Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:35, 4 March 2007

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Essjay/archive1

Retructure the RfC?

Although the notice at the top states it doesn't conform to normal RfC format, I feel that maybe it should be changed so it does. While this matter is unique, it really doesn't deserve special treatment IMO. --Sagaciousuk 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this page only just became an RFC five minutes ago. --BigDT 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting my ideas and opinions out now before it's too late. --Sagaciousuk 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Any attempt to restructure this as an RFC will obviously fail. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so sure - it can be done. And please, next time archive with more care :-( --Sagaciousuk 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While I hate to sound like a defeatist, I can't help but agree with Hipocrite. Refactoring a 250+ edit discussion page into the RfC format wouldn't be possible at this point. This is especially true since RfC format requires detailed opening statements with evidence, which we didn't have at the beginning, and you can't fill them in retroactively without annulling all the affirm/rejects that have been given already. --tjstrf talk 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone were to just delete the worthless voting up top... Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive it and start again is the best way forwardSpartaz 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry just did the deed. I'm going to move two sections concerning process to this talk page and just leave the sections discussing Essjay's conduct. Spartaz 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Boldly moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Essjay/Straw Poll and archived. GRBerry 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing of the MFD

Is there any good reason for it to have been closed three hours after it was open and with a determination that was completely unrelated to what anyone in the MFD suggested? Good grief, it's not a vote, but when we close these things, we should at least try and do something resembling the consensus. All of the keep/delete arguments still hold whether it's called an RFC or a (female dog) session. --BigDT 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO this was the best resolution. Deleting would have caused just as much tarting as keeping. --Sagaciousuk 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the keep opinions were (at least in spirit, and often in words) of the sense that "this is just the same as an RfC". Making it an RfC subpage is certainly in line with those opinions. (Mine was one such.) GRBerry 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Listing this RFC

I have listed this as an approved admin conduct RFC as this all seems to be around whether Essjay abused the communities trues and whether he should keep his various roles. Feel free to disagree and move it to user conduct if you think that is better. --Spartaz 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this has any chance of being conventional, what with the way it was started. Speaking of which, where are all the old ocmments? Milto LOL pia 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you mean the old RFCs they are still there, just not listed. --Spartaz 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree with the placement, as the issues raised in this RfC do not address his conduct in any of his administrative roles, instead dealing with him as an editor (or perhaps more accurately, him as a person). --tjstrf talk 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I see you moved it. On reflection I agree with you. --Spartaz 21:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Refactored

Users who do not endorse this summary (re BigDT)

1. Juvenile wording of a juvenile concept. I take this quite seriously and I hope other thoughtful contributors do as well. Durova 20:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   Good grief ... I take it seriously too, but I'm also a realist. Jimbo just appointed EssJay to arbcom even after the "scandal" broke. Nothing is going to happen so it's not worth my time to devote too terribly much time and energy into it. --BigDT 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   Don't be so sure nothing is going to happen. Had Jimbo known this was going to happen, he wouldn't have appointed Essjay, and it's not too late to revoke that appointment. Or the community could force ArbCom to take action, or lose their mandate. --Cyde Weys 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   Yep. Jimbo's not actually stupid. Gwen Gale 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

2. It's a little out of proportion to be worrying that this poll is what's going to cause embarrassment for Misplaced Pages... —Doug Bell  21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. 1) Jimbo will probably read at least some discussion. 2) Centralizing this firestorm will be helpful, and this could be a way of centralizing it. 3) If no actions are taken, I expect an RfAR to be opened, at which this will be evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, and probably also evidence of community opinion. GRBerry 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Users that disagree with this summary (re Hipocrite finding of fact)

1. Note regarding DOug Bell's comment below: I endorse that he did it to evade those type of people, not Brandt per se. Although it might have been Brandt per se, in which case, he failed. Milto LOL pia 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Essjay was engaging in this behavior prior to the existence of those outside influences. GRBerry 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. (2x ec) Uh, hello. Didn't Brandt figure out the deception? —Doug Bell  21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. (edit conflicted) I completely reject this argument. Essjay might have used his "deception" to spoof would-be stalkers; unfortunately he also used it to gain leverage in debates with other Misplaced Pages users. You can find a good sampling of some of these edits compiled here by Doc Glasgow. Essjay's actions completely undermine the bedrock principle of assuming good faith and are a discredit to Misplaced Pages. Pseudonyms are fine, but to assume a persona in order to exploit the greater intellectual currency it creates is reprehensible and inexcusable. A Train 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Putting it on his user page: maybe. I favor mouse pictures myself. :-) Writing "I am also a tenured professor of theology" in a letter to an actual professor that he had no reason to suspect of being a stalker? No. --AnonEMouse 21:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   I wonder, has an apology and a retraction been issued to the professor Essjay lied to? —Doug Bell  21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

5. While Essjay's desire for anonymity is completely understandable, his claim to qualifications he did not posses was completely unnecessary. MartinMcCann 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Threaded discussion to Heigoland

