in the real world? All that matters here is that he has contributed huge amounts of his time into this website. His work thus far has earned my trust, and an incident such as this will not ruin it. Shame on all of the people who think that Essjay is trying to blow himself up. PTO 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reading some of the comments below has given me a new perspective and has changed my mind. PTO 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion: - Here is a suggestion, you could contact Stacy Schiff from The New Yorker and ask to have a small follow-up piece, to explain the reasoning behind your motivations... Smee 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately, Stacy appears to have published Essjay's details without actually asking him to confirm their truthfulness; rather careless. She has also been badgered by Daniel Brandt, who contacted the New Yorker, Schiff's agent, and Schiff's book publisher about this, so I suspect she would not be enthusiastic about a followup. Thatcher131 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Zero Support or Sympathy Essjay is a liar. How can anyone trust his edits? 206.13.74.249 1 March 2007
• Comment: Essjay, thank you for your apology and for your years of hard work on Wikipedia. Thank you also for addressing the matter of the New Yorker report — although in hindsight it would have been better to mention the false persona at some point during the eight-hour interview. Your assumption "that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be, and that in the absence of any confirmation, no respectible publication would print it" has unfortunately resulted in damage to the public reputation of Wikipedia.
  Your statement also does not address why you felt the need, in "using disinformation to protect" yourself, to create a persona with high credentials. Doing this in the real world is considered academic fraud, and although the expectations of the online world are often lower, pretending to have credentials you don't have is still morally suspect. I don't want to keep pressing you for more and more apologies, but it would be nice if you could address this aspect of the issue.
  This affair does not erase the good work you have done for Wikipedia, but it does affect the trust that the Wikipedia community has placed in you. I'm not going to presume to tell you what you should do, but I hope that you will consider what you have done, its effects, and how best to proceed from here with thought and prayer. It's Lent — perhaps it would be fitting to withdraw into the desert for a time, and return at Easter? Just a thought. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Essjay, Josiah Rowe's request is sensible particularly in view of the letter. (→Netscott) 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• disappointment. it's alright to be anonymous, just pick a name like "Wikijoedoe" and no-one will blame you. Also, it's silly to blame Wikipedia for this, because, while we have policy on verifiability for content, we have no such policy regarding statements users make about themselves, so that's not an issue. A Wikipedia admin that is caught lying about his credentials like this is still rendering the project a disservice. We have no way of enforcing this, but I strongly feel it should be a matter of honour among bona fide editors to not lie about their identity. You can be anonymous all you like, just don't make up bullshit like that, it hurts Wikipedia. At least speaking as someone who spends a lot of time trying to raise Wikipedia's academic credibility, this is somewhat of a stab in the back. I also feel that at we need a policy of real-life identities revealed, or at least revealed to the board, for arbitrators. Arbitrators wield quite a lot of power in the wikiverse, and it will not do to expose ourselves to such hiccups on that level. dab (𒁳) 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimi non carborundum. Corvus cornix 19:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - (why are we voting for fsck's sake?) Wikipedia is not based on credentials. It never was. It does not matter what your credentials are when you edit here. Therefore, it doesn't matter a whit what someone says they do in real life. I see no proof at all of this damaging wikipedia's reputation. No harm has been done to the project. We've never required people to be truthful about their personal details, and we shouldn't because credentials don't mean a damn thing on Wikipedia. We need our articles to be truthful and sourced, but that's it. If people can't tell the difference between an article and the people who edit them, they have issues. pschemp | talk 19:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe because we knows this, just like we know it means bugger all if some anon inserts a claim that Siegenthaler is a killer, but the public will still see the headline "high WP functionary caught lying through his teeth" -- lying about your identity is not an RfArable offense to be sure, in the community, but just like Siegenthaler gave us semiprotection, there could be a lesson here. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Credentials may not mean a damn thing on Wikipedia, but they do mean something in the real world, and Essjay used these credentials in the real world, in the letter. He also failed to prevent them from being used in the New Yorker piece. To use Catholic terminology, the latter may be considered a sin of omission, but the former is a sin of commission. Creating a false identity online is one thing. Perpetuating that false identity in the real world is another. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "credentials don't mean a damn thing on Wikipedia" then why did Essjay find it necessary to lie about his credentials? 206.13.74.249 1 March 2007
  • While assigning any problems that our readers may have with us to their own "issues" is convenient, it's entirely facile. As encyclopedia editors we are all aware of the role sources play; Essjay's conduct gives people additional reason to doubt the intellectual integrity and honesty of those who edit Wikipedia. Sources created by people who lack intellectual integrity and honesty we tend to view as unreliable. The fact that Jimbo endorsed this dishonesty as not a problem exacerbates the issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sources created"? We don't create sources. We use sources and cite them so others can look them up and verify them. It is that easy to check on anyone's edits. And Josiah, what goes on in the real world is not the same as what goes on in Wikipedia. You are correct, it is an entirely different thing, hence why it makes no difference to Essjay's record of work here. He had no control over what that reporter printed. Acting like he did is silliness. Again I say, there is no evidence of him abusing any position or tool here on wikipedia. And on wikipedia is what matters. pschemp | talk 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, we create a source. If verifiability were all that mattered, we wouldn't need an NPOV policy. For instance an article might provide a sourced claim that someone was indicted on a criminal charge. If we want to be taken seriously, people should trust us to also include, if applicable, the fact that he was later acquitted. Mentioning the indictment but not the acquittal can easily be verified, but is intellectually dishonest.
      • While an collection of facts with no organization or structure may be useful, it is not an encyclopedia; in organizing and structuring facts, we ought to display intellectual honesty. Now I don't think anyone's saying that Essjay's intellectual honesty with regard to writing on Wikipedia is in question, but his integrity in general has (rightly) been impeached due to his dishonest interactions with outside parties. While not on Wikipedia, these interactions were in regard to Wikipedia and many will read him as speaking for the project. The image portrayed to the world is that the organization and selection of facts on Wikipedia is done by people who do not value honesty or intellectual integrity. Now perhaps you believe Wikipedia need not worry about the public's valuation of our work. To me, this seems to seriously devalue what we are doing, making the project into an entity that exists only for its own amusement. But the goals of the project appear to include having our work used and distributed to enhance the human body of knowledge. Things that make the public question our intellectual integrity are bad because our work is used and does good in the world only to the extent that outside parties consider it useful. "The encyclopedia written by pathological liars" isn't useful, it isn't a public image we should be seeking out, and we should be concerned at events that move our image in that direction. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unable to support I for one would love to express my support for you - because while I would have counseled you to avoid ANY misrepresentation to the press (in favor of a 'no comment', or a willingness to terminate the interview) since one cannot control the message of a free press, I understand your reasons for wanting to avoid the RL wackos. Unfortunately, your decision to employ misinformation didn't inspire you to avoid speaking with the press, and the result is a notable stain on WP's credibility. I wish you well regardless. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to say I respected your work without knowing of your claims to credentials, so nothing's changed and I still respect you for your work. Without making any claim to knowledge about Roman Catholicism, my memory is that confession is considered to clear sins: in this instance confession is appropriate, episode over as far as your work here is concerned. In my opinion. Wikipedia is only as authoritative as the references that are cited, subject to checking that the references aren't misrepresented, and I've not seen any more being claimed. In contrast the NewYorker journalist makes an outright assertion about the credentials of an anon – without even the let out of "claims the credentials". From any rational viewpoint they've god a much bigger credibility problem with this than Wikipedia has. We can't expect the press or slashdot to live up to Wikipedia's ideals, but we can respect contributors for what they do, and not what's on their userpages. Good luck with all this, .. dave souza, talk 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Malum. --131.111.8.98 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely Disappointed - First of all, what is most shocking about your behavior is that your work in Wikipedia has demonstrated your intelligence and objective ability to increase the overall quality of this project. Someone who has demonstrated such professionalism committing an act of not only misrepresenting them-self, but of grandiose academic stature, baffles logic.
  You're "reasons" for the deception are in no way adequate nor justifiable. There are many ways to "protect yourself" without fabricating an academic background, particularly where truth about such background is extremely important as in one of the most referenced encyclopedias in history. A five minute consultation with an internet security expert would have shown there are numerous and easy methods to conceal an identity that would have nothing to do with lying about your scholastic accomplishments. A pseudonym, as Jimbo put it, is one thing, but a pseudonym that creates false stature has nothing to do with protection but everything to do with deceit.
  I'm sure you're familiar with the term charlatan. It is the guise you were operating under for a long time. With your alleged academic credentials, you automatically espoused the respect and authority that comes with those credentials by the public and your fellow editors. They came to you for your leaned advice and consulting. Those kind of credentials are the reasons the BBC, National Public Radio, the New York Times, documentarians, etc, choose specific persons to gain knowledge on a given subject. They're a respected authority on that subject. You have passed yourself off as someone who qualifies for that kind of respect. That respect is now gone.
  Routinely, if somebody applies for a job and falsifies an academic degree, the human resources person/department will run a check on those claims and ultimately, the person will be exposed as a liar and will not get the job. Sometimes public figures are "outed" for false claims on their resumés or personal biographies and that causes deep embarrassment for their superiors and colleagues alike; take a glance at the former FEMA chief Michael D. Brown article and scroll to "Accusations of false claims in Brown's credentials" and you'll see what I mean.
  You are young. 24. At best, this should viewed as a "youthful indiscretion." At worst, a fraud. As pointed out in the opening paragraph, you are a worthy contributor to this project. Due to the sympathy I have for you, instead of asking for a resignation, I strongly suggest an outright apology. Not a qualified "I was protecting myself... " statement, but stating you were wrong.
  It was a mistake.
  Period.
  While it won't redeem your credibility completely, it will salvage some respect that I think you are deserving of. --Oakshade 23:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not that I'm getting caught up a public opinion tide, but it is now clear that even if you do give a real and heartfelt apology, your loss of credibility cannot be salvaged and your continued presence on this project only compromises the hard work already put in by earnest editors. It's time to leave. There is speculation that Ryan Jordan is not your real name and, if that's true, that is to your benefit when seeking employment in the future. --Oakshade 01:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's realization and there's rationalization. Unfortunately, you have done the latter; I do not feel you fully realize the impact of this incident. Most notably, the first two sentences of the second paragraph of your apology suggests that your regret extends to the fact that some people might be hurt by this rather than to the flagrant action itself. Wikipedia has enough trust issues as it is with people saying that because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, the content is not reliable. And then here we have you orchestrating a lie on your userpage, and using it as a tool in content debates (mentioned by others somewhere on this page) and, ironically enough, in responding to a letter about Wikipedia's credibility. To say that you still feel what you did was the right thing to do to protect yourself is either naive or selfish. Most (or at least many) on Wikipedia feel their privacy is paramount; I myself like a bit of privacy. But there is a very simple remedy to this issue: don't give people information. You don't need to make up phony credentials and mislead the community. Your insistence that this lie was the only solution is the naive. Although you state you had no knowledge beforehand of The New Yorker's choice to print the offending information, you did know after it was printed. Question: would you, one of Wikipedia's most trusted users, (a) tell The New Yorker, a respected publication, that it had told its readers something that was incorrect or (b) ignore it and hope that no one says anything? Clearly we know the answer to that. I fear you took that undesirable option (b) hoping you wouldn't have to stand the flack from the ensuing debacle. Regrettably, you have merely delayed the reaction by seven months and amplified the severity of the infraction due to your inability and unwillingness to do the right thing when you had the opportunity. As others have mentioned, I feel the best thing for you to do is to resign from one or more of your positions of authority on Wikipedia. This incident is not good for Wikipedia. This is not good for our publicity. This is not good for the people with honest credentials on their user pages who now will get second glances. This is not good for anyone, and I'm afraid the only reason you issued this apology is because you now understand this is not good for you. And that, dear Ryan, is the selfish. -- tariqabjotu 00:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disappointed. I've seen Essjay do many good things for Wikipedia over the years, and I am confident that he can continue to do good things in the future. But to lie so blatantly about something so important, and then to have so little remorse about it, this concerns me greatly. It's one thing to choose to remain anonymous, to make small exaggerations about one's accomplishments, or to establish an innocuous fictional identity to protect privacy. It's another to create detailed fraudulent credentials as a way of boosting credibility in an academic environment.[5] Essjay didn't make up an identity like, "Father of 4 in Ohio, working as an insurance salesman." He made up an identity that was designed to maximize credibility within this culture, and within subjects where he was editing. And further, he referred to that identity as a way of establishing his credentials to outside parties.[6][7] I am, frankly, appalled at this lack of judgment, and agree that EssJay should resign from ArbCom, especially considering that he never ran for the position, but was simply directly appointed by Jimbo. I am also greatly concerned that Jimbo seems unconcerned about this kind of fraud. I would have hoped that those who are at the core of the Wikipedia culture, would have a stronger moral center. When fraud is condoned by those in power, that attitude can pervade the entire community. Leaders set the tone in a culture, and that's why it is so important that they themselves project a high standard of ethical behavior. If Jimbo wants Wikipedia to have a reputation of intellectual integrity, then he must lead by example. To condone Essjay's fraud, and to further promote such an individual within the Wikipedia hierarchy, sends the wrong message. --Elonka 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Profoundly disappointed and saddened. I completely understand that there are contexts where one wishes to protect details of one's private life from being accessed by people of ill will; I feel the best tactic in such cases is some variation of simply saying "none of your business". Lying to the national media when representing Wikipedia seems to me entirely different. This is making me seriously question my own involvment in the project. I need to think about this more, but frankly it makes me feel sick. This feels like a kick in the teeth to Wikipedia and those working to improve it. -- Infrogmation 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay Must Resign

