Misplaced Pages

User:Essjay/RFC: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:Essjay Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:14, 2 March 2007 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →Essjay's statement is inadequate: moving← Previous edit Revision as of 16:19, 2 March 2007 edit undoGiano II (talk | contribs)22,233 edits →YesNext edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 22: Line 22:
#Yes. Essjay has betrayed the trust of the community, inside and out. ] 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC) #Yes. Essjay has betrayed the trust of the community, inside and out. ] 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
# If no action is taken, it will be a blow to the credibility of the Misplaced Pages project as a whole. He has advanced himself as a representative of the project on a number of occasions, actively using his false credentials to bolster his own credibility. It also appears that he has invoked his false credentials to defend substantive edits to the Misplaced Pages itself. If the public is to be expected to treat the Misplaced Pages itself as credible or reliable, this kind of behaviour cannot be condoned. He should step down to the level of a regular user, and work his way back up if the community allows him to. - ] 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC) # If no action is taken, it will be a blow to the credibility of the Misplaced Pages project as a whole. He has advanced himself as a representative of the project on a number of occasions, actively using his false credentials to bolster his own credibility. It also appears that he has invoked his false credentials to defend substantive edits to the Misplaced Pages itself. If the public is to be expected to treat the Misplaced Pages itself as credible or reliable, this kind of behaviour cannot be condoned. He should step down to the level of a regular user, and work his way back up if the community allows him to. - ] 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
#Yes: Lying to us is one thing, lying publicly about false qualifications to bolster[REDACTED] credence is another. Every[REDACTED] editor and their work is now suspect. ] 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


=====No===== =====No=====
Line 55: Line 56:
# Per my reasoning above. ] 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC) # Per my reasoning above. ] 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
# for the same reasons as above - ] 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC) # for the same reasons as above - ] 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
# I don't trust him any longer. ] 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


=====No===== =====No=====
Line 81: Line 83:
#Again, yes. Without the need for speculation, multiple fabrication issues are at stake. ] 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC) #Again, yes. Without the need for speculation, multiple fabrication issues are at stake. ] 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
# for the same reasons as above - ] 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC) # for the same reasons as above - ] 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
#He should just go, quietly. ] 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


=====No===== =====No=====

Revision as of 16:19, 2 March 2007

Essjay

These questions are to gauge community opinion on the situation regarding User:Essjay.

Essjay should step down from Arbcom

Yes
  1. Essjay needs to step down. --Aude (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Regarding my position on all Essjay's current positions: the carrying-out of the duties associated with all of these require personal integrity. Essjay's actions have called his personal integrity into question. He should therefore step down from all positions, and be reinstated only if the community still trusts him enough to re-elect him despite recent events. A strong signal also needs to be sent that Misplaced Pages will not brush off fraudulent claims as "just a pseudonym". MartinMcCann 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. He misrepresented himself, therefore he is not trustworthy enough for this position - Skysmith 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. The lack of judgment that Essjay showed when he fabricated his credentials and used them to gain leverage in debates is antithetical to what the community expects of one entrusted with so much power. He must be held accountable. A Train 14:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. In addition to the revelations here, it concerns me that the December election produced a number of viable candidates who could and should have been selected ahead of someone who did not run for ArbCom. ArbCom needs members who are in a position of trust, and I feel that is lacking here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. He (may have) benefited from his misrepresented academic credentials. Gwen Gale 14:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. He may not have benefited from his credentials in being appointed to arbitrator, but the trust is widely questioned. SYSS Mouse 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. I cannot trust or respect the ArbCom's judgements as long as an admitted fabricator and liar is allowed to serve. FCYTravis 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Absolutely. I do not trust him to judge other users. The sockpuppet concerns over Robbie are also very troubling. --Cyde Weys 15:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. I just don't trust Essjay anymore. Sorry. PTO 15:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Yes. Editors who get sitebanned by ArbCom routinely accuse Misplaced Pages and the Committee of malfeasance. If he remains an arbitrator then his presence would legitimize those complaints and undermine the Committee's credibility. Durova 15:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. This incident is only a small part of why I think this; I didn't like the idea of direct appointments to Arbcom, and I'm not convinced he would have passed had he decided to run in the election. That's not quite enough to ask him to step down, but combined with this, it is. -Amarkov moo! 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. AnonEMouse 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC), unfortunately
  14. Partly because he didn't even run in the election, I think this is the worst time he could have been appointed. Majorly (o rly?) 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. While I personally continue to trust Essjay's judgment, it's clear that he has lost that of the community as a whole. —Cryptic 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Sorry Essjay but I agree with all of the above, there is just too much going on. And Majorly brought up a good point; and I find the "Robbie" thing worrisome. ~ Arjun 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Yes. Essjay has betrayed the trust of the community, inside and out. RFerreira 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. If no action is taken, it will be a blow to the credibility of the Misplaced Pages project as a whole. He has advanced himself as a representative of the project on a number of occasions, actively using his false credentials to bolster his own credibility. It also appears that he has invoked his false credentials to defend substantive edits to the Misplaced Pages itself. If the public is to be expected to treat the Misplaced Pages itself as credible or reliable, this kind of behaviour cannot be condoned. He should step down to the level of a regular user, and work his way back up if the community allows him to. - Borfo 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Yes: Lying to us is one thing, lying publicly about false qualifications to bolster[REDACTED] credence is another. Every[REDACTED] editor and their work is now suspect. Giano 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No
  1. No. He was appointed on his merits as a contributor to Misplaced Pages. Sam Blacketer 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. I think he'll do a good job, and if he owes the community an apology he can give it best by serving time on the arbcom. Tom Harrison 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Frankly, I'm not sure he's got the stomach for it, but that's Jimbo's decisions, which he made after the Grand Revelation. Milto LOL pia 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Discussion