Oh, give me a break. Hundreds of people are upset about this. Maybe 5 people tops might stand any chance of acquiring some of those tools from this. If that handful of people in line for top tools does not have more integrity than you suggest, then we're pretty much doomed as a project anyway. Derex 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a very jaundiced view of what is motivating people to be so upset here. Essjay has done a grave disservice to both the project and the community, he need to return to the ranks and re-earn (if that is possible) the community's trust. Giano 21:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. Your ridiculous assumptions of ulterior motives have no place here. --Cyde Weys 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite terms I would use. however the assertion is fairly easy to test by lloking at those who would logicaly be next in line for abcom and seeing that they have not commented.Geni 01:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to JzG

Is the irony of using a strawpoll to delete a strawpoll because strawpolls aren't useful intentional? Derex 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but it would only be a strawpoll if we listened to the other side. Right now it's just people saying what they DO think, which is more constructive than getting in camps. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Background?

I strongly suggest adding a "Background" section to clarify the situation. I've seen several users on IRC confused regarding this because the discussions linked don't give much information to start with. This should also be an evident part of each RFC discussion, even if we choose to style this one a bit differently. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it's confusing if you haven't been following. Getting people to agree on the wording might be a whole other issue though. Trebor 21:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to agree on the wording. Users can add outside/opposing views if they disagree. --Spartaz 21:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by BigDT

Removed from main page after straw poll was archived

Without endorsing EssJay's actions, this straw poll is pointless because nothing is going to happen as a result and it only gives people who oppose Misplaced Pages something to point at and laugh --BigDT 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. --BigDT 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Consensus building is the wiki way and this thing is just a mess. An RFC is the correct format for this to allow discussion and consensus building. --Spartaz 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Agreed. This section here might help.

Removal of the straw poll

Removed from main page

The straw poll is a poor substitute for reasoned debate, encourages factionalism, invites people to gather a mob for a ticklist of sanctions and is in sundry other ways an impediment to rational discussion. It should be marked as archived or removed.

1. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Absolutely, Lets do this properly. --Spartaz 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
5. JoshuaZ 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Yes. I like the 'sundry other ways' bit, I could probably come up with 10 off the top of my head. Sam Blacketer 21:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Don't object, but let's leave at least the pointers to prior discussion visible. It can stand (after some expansion) as the replacement for "evidence of prior attempts to resolve this". Admittedly, from the perspective of most Wikipedians, this thing came out of nowhere in the last 48 hours or so... GRBerry 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Delete per nom. *cough* PTO 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Most definitely agreed, this is basically a lynch mob signup sheet at present and a fine example of where WP:VIE applies. Archive it somewhere. --tjstrf talk 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the irony of using a strawpoll to delete a strawpoll because strawpolls aren't useful intentional? Derex 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, the magic of Wikipedian logic means that if you went and changed all those #s to *s and wrote "Users who endorse this course of action" above the section it wouldn't be a straw poll anymore. You can do that if it makes you feel better. --tjstrf talk 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Cryptic

Removed from main page

Closing and hiding a well-advanced discussion because you disagree with its format is a monumentally stupid thing to do.

I'd try and write something relevant to the subject, but I don't like repeating myself, and I have no confidence that it wouldn't just be buried, too. —Cryptic 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yeah, it was not much more than misguided page blanking. Gwen Gale 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Agreed - Skysmith 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom's knowledge

Should we be told the precise date that the Arbcom was first made aware of this matter, and what action they decided to take - or not take?

likely early feb although further detials have come to light since then.Geni 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Typical bullshit

I am so sick of people not being allowed to express views on Misplaced Pages because little busy-bots don't approve of the exact fashion in which the views were expressed. No one said it was a freaking strawpoll. Many people, including me, elaborated on their views. It was a structured way to organize commentary. Ok, so no polls. How about discussion. Whoops, no. "Threads are not allowed". I see, so we can't provide organized feedback. We can't discuss. What exactly is the effing point. Truly, truly, fed up. Pitiful. Derex 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Its how an RFC is supposed to work. Its supposed to promote consensus. Its probably got its work cut out here though. --Spartaz 22:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in part with Derex (and I'm the one that archived). I think the "no discussion" rule for User conduct RfCs is something that makes it harder for them to work, and that this rule should be changed in general. But I did the archive because it is better than getting things deleted, and having a discussion in two different formats is not helpful. GRBerry 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can discuss right here, on this talk page. This is the page for discussion. That is the page for comments. RFC's can work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If y'all agreed with the comments you wouldn't have buried them. Gwen Gale 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've buried every threaded discussion I've noticed. I buried the entire strawpoll, both positive and negative. What side, exactly, am I on? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My impression is you're not happy about the bogus CV but you're worried the criticism of Essjay is way too hard on him. I have the impression you're also waiting to see how/if Jimbo responds to the flurries of reaction to his remark that Essjay's behaviour was "nothing to see here, move along, move along..." Gwen Gale 23:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Like a lot of things related to this matter, the original 'discussion' was thrown together quite quickly and generated a lot of interest. However, things need to be conducted properly if they are to work. The previous 'straw poll' (commonly used term) was not achieving as much as it could have done had it been started in the right location and the standard format. It served as an example of how not to do things IMO.