Essjay has openly lied about his credentials, not apologized for his lies, and instead rationalized them and excused his inexcusable behavior. Essjay represents what is wrong with Wikipedia; that people have no problem with gratuitous lying about themselves and their knowledge, and hide behind a false persona to escape judgment from other Wikipedians. I am disgusted and angry with Essjay and his actions, and he must resign immediately. If he was in any real academic institution or think-tank, and pulled this stunt, he would have been shown the door already. - MSTCrow 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He who is without sin, cast the first stone. PTO 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not lied about my credentials, about who I am, or what I've accomplished. People must be held accountable. Senseless platitudes will not improve the sad state of Wikipedia. - MSTCrow 19:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo trusts him. Why don't you ask Jimbo to resign? You are missing the fact that someone's credentials don't matter on wikipedia. We don't care about degrees, nor should we. Equating wikipedia to an acadmic institution is just silliness. pschemp | talk 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we do care about trust. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust based on on-wiki actions, not what reporters from the New Yorker say. Show me one place where his work on wiki was untrustworthy. pschemp | talk 20:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay resigning? Resigning from what? He must be one of the most hardworking users there is, that would just be a bad thing to do. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His log shows a bit under 250 actions a month. that does not however include oversight. There are admins who carry out that many actions a week. He does a fair bit of work yes but not that exceptional see [[8]].Over all solidly active but I'm not sure he falls into the hyper active set.Geni 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not this month no...but he's also working for Wikia. However, in the past he has been extremely active. pschemp | talk 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alf notes that he's on the deleters list next to Essjay and therefore should pull his finger out and resolves to delete the next five articles he comes across.