Can we get an exact timeline here? He was appointed what, a week ago? This was a delayed scandal, really, I am pretty sure we knew he was "Ryan Jordan" before he was appointed to ArbCom. It just took a while before someone wrote the Misplaced Pages article and I guess everyone found out and this became a trainwreck. So I am currently thinking Essjay was appointed to ArbCom with Jimbo knowing about the identity thing. --W.marsh 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation was known on February 1, well before the ArbCom appointment, see here. In fact, it was slashdotted on Feb 7 as well. It just didn't gain traction because Brandt has not yet mananged to browbeat the New Yorker into issuing a correction. It has been discussen on Essjay's talk page many times between then and now. Dmcdevit resigned on the 14th. Thatcher131 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you lead me to the slashdot article? I missed that article. SYSS Mouse 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Let me look for it. Thatcher131 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears as a comment in this thread started on Feb 7. Commenter appears to be Daniel Brandt from all appearances. Thatcher131 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay should give up checkuser/oversight roles

Yes
  1. This is a position of trust, I need time to regain trust in Essjay. --Aude (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. People need to be able to take you at your word on checkuser. I don't think we can reasonably ask the community to do that at this point. No opinion on oversight. Tom Harrison 14:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. MartinMcCann 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. He misrepresented himself, therefore he is not trustworthy enough for this position - Skysmith 14:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Position of very high trust, and a position where there is little transparency. The trust now is missing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. My comments can be found in the top section. A Train 14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Yes, these positions deal with sensitive information and require the users to be trusted. – Chacor 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. One of the most sensitive roles at WP, not for someone whose trustworthiness and judgement have come into question. Gwen Gale 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Again, this is a community which relies on trust - and I no longer have trust in Essjay. FCYTravis 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Absolutely a position of trust, and I don't see that Essjay has this trust any longer. --Cyde Weys 15:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Yes. Especially Checkuser. Essjay violated the trust of the community by lying about his credentials. This blows my mind. PTO 15:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Yes. Obviously someone who misrepresented his credentials (on theology no less, with its implication of moral undersstanding) should not be entrusted with powers whose details he may not reveal. Checkuser and oversight are processes based on trust. Durova 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. AnonEMouse 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Majorly (o rly?) 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. You must regain trust again...that's all there is too it. Sorry. ~ Arjun 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Per my reasoning above. RFerreira 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. for the same reasons as above - Borfo 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. I don't trust him any longer. Giano 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No
  1. No because checkuser has its own procedure for verifying that it is not misused. Sam Blacketer 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. No This is largely a technical role. SYSS Mouse 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. No, this is a Jimbo/foundation controlled thing for privacy/legal issues, it's their choice. Milto LOL pia 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Abstain/Neutral/Other
  • I agree with Kelly Martin that editors with checkuser and oversight should fully disclose their identities to the Foundation. However, that can't be applied retroactively. Thatcher131 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes to checkuser, because you must have lots of trust to do that. No to oversight, though, because misuse of it is easily trackable by a steward and grounds for immediate removal. -Amarkov moo! 15:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Use of checkuser is also logged and monitored, plus the Foundation has a checkuser Ombudsperson to review and act on any complaints of abuse. Thatcher131 15:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay should step down as Bureaucrat