Hipocrite, you're probably on the side of Misplaced Pages, supporting standard protocol/procedure. By doing that, you're not expressing a view on the topic either way. --Sagaciousuk 22:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not in conventional RFC format because it's not a conventional RFC, it's a lynching party. (Especial congratulations to PullToOpen's valiant removal of me daring to point that out - don't want to interrupt the party spirit, or something.) Removing sections that are not in conventional RFC format would entail removing the whole thing - David Gerard 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, David, I actually put some thought into what I wrote. I resent your casual dismissal of my and others' concerns. Tom Harrison 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling this a lynching party is a personal attack. Make up your own "rules" as you go though. :) Gwen Gale 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more a straw man than a personal attack. Tom Harrison 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just whining. You only make yourself look foolish by saying "This RFC is stupid!" and then participating in it. Friday (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be. It's a tactic. Damage control through ridicule. Not helpful, not very effective. Gwen Gale 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, David, have you found any of your little sarcastic one-liners to be helpful in actually calming things down? If you had any sort of social clue, you would know that that they serve only to further polarize the situation and make "the other side" even angrier. Had you written a couple of sentences saying "This RFC is not needed. Essjay made some youthful indiscretions more than a year ago, which I'm sure he regrets, and hasn't abused his powers here. After what's been written on his talk page, let's give him a change to respond.", I would agree with you a 100%. Instead you have to ridicule others and be dismissive of their concerns. Again, this is a recurring pattern, so cut it out please. also it's one of your pals (or is it former pal?), whom you wasted many of your oh-so-brilliant one liners on, leading the "mob"

Lovely, so now having been told we can't have a strawpoll, we can't have a threaded discussion, we MUST ONLY DO AN RFC. Now, we are told that the RFC will be DELETED for not following the correct procedure. You really, really ought to think more than a few times before you delete the commentary of hundreds of upset Wikipedians because the format you forced the discussion into is suddenly no longer suitable. The certification thing is meant to keep frivolous RFC's off here. Does anyone besides D. Gerard think this is frivolous? It's not like this little GFDL'd discussion is going to just vanish from the Internet if it gets deleted, I think you know that well. There is no cabal. Derex 01:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Procedure question...

If nothing comes of this rfc does arbcom actually have authority here? i.e. if someone filed vs. Essjay for some sort of sanction? Not sure what the limit of their mandate is. - Denny 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom probably won't sanction Essjay, but they could be asked to make a comment on the situation. PTO 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they can remove him from ArbComm, but they can remove any other rights. Whether they would or not is a different question. GRBerry 23:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think this really is a matter that is best settled by Jimbo alone, as the Arbcom can claim they have no juridiction over off-wiki comments - even those as serious as this. However they can pass comment and advise their colleague Essjay informally of the best solution to his problems.Giano 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This will be settled by Jimbo alone. Gwen Gale 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? --Spartaz 23:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's his wiki. Gwen Gale 23:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom can claim they have no juridiction over off-wiki comments - Essjay's lies about his qualifications (the core of the whole problem) were made on-wiki. MartinMcCann 23:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Misplaced Pages management recommended Essjay to the reporter for the interview. Essjay lied about his CV whilst nominally representing WP. This lie wound up in a widely printed article in the real world. Personally I don't think arbcomm has a shred of authority on this one, I think it's Jimbo's call but I'm commenting because doing so seems acceptable and helpful. Gwen Gale 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why only Jimbo? Why not the whole Wikimedia foundation? Andries 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He may listen to them for clues or whatever but in the end call it as he sees fit for his goals. This is not a remarkable thing by the bye. Gwen Gale 23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, not by Jimbo Wales. In fact, Jimbo Wales isn't even the ranking member on the Board; Florence Nibart-Devouard is. However, the Board does tend not to deal with local wiki issues, and Jimbo has been the resident God-king on the English Misplaced Pages. But the Board could change their mind and get involved, and overrule even Jimbo. --Cyde Weys 01:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary indent reset)