You go Alf!pschemp | talk 20:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that deletion list goes back to mid october. Going back through the log the peak level appears to be 250 a month. Hyper active would probably mean twice that although of course things are squewed somewhat by the activity levels of some admins.Geni 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's by far the most active bureaucrat, and the work he's done with checkuser is commendable – no one else really touches those areas. Without him would be a significant loss. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. To me at least it doesn't really matter what he claims to be offline. He can say he's the lost grandson of Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia or a Tibetan monk so long as he does productive work here. --tjstrf talk 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay and Wikipedia

It seems that some of the people here do not understand the huge role that Essjay plays in Wikipedia. Hell, when he takes wikibreaks, WP:CHU backlogs. He is essentially the only person who deals with that process. He is a very active RFA closer, closing most of the RFAs that I have watched in the last month or two. Making Essjay resign would be devastating to our internal proccesses! Essjay is one of our greatest assets. Why are people so keen on making him leave? PTO 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't care for all the good work he's done, that's why. Sad really. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JIMBO ought to resign too - he has less integrity that Essjay for letting him stay. Lying about your credentials in any other work environment will get you fired - looks like wikipedia promotes lies and poor judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.25.44 (talk • contribs)

lol. Wikipedia isn't a job. pschemp | talk 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yeah, so Essjay lied. We've all lied in the past. However, let me say this: Wikipedia is not a work enviroment. Rules that apply there do not apply here, and vice versa. This is the internet. You may have everything in the offline world. However, you come to the internet broke, lacking the only thing of value here: knowledge. Those who have it, rule. Those who want it, learn. Everybody else just sits in the stands, watching the internet world fly by. PTO 20:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikia or whatever it is called, is a for-profit business. Putting people into a position of authority based on their credentials and then keeping them in that position after their lies have been exposed just screams hypocrisy and fraud. If I lied claiming to be an experienced commercial airline pilot, was hired as such and then exposed as a fraud you can bet that I would be removed from that position. A fake bio is one thing but he represented himself to a REAL academic as a tenured professor. Essjay is a fraud, plain and simple. As for you, I picture you as the character on South Park spending all of his waking hours killing people off on World of Warcraft. It's too bad you lack the social skills and integrity necessary to live in the real world. (Anon edit by User: 65.166.25.44)

Um, Essjay disclosed his identity to Wikia before he was hired (unless they are paying him in cash by dead drop). Thatcher131 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Essjay lied about his credentials. That is not in dispute - the question here is how far did those lies penetrate. No reputable media organisation will ever again believe a wikipedia editors credentials again on trust alone. Frankly, it worries me that they ever did. However, the question to be considered now is do wikipedia editors trust Essjay? - and secondly, does it matter a toss whether they do or they don't. Jimbo gave - so only Jimbo can take away. Jimbo is the person who has to weigh up on what he based his confidence in Essjay, and also the effect appointing such a person to the Arbcom has on his own standing. Basically, it is nothing to do with the rest of us - Jimbo's encyclopedia - Jimbo's the one who sinks or swims on this decision , not us. Giano 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think pschemp ought to just take essjay out for a nice romantic date and cut to the chase. pschemp, you are madly in love with essjay from the looks of things...apparently essjay can do no wrong in your eyes.