Yes
  1. MartinMcCann 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. He misrepresented himself, therefore he is not trustworthy enough for this position - Skysmith 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. The RFB passed marginally, a bit lower than the normal 90% standard. Concerns over the Robbie account which supported and which may be a sockpuppet have undermined the trust of the candidate sadly, as well as the integrity of the RFB. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. My comments can be found in the top section. A Train 14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. This role involves granting access to software functionality. It's not for someone whose judgement has come into question. Gwen Gale 14:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Per the embarrassment he caused the project in the media. Durova 15:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. AnonEMouse 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Possible sockpuppet (sorry, at this point, guilty until proven innocent) plus fabrication of qualifications... this goes too. FCYTravis 15:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Robbie voting for him on his RFB is really concerning to me. Who is Robbie? Is Robbie just a sockpuppet of Essjay? If bureaucrat status were achieved through underhanded means, it should be taken away. --Cyde Weys 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. The robbie thing worries me greatly...I mean the fact that it was used in a RFB which I can't overlook at this time. ~ Arjun 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Again, yes. Without the need for speculation, multiple fabrication issues are at stake. RFerreira 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. for the same reasons as above - Borfo 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. He should just go, quietly. Giano 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No
  1. Largely a technical position invloved with granting access rights. I don't see a problem. Tom Harrison 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. No. His actions as bureaucrat have not been questioned, and there is no reason to suspect that the vote on promoting him would have turned out differently based on beliefs about his 'real world' identity. Sam Blacketer 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. --MONGO 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. No, he has done good work as a crat. – Chacor 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. don't see a problemSYSS Mouse 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Bureaucratship doesn't have anything to do with trust. I don't see why this is needed. PTO 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. I guarantee there are worse liars with the bit. All of his promotions did not suddenly become flopsMilto LOL pia 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. He's the best bureaucrat of the lot, worth two or three of the others imo. Majorly (o rly?) 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay should resign as Administrator

Yes
  1. MartinMcCann 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yes, especially when he is now in position to remove evidence of his imposture and possibly create more fabrications - Skysmith 14:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. I forgot about the rollback button. Gwen Gale 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Non-admins can have rollback too. There are automated tools around. This makes no difference. – Chacor 14:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. In situations where a prominent member of a well known organization causes the organization embarrassment in the mainstream media, this sort of resignation is routine. If he were to continue administrating, it ought to be via a new election in which a fully informed community decides. The longer he delays his resignations, the more it damages Misplaced Pages in the eyes of the public at large and the more I doubt I would support him in a new vote. Durova 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Everything he has gained through misrepresentation and fraud, must be removed. FCYTravis 15:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. for the same reasons as above - Borfo 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No
  1. Essjay has been a valuable contributor, and I think this would be excessive. --Aude (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Tom Harrison 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. No reason to call into question any administrative action he has taken. Sam Blacketer 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. --MONGO 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. No evidence of misuse of admin tools, and he gained adminship by doing a lot of good anti-vandal work. Nothing he has done has eroded my trust in his ability to handle the basic delete/protect/block tools in a responsible manner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. A Train 14:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. No, he has done good work as an admin. – Chacor 14:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Under a new username I'd have no worries about him remaining an admin. Gwen Gale 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. No, for the same reason I don't support his resignation of Bureaucrat status above. PTO 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. No, same as for b'crat - his judgement in sysop matters has not changed. Milto LOL pia 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. No, he's a great admin. Majorly (o rly?) 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Very good administrator, the project won't benefit taking those tools away. ~ Arjun 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Abstain/Neutral/Other
  1. Abstain. Essjay has done a lot of good work as an admin, and I rate him very highly. I do not wish to see him desysopped. But every admin relies upon credibility and authority among non-admins. I'm not sure he still has that credibility, just like I have no idea if he's lost it. The best way to gauge this might be to file a new request for adminship. Aecis 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Aecis. Possibly losing arbcom, checkuser, and bureaucrat will be enough, possibly not. AnonEMouse 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay owes should provide a real apology