There are many instances where Essjay has violated the spirit of good faith by plying his falsified credentials upon discussions and other editors' efforts in an effort to effect content. Furthermore, his positions are ones that require community trust (WP:ADMIN mentions trust in its first few sentences) and that has now shown to have been violated. To what degree should be up to the community. While the ARBCOM may not be able to rule upon itself (for obvious reasons), it should definitely remain able to determine actions upon other aspects of Essjay's role on Misplaced Pages (barring word from on-high from Jimbo). ju66l3r 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the only pith of what I was saying is the last word'll be Jimbo's. Gwen Gale 23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically the buck stops at the whole Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation (linky), but that's the right idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The legal situation concerning Misplaced Pages authority is quite clear. The content of Misplaced Pages is owned by the contributors but licensed under a copyleft copyright license that gives anybody the right to reproduce it and to modify it so long as they retain data on the contributors. The hardware is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation which is a non-profit organization under an educational charter run by its board of directors of which Wales is but one member, and no longer its chairman. The community is free to stay or fork anytime it chooses, but practically that rests on the ability to raise funds for servers and the ability to act as a group. Wales is the acknowleged leader of the Misplaced Pages community. In practical terms this means that only behavior that drives funding away from the foundation to a proposed fork will result in Wales losing power. I think he will act wise enough not to do that. WAS 4.250 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Only to put that another way, without Jimbo WP would likely crash and burn within months. He's built a stunning combination of a mega high traffic social network, structured meta blog and role playing MUD which happens to look like a functioning encyclopedia to Google. Gwen Gale 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, regular contributors and followers of this matter outside of Misplaced Pages's community are only going to be satisfied when Jimbo makes the final word and gives the final outcome. Should this generate (further?) media interest, Jimbo will be the one they'll wanna hear from. Anything anyone else says is 'rumour'. --Sagaciousuk 00:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It purports to desire to become an encyclopedia, and certainly wishes to appear to be one. The incident shows that it is not an encyclopedia, and that the desire to become one is flaccid. Probably, "we want it to look like an encyclopedia," is enough to keep contributors playing the game. That would be the "hold on to valuable Essjay" option. - 207.229.151.91 01:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It will be settled by Jimbo, because he's the only one with the 'moral authority' to resolve it. He's the one who appointed Essjay to Arbcom knowing of at least some of the problem. The issues here are beyond established policy, so Arbcom has no jurisdiction. I think the consequences for morale will be extremely severe if Jimbo passes the buck on this one. Derex 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse the outside finding of fact by User:Hipocrite

1. Respectfully if that was his only motivation, why would he "reveal" it to anyone who found him on Wikia. He even stated on his Wikia page that he edits as Essjay, which I feel is counter productive in maintaining anonymity. Anynobody 03:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
2. It was not the "deception" which prevented his RL identity being acquired. It was the fact that he had a non-RL user name, as do many editors whose identity likewise cannot be acquired. The "deception" was completely unnecessary for this purpose. Tyrenius 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Vehemently disagree. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
4. I consider the reasoning a logical fallacy. His trumped up resume, use of academic stature in debate, coupled with his quick rise to having every bit possible, is more likely to gathered intrigue and caused him to have come under the watchful eye of Misplaced Pages critics. Without his mainspace edits under false pretences, critics wouldnt have gone to the lengths they did to pin down his identity. There are many editors here on Misplaced Pages that have successful kept their identity under wraps. To imply that this was a useful and that the ends justifies the means is distasteful. John Vandenberg 06:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved from the main page per this: On user conduct RfCs, do not create "disendorsement" sections on RfCs. If you disagree with something someone else has said, you may add your own separate statement explaining why you disagree. Do not create a "Users who do not agree with this summary" section, or the equivalent. This tends to be a confrontational act that is not productive. -- ReyBrujo 05:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Lied repeatedly about himself..."

There's been discussion covering whether lying about oneself is really a problem. I just noticed an RfC that Essjay filed against another user back in August 2005. Included among the charges was this:

• Lied repeatedly about himself, and attacked users who questioned his claims
  • Claims to be a fifteen year old.
  • Claims to have "passed the Florida bar exam last year."
  • Claims to have an NYU law degree.
  • Etc.

Following that RfC he filed an RfAr, which included these charges:

• ...repeated lies and disinformation about himself...
• He claims to be a well-credentialed contributor (an attorney with a JD from NYU)...

So Essjay apparently considered lying about oneself or ones credentials to be a serious enough issue to include in these cases. (Although the lying was perhaps the least of the charges.) For reference, Essjay added the Category:Teacher Wikipedians to his user page just the day before filing the RfC, and made another apparently false addition to his user page two weeks earlier.-Will Beback · † · 06:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

He also put these fake credentials on meta:List of Wikimedians by college major or degree ( and ). and listed himself on meta:Bipolar Wikimedians and meta:Queer Wikimedians. These are far worse in my opinion because it was not his user page, and others listed on the pages have reason to be offended. John Vandenberg 06:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Will, this evidence ought to be on the RFC project page. Please put it there and copy my strong endorsement. This proves hypocrisy. Durova 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted this before I saw Jimbo Wales's new message asking Essjay to resign. I don't know that further material is needed on the RfC. If you think so feel free to post it there. -Will Beback · † · 07:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So, this is an example of what a wonderful benefit to wikipedia he has been. Reminds me of firemen who light fires so they can be a hero by putting them out. Has anyone taken a really close look at the so called vandalism unit he ran? WAS 4.250 08:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep and he's been asked to resign. There's more stuff like this going on here, one can only wait and see which way the wind blows cuz it's puffed by Jimbo. Gwen Gale 08:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In light of Jimbo's statement this becomes less important, but may still be worth posting since Essjay hasn't acted yet. I think I've said my bit on this whole matter so I'll leave for someone else to bring to the main RFC page. Durova 22:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone explain at the top of the RfC what it is about?