Cue: drama! Read: Cluestick for 500, Alex.

Really people, I do not understand what the big deal about this is. Perhaps it popped a few cherries of niavete, but anyone taking anyone else's posted "credentials" on Wikipedia as true has serious trust issues. There is absolutely no way to really verify anyones' claims here, this is not a new situation, in fact, it's why Larry forked Citizendium a long time ago.

We really have two contradictory messages here: On one hand we value ourselves as the encyclopedia anyone can edit, on the other hand we are calling for some silly inquisition because someone lied about their credentials, even to the point of calling for a ban. These two positions I find are rather irreconcilable. Essjay has never acted in bad faith; I have asked numerous times for the people claiming he has to prove it - but no one has. So are we going to chase away good faith contributors because they lack credentials or because they lied about them? If so, then we need to cure ourselves of the idea that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

I have always been one to judge people not on who they claim to be, but rather on their actions. Essjay has always been fair in his dealings on Wikipedia. He has always acted with integrity and diplomacy. These are things that we value on Wikipedia, not credentials, and I ask the trolls that claim otherwise to kindly get a clue. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Peter, the trolls dropping in from Slashdot and the like are one thing, but there are also committed Wikipedians who have serious concerns about Essjay misrepresenting himself in the real world (you've seen the letter, right?), and the effect this will have on Wikipedia's already bruised reputation. I have consistently praised and thanked Essjay for his hard work and many positive contributions to Wikipedia. I'm also asking for him to consider the consequences of his decisions, good faith or not. Please try not to lump all those who are troubled by this affair in with the trolls and vandals. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what "damage" has been done? Wikipedia has never been really accepted by ivory tower academics so that's a non-issue. Brandt got uppity since he likes to stalk Essjay and found out that the person he was trying to stalk was just a ghost. The Slashdot lynch mob loves a good lynching, reason or no. Myself, I have yet to see a compelling reason why this is a bad thing in the context of Wikipedia, which, on Wikipedia, is the context that counts. It's just a lot of people going on with hot air and bruised feelings over a slight they have overreacted to, pure and simple. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The readership of the New Yorker is not limited to ivory tower academics. This will inevitably damage Wikipedia's public reputation. We know that Essjay has made Wikipedia a better place, but the public at large doesn't know, or care, about that. They will merely see that a high-up Wikipedia official who has falsified academic credentials. This may not make a difference here on Wikipedia, but it does make a difference in the real world. To deny that is to be exceedingly blinkered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't want Essjay to leave, but I think the honorable thing to do would be to resign and reapply for the higher-level positions of trust. I'm not talking about adminship—heck we hand those out to just about anyone that sticks around without vandalizing or abusing. I'm talking about Checkuser, Bureaucrat, Oversight. I supported Essjay on his RfB. I would do it again. I don't know that I do trust him with checkuser though—not now at least. Oversight, I don't know. I do feel hurt by the extreme overrepresentation of his credentials. It was wrong, and there's not really any way to sugar coat that. This is a time to demonstrate character—that will be big step in rebuilding trust. Stepping down from the positions of higher trust and reapplying is the way forward. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he'd abused it, the other overisighters/checkusers can see the logs to see what has been done, and the developers can check it I believe. I don't think he needs to resign, he hasn't changed. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but he has changed in the eyes of many. I used to hold his word in the highest regard amoung editors here. I no longer do. Those positions are positions of very high trust—not positions where we expect people to have to even think about checking up on someone. I respect Essjay for his work here mightily, but my trust in him is damaged. He should step back—to do otherwise would not be a demonstration of the honor that I still account to him and his deeds. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, he hasn't changed, he's still the same person, just without the false credentials... and to me that's all that matters. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know, I have a real problem with this thinking. Before this, he was someone whose character was beyond reproach, because there simply was no reason to believe otherwise. That is not true now. He may not have changed, but he has been revealed—at least to a degree. The point that seems to be going over the head of many people here is that there is a reason he did what he did that goes beyond what he has proclaimed, which was to hide his identity. That reason may well be seated in some deeper character flaw that has yet to reveal itself. I don't know why he did it, but the fact that he did is disturbing. Maybe he just suffers from insecurity, maybe it's something worse, I don't know. Don't get caught up in thinking that the problem is that he doesn't have a Ph.D.—the problem is that he significantly overrepresented his qualifications. Not just on his user page, but to the outside world when acting as a representative of Wikipedia. This is serious, and to minimize it with platitudes "he's still the same person" is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding what the real issue is. The fact is that his actions have created credible and significant doubt as to who he really is, what motivates him, his truthfulness and his judgement. Expressing concern regarding his access to the most sensitive tools here—the tools requiring the greatest trust and judgement—is not something that should invite rabid responses from apologists. These are legitimate concerns. Resigning the positions that were granted under false assumptions—the false assumption that Essjay was truthful—is entirely reasonable. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK you have a point; which do you suggest he resigns? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I said above. I don't really care about the bureaucratship, although I think the honorable thing would be to step down. It is the access to checkuser and oversight I find concerning. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The simple fact of the matter is that he shouldn't and if he did, he never would get those positions back and it would be a loos to the project. All this is to me is several trolls (and a few legitimate editors such as yourself the seem to have sucked in) demanding their pound of flesh, and then another, and then another ... ad infinitum. He has never abused these privelages and therefore there is no grounds to remove them. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My response here has nothing to do with the trolls, and I would thank you not to tie my comments to the trolls in any fashion. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It represents poor judgment. Keeping someone who many don't trust in high positions makes some of us uncomfortable. If Essjay resigned arbcom now, I would come back editing soon. If he doesn't and Jimbo saying this is "no big deal", I don't know when/if I'll be back because I'm not comfortable here. It's too bad, because I was working hard in recent days/weeks on toward a couple more featured articles. I was also toying with the idea of "adopting" an African country article(s) and try to get some up to good or featured status, among other things I was working on. I hope to resume my editing activities soon, but I'm on hiatus now. It's not just the falsehoods, but the way this is being handled that bothers me. Regards. --Aude (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Poor judgement? Your choice to impose your sense of moral superiority could qualify as poor judegement. There is no evidence at all that he abused his positions or tools on wiki. pschemp | talk 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, this is not only appalling judgement, these lies are devastating for whatever credentials and reputation Essjay has built up on Wikipedia. Catchpole 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all honesty if you're going to make us choose between Essjay, an established editor with a distinguished editing history on whom CHU and RFCU rely almost exclusively, and yourself, with whom my only interactions have been incinedary and abrasive comments about Essjay, well, I'm going to have to choose Essjay. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Begone Essjay. Get another username and start again, you can still be helpful. Best wishes, all the same. Gwen Gale 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntarily step down for now