Yes
  1. A real apology would go along way in allowing me to regain trust in you. --Aude (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. MartinMcCann 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Skysmith 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. DefinitelySYSS Mouse 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. He owes an apology to the New Yorker, the guy he wrote as a professor, and the half-dozen others he waved phony credentials at. We're secondary. Re Sjakkale: apologies can't be demanded, but they can certainly be owed. --AnonEMouse 15:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No
  1. Nobody owes apologies, they are given, not demanded. Still… would be a smart move though. --Van helsing 14:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Van helsing. Sincere apologies are good, but cannot be demanded or owed to someone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    (Comment on owes->should) Whether he should give an apology is up to Essjay. If he wants to make a sincere and contrite apology about this, that's good. If not, an apology is not worth the wear on the keyboard, and should not be given. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. He has apologized, many thought it was insincere because he explained his motives. I say it was sincere as I believe those were his sincere motives, and a true apology requires an explanation. InBC 15:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. There are people he may need to apologize to. The community as a whole is not one of them. Nothing he has done hurt most of us, so why would he need to apologize? -Amarkov moo! 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. He is either sorry or he isn't. An apology is he isn't is worthless. It's his call. I'm not going to apologize for my lies here because I'm not sorry for them, so any apology I made would be fake, for example. Milto LOL pia 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. I don't see the purpose a further statement would serve other that further gratuitous humiliation. In response to Durova below, any resignations made primarily as an apology would be for entirely the wrong reasons; if Essjay resigns any positions, it should be solely because his loss of the community's trust makes him unqualified for them. —Cryptic 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay's statement is inadequate
  1. --Aude (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. A Train 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Upon careful reflection, I'll use this opportunity to disclose something about my own background that relates to Essjay's attempted apology: he implies that his lies were somehow due to personal security needs. Eight years ago both I and my disabled and dying father were protected by a criminal restraining order. At that time I had legitimate safety concerns I wouldn't wish on anybody, yet I never found it necessary to exaggerate my credentials online as a result. I simply didn't reveal certain things. Essjay's response to this situation has not only been inadequate, it cheapens the real dangers that some people actually face. Durova 16:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. An adequate apology requires action in the form of resignations and adequate explanation. Essjay's statement provided neither. Yet I disagree with the suggestion that he owes us something or that his apology was not real. Durova 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. This might have been a poor choice of words. I have tweaked the wording. --Aude (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I still can't agree with the current rewording. If changed to Essjay's statement is inadequate then count me in support. Durova 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, new option is added. --Aude (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No further action against Essjay is needed

Without commenting on if his actions were okay or not, no further action is required.

Yes
  1. I see no benefit to the project by taking action against him. InBC 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Misplaced Pages currently does not appear to have any policies that make it an offence to misrepresent oneself; technically, therefore, User:Essjay has done nothing wrong. While I am truly saddened by User:Essjay's actions, and may never trust his word again, I think the important next step for the community is to enact clear accountability policies instead of lynching User:Essjay. How can we prevent the next such breach of trust? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Why? He has added to Misplaced Pages's smooth operation forever, and continued to do so in the month that he was exposed, nor eason to do anything now if there wasn't in early January. Milto LOL pia 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No
  1. Even with the reword, I cannot support this (and indeed, from a technical point of view, no formal action has been taken against Essjay). There are too many issues here where trust has been breached or misplaced, and the issue has the potential of causing so much damage to Misplaced Pages's reputation, that sitting back and doing nothing is a position I cannot support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. At the moment the external view of this will be something along the lines of Misplaced Pages doesn't care if one of its most senior members lies about his qualifications to highly regarded newspapers and university professors. Action must be taken to demonstrate that out-and-out dishonesty of this sort will not be tolerated. MartinMcCann 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This question is pointless
  1. Misplaced Pages does not deal with punishment, all sanctions we impose are supposed to be preventative. Trying to suggest that calls for resignation from various duties is a call for "punishment" is a derailment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. - Skysmith 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok I will reword the title, subtle distinction. InBC 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Even with the reword, I doubt the community has the power to act formally. I don't think anyone anticipated such an egregious violation of trust from someone who had been entrusted with so much. Durova 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. The community can bring an Arbcom case, which will have the power to act formally. (Can an arbcom decision remove someone from arbcom? On a little thinking about it, surely yes.) All these questions are is a gauge of the community's opinion, and therefore possibly preliminary steps, and possibly evidence for any Arbcom case or Jimbo action. --AnonEMouse 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. A Train 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What Essjay did is okay