Hi all, as a more or less departed Wikipedian (my user talk page is protected because of persistent harrassment/vandalism from anon socks for a permabanned user, but I can be reached by using the email feature if anyone really needs to talk to me), perhaps I have no place here, but this comes as such a shock to me that I'd like to comment in the RfC. Indeed, since I

1. contributed to WP under my real name,
2. was accused (falsely) by a (recently semi-banned) Wikipedian of misrepresenting my own terminal degree,
3. was accused (falsely) of being a composite author, of owning sockpuppet accounts and otherwise misrepresenting myself at WP,
4. was subjected to extensive and well-documented harrassment, both on and off-wiki, of the kind which Essjay apparently wished to avoid,
5. was the author of several user space essays (deleted upon my departure) examing various thorny "wikisocial problems" ensuing from the lack of a single known identity for every Wikipedian, leading to a disturbing inequity of accountability for one's edits,

I can't help feeling that I am well qualified to speak out on this matter.

Since I haven't been active here in quite a while, perhaps I really am the only one in Misplaced Pages space who is puzzled! But with your collective indulgence, let me see if I have the facts of the matter straight.

Last year, Stacy Schiff penned an excellent portrait of the Misplaced Pages and profiled some Wikipedians, including User:Essjay. Since I recall that article very well, I don't need to be reminded that Schiff described Essjay much as he described himself on his user page, as a tenured professor of Theology at an anonymous (!) college. While AFAIK during my time at Misplaced Pages (c. June 2005-Sept 2006) I never encountered Essjay myself, I had the vague impression that he has long been one of the central linchpins precariously holding together the sociopolitical foundations of the Misplaced Pages, and I take it that there is widespread agreement that Essjay has been an extremely valuable contributor in many ways, including service on the Mediation and Arbitration Committees. But I take it that recently, as part of the process of accepting a paid position with Wikia, Essjay divulged that he had fabricated from whole cloth the previous self-description on his user page, of which, at the present time, some traces remain (search for "I am a catholic scholar", which appears to be inconsistent with EssJay's current self-description, which reads in part: "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"). This revelation certainly comes as a shock to me, and it was also news to the New Yorker (see the editorial note recently appended to the New Yorker article I linked to above). I take it that Daniel Brandt was not involved in Essjay's decision to reveal the truth, but that Brandt commented at his website after the fact. And I take it that Jimbo Wales told the New Yorker that he regarded Essjay's "disinformation" as a mere "pseudonym", apparently implying that he attached little importance to Essjay's deceptive self-description on his user page and in various comments throughout his career as a Wikipedian. (Edit: not true, as it turns out: I just noticed that I while I was writing this paragraph, Jimbo clarified his position and Essjay to resign, which I feel would be appropriate and which might render this RfC moot, although surely the discussion of how this happened should and will continue.) As a final irony, Stacy Schiff is also the author of a book on the marriage of Vladimir Nabokov, a writer widely recognized for his elaborate misdirections, masquerades, and many other ambiguities. Is that about right?

Some procedural questions: I've been away for a while, and what Stacy Schiff memorably referred to as "the regulatory thicket"seems to be rapidly evolving. Is it permissible to add a short endorsement to each of the outside views with which one might agree? Or is it still the custom to pick just one statement which you agree with, or else to write your own statement? I don't recall having seen an RfC with so many outside views before! And please stop me now if there is some rule against returning from the wikidead to comment in an RfC.---CH 07:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your status as an editor in good standing is still as valid as anyone else's even if you have been "wikidead", so comment away. You can endorse as many statements as you wish, write your own summary, or even do both. --tjstrf talk 09:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize I'd gotten this suspicious...

Whatever I might try to tell myself, this whole thing really has made me lose my trust in Essjay more completely that I'd even admitted to myself. I came to that realization when I, just after commenting on this RfC, saw a routine edit to WT:AN by EssjayBot II on my watchlist, and found myself taking a look at the diff.

You know, just to make sure it really was doing what it said it was.

I feel vaguely ashamed now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is gonna get really big really fast

....and we may want to consider splitting up some of these outside views into seperate subpages. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

new background section

Someone needs to give that thing a good npov scrubbing. I don't have time to do it myself, just peeking in. ... e.g. Essjay's habitual use, that's not in evidence. Derex 22:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion respectfully declined

An extremely respected administrator and editor, whose contributions I value enormously and whose current status within the project is a source of grief to me, has just tagged this RfC for speedy deletion with the designation: "db|Technical reason: In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed - this criterion has not been met - and since Essjay has not been given adequate time to respond to talk page comments there has been no real attempt at all. Real reason: this is no longer helping anyone."

I am sympathetic to the view that this page has outlived its purpose and, in particular, that further additions to it should no longer be made. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Essjay#Outside view by Newyorkbrad which I added within the past 15 minutes. I would welcome a strong show of endorsements to my view, along with Giano's higher on the page, in the hope of preventing further damage to the human being who underlies this dispute.