Doug Bell said "Stepping down from the positions of higher trust and reapplying is the way forward." This makes sense. If Essjay voluntarily does this for the good of Wikipedia/Wikimedia (no other reasons need to be mentioned) we have made progress in solving this problem. On Jimbo's talk page I asked if it was important that arbcom members have a reputation for honesty. One person said no, it was only important that they be good at solving problems. Well, here's a chance for Essjay to show he is good at solving problems and has Wikipedia's best interests at heat. Vountarily resign from the arbcom and checkuser and perhaps one or two other positions. There is no problem with Essjay continuing as an editor. Essjay, you have Jimbo's support. It's not like resigning for now for the good of wikipedia is like resigning forever. WAS 4.250 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would this accomplish? Arbitrators are appointed by Jimbo and Checkuser and Oversight are assigned by the Arbitration Committee. They already know all the details and if they wanted to remove those functions, they would have (obviously, he was appointed to ArbCom after being hired by Wikia, so jimbo knew everything at that point anyway). The only roles Essjay has that are subject to community approval are Admin and Bureaucrat. Do you think his false bio affects his performance of those two functions? Do you really think Wikipedia would be a better place by forcinig Essjay to go through RFA and RFB again? Thatcher131 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What it would accomplish is show that Wikipedia leaders are accountable for their actions. There's no way he should remain in a position of authority at Wikipedia. Rcade 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with regard to public perception of the credibility of Wikipedia and its management; problems with regard to Wikipedia editors percieving credibility problems when dealing with Essjay (why believe anything he says?); and possibly, just maybe, problems with Essjay actually not being trustworthy. This is a credibility issue and perception is at least half the issue. Being seen to respond appropriately is important. WAS 4.250 21:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure, Essjay's conduct off-wiki and on has been most troubling. WP is a public web site, and the foremost online encyclopedia. Credibility to the reader should continue to be our most important concern - and when a user shreds WP's credibility off-wiki (as Essjay's lies in the New Yorker did) and on-wiki (by misrepresenting himself in subject debates as an 'expert'), he's doing real damage independently of 'which role' is involved therein. Sometimes bureaucracy can become blind to its core mission - and in our case, the bureaucracy's role should be to support and enable the project, not to ignore this torrent of valid criticism. All such conduct does is reinforce a 'gang rule' mentality. Whatever 'Jimmy knew', avoiding our clear responsibility to be accountable to the public (in other words, not to lie to them) is not acceptable.

This isn't to put it all on Essjay, since Jimbo also shares some blame for this debacle - if he did indeed know Essjay was operating under a false identity, having him speak with the press (and misrepresent his credentials/identity) appears to be a serious error in judgment. I've already been contacted a number of times by people who knew I was an editor here, asking me my opinion on the matter - and all I can do is hang my head and sigh.