Yes
No
  1. It's perfectly okay to maintain a pseudonym, but no reason to exaggerate credentials so much. --Aude (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. A pseudonym is fine. It looks like he used his fake credentials is editing disputes, and that is not. I also wonder if any real theology professors on the east coast were wrongly suspected of editing Misplaced Pages. Tom Harrison 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Maintaining anonymity is one thing. Imposture, with or without media exposure, is a serious matter - Skysmith 14:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. MartinMcCann 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. A Train 14:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Pseudonym, perfectly OK and encouraged even. False leads, well maybe, but should not be necessary. Misrepresenting yourself as a qualified expert in discussions about the encyclopedia articles, and doing so as a professor when you step into the outside world to give interviews or right letters vouching for Misplaced Pages's reliability seriously undermines our credibility, and is absolutely 100% not OK. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. I don't think anyone can say what he did was okay, although some might think it was right. Not me though. – Chacor 14:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Pseudonym on wiki = okay. Blown up pseudonym on wiki = tolerated deception. Blown up pseudonym in the real world = fraud. Dragging[REDACTED] along with it = harmful. --Van helsing 14:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Screen ID/pseudonym on WP is ok. Misrepresenting academic credentials and employment background on WP chavels trust and could open up true security risks (for example, by making an editor feel more comfortable in sending a private email). Gwen Gale 14:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. As above. A pseudonym is one thing, fabricating an entire identity and lying about it to a reporter while representing Misplaced Pages is entirely another. FCYTravis 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Per FCYTravis, it was absolutely not okay. --Cyde Weys 15:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. A pseudonym is perfectly acceptable to prevent people from finding you. Inventing credentials for your pseudonym is probably fine, as just a continuation of pseudonymity. Using your fake credentials in editing disputes is even worse than using your real credentials, which is bad anyway. Using your fake credentials in a newspaper article is fraud. -Amarkov moo! 15:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. It reveals a serious immaturity and lack of understanding. The New Yorker has a venerable reputation for fact checking and it was - above all - foolish to lie to them. Durova 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. No. I'd be the last person ... err, mouse ... to criticise someone adopting another identity for anonymity, but that's not the same thing as adopting unearned credentials. Taking the point of view that it's the New Yorker's responsibility to check your veracity is ... irresponsible. --AnonEMouse 15:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    If that latter part is directed at my comment, the gist I meant to express is that one of the worst possible ways to fudge one's credentials is to a New Yorker reporter. Durova 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Hell no! What a liar and a fraud! Very wrong. But we're not here to act on moral judgements. Milto LOL pia 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Not a chance. I find it disturbing he used his false credentials in debates to win his point through. Majorly (o rly?) 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. I'm meticulous about my privacy here - to the point where I abandoned my previous ~10k-edit user account after letting something slip - so I find it easy to understand Essjay's assumption of a deliberately false identity to lessen the temptation to say something that could be traced back to him. Relying on that false identity's credentials to gain advantage in content disputes and in communication with outsiders, however, is unforgiveable. —Cryptic 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments

This isn't about telling true life stories. It's about misrepresenting them in an unhelpful or misleading way. If an editor asserts academic or employment credentials, the assertion should have something to do with reality or shouldn't be made at all. I mean, why didn't Essjay falsley claim to be a prison inmate instead? Cuz words have sway (erm, falsely claiming to be a convicted criminal wouldn't be ok either IMHO). So far as policy goes, lots of stuff we do in life has aught to do with whether some "policy" has been written on it. Gwen Gale 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If an editor uses his/her background to underline his/her credibility in a certain area, we assume that he or she is truthful about this. That is what keeps this community going. We are wary of sources, but we trust each other. If Essjay has done anything to harm the assumption of good faith by others towards him, he has gone too far. I can't tell whether he has, but I wonder what would happen the next time he asserts something. Because he will now be scrutinized more than anyone else. Aecis 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary straw polls taken in the heat of the moment are an exceptionally poor way to make decisions

Yes
  1. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. True enough, but some means of organized commentary is better than a lynch mob. -- nae'blis 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes, but everything else is worse. -Amarkov moo! 15:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    And you're not seeing this as a lynchmob? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No
  1. There are no decisions here. The decisions are up to Essjay and Jimbo. It's important that they see the community's opinion on the matter, and I think a petition format is the way to go. --Aude (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Aude. Durova 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
A strawpoll does not make decisions, it only gauges consensus or opinion
  1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Skysmith 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Aude (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Gwen Gale 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Since consensus is highly valued at WP, the implications of the poll are obvious. This only shows what we think when we're mad (in both senses of the term). With all due respect, I'm still failing to see the value of this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not mad. WP management recommended him to the New Yorker and he lied about his credentials. I'm expressing my opinion about it and my opinion on lying about academic backgrounds is unlikely to change. Gwen Gale 15:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Duh. Milto LOL pia 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Durova 15:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Seems pretty obvious to me ... Cyde Weys 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. – Chacor 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. A Train 16:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Or course. ~ Arjun 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments

Why is there scattershot discussion about this in multiple fora and meaningless polls rather than an RfC? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why this page was set-up. Over the past few days, discussion started on Jimbo's talk page, then moved to Essjay's talk page, then more discussion on the mailing list and the community noticeboard. One central place for people to list their opinion, without excessive badgering (not helpful) of Essjay is good. --Aude (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Essjay/RFC: Difference between revisions Add topic