However, this RfC was created as an alternative to a "straw poll" that was originally created to address issues concerning Essjay's conduct and status within the project. If it does not meet all the requirements for a traditional user-conduct request for conduct, it is too late to seek out yet another alternate forum. Too much time has already been wasted in meta-discussion, as witnessed in a comment I made in a thread yesterday on ANI addressing the fact that we were discussing whether there had been sufficient discussion of deleting a discussion of the discussion that was created from the overflow of another discussion.

To parallel the form of the speedy nomination, a "real reason" for not speedy deleting is that doing so at this stage will unfortunately escalate, rather than reduce, the drama already underway both on this project and elsewhere.

Accordingly, I have respectfully declined the speedy delete nomination and stricken the speedy tag. Newyorkbrad 00:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put it back because a convenient gross violation remains a gross violation. Could someone else please treat this lynching party page in the manner it deserves? Thanks - David Gerard 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the above was written before Essjay announced he is resigning all his positions and leaving Misplaced Pages. See User talk:Essjay. See below for discussion (I hope) of whether there is any value to retaining the RfC pages at this time. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unendorsed RFC - to be killed

I would kill it myself if I hadn't posted at length on its bogosity. This page is people trying to use something that looks a bit like an RFC for a public lynching. Per all rules of RFCs, it should be killed. Could someone please do so? Thanks - David Gerard 00:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As noted just above, I want to see this end as much as anyone. See the outside view I just posted. But "killing" it will only make the situation worse, alas. The discussion needs to end because Wikipedians realize it is long past time to end it. Newyorkbrad 00:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Occasionally one does in fact have to say "shut up and stop being a disgrace" and then deal with the continuing noise as an ongoing issue. That's why the rule on deleting uncertified RFCs - David Gerard 00:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in a note in AN, this RFC allows users to expel everything they have, and indirectly, to accept the matter and go on. Closing it will only make the topic continue to pop up. At least here it is a controlled environment. -- ReyBrujo 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only reason that this RFC spiraled out of control is that it lacked direction. Even if Essjay left his statement here, the masses would criticize it in even more "outside views". I pushed for its creation earlier, but I'm sad that it has turned into a giant pool of shit. PTO 00:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I will delete this page, if no one else does, under the 48 hour rule, at 21:21 UTC March 4, 2007, but invite others to consider doing so before that. It is not wikilawyering, we don't allow uncertified RfCs for good reason.--Doc 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting this will just cause more of a shitstorm. Jimbo's reacted appropriately, let's just let the thing wind down. Given that, it will. Essjay's going to need some time to recover, and so are all of us. Having this go to DRV will just cause the wound to stay open longer. Seraphimblade 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion started elswhere and was moved here as a more appropriate venue. Move it back to community noticeboard if you wish but to move it here just to kill it is against everything that the arbcom proposed decision about the Brandt deletion admin dispute shows is agreed to by arbcom. Shutting down talk because you know better than the community is arrogant and harmful. Let people talk and stop saying shutup in wiki-talk euphamisms. WAS 4.250 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be a terrible idea if this were to be deleted. Sweeping it under the rug has no advantages, especially given that this will inevitably spill into other areas (for example, the community noticeboard) and basically be completely unruly. This issue should be brought to whatever conclusion it will reach on this page. .V. 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict x2)I was going to say essentially the same thing that WAS 4.250 said. Did we learn nothing from the Daniel Brandt wheel war? The lack of a discussion venue makes things MUCH worse. I think it should be moved back to the community noticeboard. Once it's moved there, STOP MESSING WITH IT, and let the discussion run its course. Please? PTO 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We delete uncertified RfCs after 48 hours for a reason. Essjay has as much right to be protected from nastiness dragged out as any other wikipedian.--Doc 00:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea: We IAR and let the discussion go a while. Or move it. But don't delete it. PTO 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You will not protect Essjay by deleting this RfC, don't kid yourself. It'll just go to DRV, or another RFC on someone else over deleting it, or a wheel war that will result in far more grief. It's already winding down, as long as no one throws fuel on the fire, it will. Seraphimblade 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the situation is closed. Though Jimbo has apologized and made statements, it's likely he still is reviewing the situation more fully. For his sake and the community, it should stay for now. This is an unusual situation where normal rules need not necessarily apply. --Aude (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This not just about Essjay. Misplaced Pages has serious issues concerning credibility and accountablity and this episode has made them worse but can be used to illustrate some of our problems in order to try to successfully address them. The community needs to be given time to go through its own process in its own way of moving from denial to learning the facts to emotional reaction to expressing themselves to moving on to deal with the illustated issues of accountability and credibility. Rushing the process will not help. Leading might help. But many of Wikipedials leaders are still in denial over the fact that there is a credibility and accountability problem at wikipedia. WAS 4.250 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fucking hell. This isn't about the project any more. It isn't about us feeling pissed off with Essjay. He's 24, he's been a dick, and he'll resign his position and probably leave the project. This is about real life now, and real person, who role played with an on-line sight - but didn't really do anyone any harm. Yes, he acted badly, yes we're all in a self-righteous rage. But do you really want to take responsibility for fucking up someone's real life. Think how he is feeling right now. And consider that in 10 years when he goes for a job interview (or sooner if Wikia.com sacks him) then a potential employer will google 'Ryan Jordon' and get 400 hits that say 'liar'. That's totally disproportionate to 'the needs of the community' to have a lynching right now. And that's why this needs to stop, and as much of it as possible needs to be erased. Remember that we are human beings first and wikipedians second.--Doc 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So, delete it in 6 months. Complaints about unemployment in ten years because of this RFC are not serious stuff. Essjay is far from the first person to be dragged through arbcom or RFC. Do you think it feels good for anyone? Why is Essjay special in that regard, he's arguably harmed Misplaced Pages far more than most who get put here, though without malice. All you're going to accomplish is having two people step up and certify this. Or, it's going to be moved somewhere else. I have plenty of empathy for Essjay, but telling the hundreds of people who have commented here that their comments have to be deleted because of something like that is the absolute height of arrogance. Derex 01:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The presence or absence of this RFC will have very little impact on Google results compared to the article in mainspace, which, stupidly enough, seems likely to survive AFD, and thus be mirrored far and wide. —Cryptic 01:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3!) Deleting this page would be a terrible idea. It's true that the discussion has been occasionally nasty, but I think that this page is an important part of the community's catharsis in dealing with this situation. As others have said, deleting the page would create far more angst, wasted emotion and energy than letting it run its course. It is to be hoped that both the community as a whole and its members will come to a resolution on this matter, but it won't happen if we try to shut down discussion. Deleting the page would merely prolong the debate, insofar as instead of having a debate about Essjay's conduct, we would be having a debate about whether, how and where to have a debate about Essjay's conduct. It may not be immediately apparent, but the contributions to this RfC have slowed considerably since Jimbo's revised statement; I think they'll grind to a near-halt in not too much time. Let it go.