The message that the press communicates cannot be controlled, so when you're giving an interview it's important that you're not patently lying. VERY IMPORTANT. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondrous Youth

Giving your recent falsehoods, can you reassure about this? Your bio reads:

"Before joining Wikia, I was an account manager with a Fortune 20 company. Prior to that, I was a paralegal for five years, including a three month special position with a United States Trustee and nearly two years freelance, handling special projects."

So, you are 24. 24 minus 5 is 19. 19 minus two is 17. So at 17 years old you worked freelance handling "special projects" for a United States trustee (whatever one of those is.) You might even be claiming this at age 16 or 15 depending on how long you claim to have worked as an account manager. Even if the two years is consecutive with the five, you are claiming it for aged 19.

Totally without credibility.

What wonders did you achieve aged 12? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.79.131 (talk • contribs).

If you would, like, read the page instead of drive-by trolling, you will find your answers. Thatcher131 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he should have told the truth and written "unlicensed paralegal." And the dates still don't marry up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.79.131 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when you have a credibility problem. They won't believe you even when you are saying two plus two is four. WAS 4.250 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is what happens when you have a Slashdot troll problem. They wouldn't believe Isaac Newton if he told them two plus two is four. —Krellis (Talk) 21:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your misrepresentation of identity

I will say this for the record:

Creating a pseudonym is one thing. Creating an elaborate fake persona with fake credentials, and using it in arguments, letters, and interviews is another. I am deeply troubled by this behavior, consider it highly unethical, and would like to ask you to seriously consider stepping down from your official Wikimedia roles. At the very least, I believe you owe the community an apology for this behavior. You have damaged both the reputation of the project, and your own. I am deeply saddened and disappointed.--Eloquence* 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He already did apologise above. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I do believe the issue goes beyond the New Yorker article and interview. As the above diff shows (and other examples have been cited), Essjay has used his fraudulent credentials to support his arguments about articles. This is a serious breach of ethics that has nothing whatsoever to do with protection of identity.--Eloquence* 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the above reference claims no more than having studied Catholicism for years, which seems to be the case. And cites sources, as Wikipedia should rather than accepting statements ex cathedra. Confession and apology are appropriate, and have been given. While I appreciate that you're without sin, no need to stone anyone. .. dave souza, talk 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I've been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn't tell you know how many times I've heard this myth, in and outside class." In conjunction with the profile as a professor of theology on his userpage, there can be no doubt that he used fraudulent credentials to bolster his argument. Other Wikipedians will often look upon anyone claiming any professional credentials with awe, since it is fairly uncommon. Essjay knew this, and used it to his advantage. See Kelly's blog post on the topic for other examples.-Eloquence*

Plain and simple fraud. Spankr 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker Article

LOL

--

Awkward indeed. Explanation? --AsianAstronaut 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll up to find an explanation and apology, and try to leave new messages at the bottom of a page, please. Martinp23 22:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but only found a rationalization and an excuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.80.239.153 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your response is terrible. If this is an apology, it is pathetically unapologetic. Every time you start to apologize, you take it back.

Your first paragraph explains that you thought you had already apologized and somehow that apology had been left out of previous statements. You say that you want to clear everything up and apologize publicly. Fair enough. The point is, the first paragraph sets up your response as an apology. But when you actually get to the part were you should say, "sorry, I lied" you don't. Instead, your apology is filled with justification and self-aggrandizement.

Essjay giveth, and Essjay taketh away

The actual "apology" begins in the second paragraph. In the first sentence, you're already making excuses. "Decision to use disinformation to protect" yourself is the kind of phraseology I would expect from a crooked politician, not a contrite community leader. Why can't you use a simple word like "lied"? The next sentence takes away from your apology even more. You bluntly say that you are not sorry for what you did, and that you still think doing it was the right thing to do. If what you did was protecting yourself, and you're not sorry you protected yourself, there's little left to apologize for.

Moving on, the next thing you say is that you have support from people on wikipedia in general and from Jimbo in particular. I'm not sure if you're trying to point out how popular you are, how close you are with the big man or just trying to point out that lots of people agree that what you did was right. The first two cases are pathetic attempts to make yourself look good and the last merely reinforces the idea that since what you did was right, you don't have anything to apologize for.