As for Essjay's protection from dragged-out nastiness — I hope that in time he will be able to recognize and understand several things: that the community and its members needed to work through their emotional responses to his misrepresentation; why his actions created such a strong, and occasionally immoderate, response; and that the opinions stated in the immediate aftermath may not reflect the considered views of Wikipedians after the dust has settled. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict, but the fellow above said the same thing I was going to say, but better. .V. 01:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision WAS 4.250 01:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The above concerns an IAR deletion. Who is talking about that here?--Doc 01:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to see the shit hit the fan, then go ahead and delete this RFC. Complaints about it not being certified are an utterly ludicrous technicality. Any number of Wikipedians have spoken to Essjay about this issue. Arbcom, of which you were a member D. Gerard, drags people through uncomfortable examinations all the time. I think just because Essjay is generally a swell guy is no reason to bury anything. That he rose to positions of such and trust and received national media attention while behaving this way is a damn good reason to air it out. If this gets deleted, then in my opinion wikipediareview has a pretty damn good take on the situation here. Derex 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent example of the blood lust that is making Wikipedians look like vicious bloodsucking ass****s right now. Until you prove that you are a perfect human being that has never made a single mistake, you hardly have the right to throw stones. pschemp | talk 02:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

First, what stone did I throw? I did not attack Essjay whatsoever in that. I asked that this be aired out. Second, what bloodlust did I display? I asked that the considered input of the community not be deleted over a technicality. Third, I have fucked up plenty, and I've paid the price it. Most people have. Should we shut down RFC and arbcom entirely because there is no-one pure among us? You're bordering on hysteria and frothing at the mouth. Derex 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are advocating continuing to kick a man while he's down. That's despicable. Besides, you miss the fact that ultimitely, this is up to Jimbo, not you, not the rfc or arbcom. pschemp | talk 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, he's advocating letting the community discuss a significant breach of its trust by an individual who had been one of its most trusted members. Just because some of the participants in the discussion have expressed themselves with anger, vitriol, or a vengeful tone does not mean that the entire discussion should be deleted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating kicking anyone. I've endorsed no further action. I suggested putting a tag at top discouraging further input. I've defended Essjay's against those who argue he isn't contrite enough — who cares. I only ask that if he does apologize that he be frank in doing so. However, people here have a right to make there views known on this matter. It's beyond Essjay. This has been held up in the national media as a mockery of Misplaced Pages. I think it's important that it be on the public record that the editors here do not approve and do not endorse. You may just wish this would all go away, but the damage here would be increased if it did. It's been aired out, it's been dealt with, the community has spoken. That's all fine. But you take it away, if you try to just pretend this doesn't exist. This is not just about whether Essjay has the tools; it's about whether we as a community tolerate such behavior. And very unfortunately, Jimbo gave the false impression that we do in his comments to the media (albeit based on incomplete knowledge). So, I'd ask you to assume a little good faith and quit personally attacking people who see this differently. I have no bloodlust against Essjay; I've never even encountered him, though I have often heard his name. I can't really see how it helps Essjay to delete this, but I can certainly see how it hurts Misplaced Pages. Derex 02:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Move it back to another section