The New Yorker

The rest of the second paragraph is about the New Yorker article. I'm still not sure what your point here is. It seems like what you're getting at is that you didn't try to spread this disinformation around. But in a more than 8 hour interview you were never asked about your qualifications? That seems quite ridiculous. The article says that "Initially, he contributed to articles in his field—on the penitential rite, transubstantiation, the papal tiara. Soon he was spending fourteen hours a day on the site, though he was careful to keep his online life a secret from his colleagues and friends." The story certainly comes off as if you talked about your wikipedia contributions in the context of your area of "expertise". Of course you didn't know which bits of the interview would get published, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is if you talked to the reporter about your false qualifications, and your response didn't address that.

Letter

Furthermore your response didn't address the letter that you allegedly sent to a professor on why wikipedia should be considered a respectable source. The letter says to "feel free to look at my Wikipedia userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials." If its such common knowledge that you're not who you say you are, why do you refer people to your false credentials?

In that letter you talk about your nonexistent degrees and students. This is blatently lying. You're no longer protecting your identity with false information, you're trying to persuade a university professor to let his students cite wikipedia. Aside from the part were you lied, I think that you made a good arguement. I want professors to encourage wikipedia too. But the hypocrisy of claiming accuracy and honesty while not displaying any kind of basic academic integrity is appalling. My disgust is only accentuated by the fact that you presented yourself as (and indeed are, or perhaps were) a leader of the community.

Ego

Your apology is further destroyed by your constant attempts to play up your own virtues. If you really want to apologize, it is completely inapporpriate to say more than that you are sorry . How you can expect any community member to feel that you are truly contrite? Why point out that you did the interview for free? Why tell us about how much of your life you've poured into wikipedia? Or how much you hate trolls and vandals, or how much work you do to fight against them? Why include a defiant statement that you have no intention of going anywhere? It seems like you're trying to get people on your side. You've done a lot of great work for wikipedia. But when you're apologizing, you shouldn't talk about it, or try to win people over to your side. Apologzing is about being humble and admitting that you were wrong. Making an argument for yourself takes away from that humility. It makes it impossible for me to take your apology seriously.

An apology would have been nice. Instead, we get a self aggrandizing justification. JosephMDecock 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortuneately, I have to agree with the above. There is a higher road to take out of this mess Essjay, but so far, it's not the road you have chosen. The damage to your reputation here only increases the longer you avoid accepting true responsibility for your actions. There is clearly more to it than a simple attempt to hide your identity as you have on more than one occassion attempted to leverage your false persona into greater credibility—there were many options for hiding your identity, yet you chose this approach which offers more than a simple identity shield. I urge you to take the high road while that path is still available and step down from at least checkuser and oversight, but probably from ArbCom and as a bureaucrat as well. I say this with the utmost respect for your work here and because I would hate to see your reputation here completely destroyed. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should move this discussion somewhere else; it's starting to clog up Essjay's talk page. I'm thinking that we should move this to a subpage at WP:RFC (like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay or something similar). Thoughts? PTO 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I would prefer to hear a further response from Essjay first. I favor giving a brief period (no more than a day) for him to respond before starting an RfC. Let's give him another opportunity to make this right on his own—I think we owe him at least that. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think that would be a good idea. There's certainly plenty of commenting going on, so centralizing it would be good, if only to cut down on the chaos. And as I'm guessing this will end up in ArbCom's hands eventually, RFC is the next step along that path as well. William Pietri 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first asked you about your dual identities, your explanation was both reasonable and justifiable. Claiming you have a Phd and theological tenure is a stupid thing a twenty two year old would say, so I don't have a problem there. However, the letter that has come to light and Kelly Martin's provision of times when you have used your fictious credentials to gain the upper hand in an argument disturbs me, far more than simply lying about your age. Wikipedians are drilled from the moment they edit in the principles of trust and assuming good faith, and as a Wikipedian yourself you took that trust and good faith and abused it for your own ends.

There have been many calls for you to resign; I have no opinion on your abilities as an administrator and bureaucrat, but it seems to me that the roles of checkuser and oversight are handed out specifically to the most trusted individuals on Wikipedia. You no longer are trusted by large swathes of the community, so I ask you to resign these roles until that trust has been restored. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up.-BillDeanCarter 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's entitled to his opinion whether you agree with it or not, Carter. I personally don't think that resigning would help him regain whatever trust he has lost, but would deprive us of an active checkuser and oversight, so it would be a negative for Wikipedia. --tjstrf talk 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that is simply wrong-headed thinking. The workload is easy to compensate for. The loss of reputation to the project is magnitudes more difficult to repair. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The work the guy has done far outweighs any misrepresentation on his part. What makes Wikipedia look bad is the constant whining.-BillDeanCarter 01:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and I share the same mental state... we believe we are someone we are not. I'm Napoleon, myself, and I'm a most excellent brain surgeon. Perhaps you can come over and visit me and the Queen for a spot of tea? You could even show me your degrees! Coolgamer 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]