I suggest moving this somewhere else to not close it under RFC rules. While I agree this page has fulfilled its purpose and that it is a bad formatted RFC that should be deleted, I also agree that deleting this would make people, specially those that have never edited in RFC before today and the several relatively inactive users who have came to give their opinions, think we are hiding the problem. So, my suggestion is to move it back to its original place. -- ReyBrujo 01:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that RfC's are archived after a few weeks and the page can also be proposed for deletion in due course. I do not by any means suggest that the page should remain here indefinitely. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was originally somewhere else, and someone moved it here, that is why the RFC lacked organization. I suggest moving this RFC back to the original place, and leaving it there as just a way for the community to release tension. -- ReyBrujo 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This was originally on the community noticeboard. It would be rich to move it here on the grounds that this is "where it belongs," then delete it as out-of-process (and even so, hardly any uncertified RfC's are actually deleted in 48 hours.) If we must do so, move it to a subpage of its original location, the community noticeboard.Proabivouac 02:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. Someone moved an existing discussion to RFC because they didn't like it where it was. Now we're told that it shouldn't be at RFC. Therefore the commentary of hundreds of Wikipedians must be deleted. I think not. Simply move it elsewhere. You know it's not frivolous or bogus, despite Gerard's huffing and puffing — witness Jimbo's reaction. I'd hate to end up agreeing with wikipediareview about this place. Derex 02:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a move would be a far better solution than a deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am deeply opposed to deleting this as well. This is legitimately a big deal to a lot of people. The RfC will let the people who feel like they must say something have a say. By seeing how much has been said already, it will also help a lot of those people realize that pretty much everything useful has been said. Eventually this will die down on its own. Let's wait until that happens before deciding what to do. William Pietri 02:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't just leave an inappropriate RfC to stay, in the same way we do not allow malformed AfD or RfAs. It is true that the community needs a place to do catharsis, so we should really consider moving this somewhere else, outside the RfC scope. -- ReyBrujo 02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be ok with a move, as long as there are redirects and proper notifications, although I think it would be better to leave this and let the drama around this die down. Alternatively, is it just endorsement that makes this malformed? I would think that the several hundred endorsements of outside views would serve as an endorsement of the RfC, wouldn't it? Thanks, William Pietri 03:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, endorsers have to show that they've made a serious attempt to solve the dispute and failed. They'd have had to have communicated with Essjay, made suggestions for a resolution, and have given him adequate opportunity to respond.--Doc 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised to hear that argument from somebody who recently objected vigorously to process wonkery, as I feel the spirit of a user conduct RfC was clearly met. Given recent developments though, I don't think there's a point in quibbling. I still believe this should be moved back out of RFC space rather than deleted, though. Thanks, William Pietri 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring over the CSD template

Come on, people. If you disagree with it, use {{Hangon}}. I've tried to do it twice, but I've hit edit conflicts both times. PTO 01:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion was already declined by an administrator. Seraphimblade 01:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Noting again for anyone who reads later that this thread preceded Essjay's retirement announcement. Newyorkbrad 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving some outside views?

I've been trying to think of ways to make this page less offensive to those who would like this affair to be over immediately. The only one that comes to mind so far is to start archiving some of the outside views that have achieved relatively little support. Say, everything that is more than 8 hours old and has less than five endorsements.

A possible option to that is to ask people to propose any new outside views on the talk page, and only move them in to the main page if they get more than five supports.

Would either of these mollify anybody? Thanks, William Pietri 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel like having my view archived. I mean, it doesn't have much support, but I don't think it is offensive do anyone. At least, I hope it isn't. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd agree, but my theory here is that the nearly 50 outside views are part of what makes people suspect that this has gotten out of hand. Note that I'm not proposing deleting the extra outside views, just moving a bunch of them off the main page so that this looks tidier and hopefully more civilized. That's the theory anyhow. William Pietri 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to explain that I had a conflict of interest, so you could ignore me, but given Essjay's recent announcement, which I am sad about, I guess the whole thing can be archived. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's departure

Please note Essjay's announcement that he is resigning all his positions and retiring from Misplaced Pages. See User talk:Essjay. Can we please have a calm, civil discussion of what should be done with the RfC page now. Newyorkbrad 03:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'd like it deleted - and by policy it should be. But, I suggest marking it as historical for now, and discussing the rest later.--Doc 03:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion - I think it should stay around for a bit, but we may be able to get rid of it when things have died down. --TheOtherBob 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should be deleted? And why is the page protected? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think deleting this page is up there with some of the worst suggestions made in this whole affair. We should not forget nor attempt to hide nor minimize the consequences of our failings. This page represents an important part of the history here now and should be left for future review and reference. —Doug Bell  19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a bad formatted RFC. The page should be closed, fully protected, and moved to its original place to prevent deletion. -- ReyBrujo 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please unprotect this page. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'd like to add, closing of an RfC isn't like a deletion discussion, users other than admins should be included.. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted! Wow, I can't emphasize that enough. This page will serve as a demonstration about how Misplaced Pages views the behaviors that led to this RfC. (→Netscott) 03:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see Essjay's user talk archive restored, somewhat for the same reason. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott could not be more correct. This page must absolutely not be deleted. To do so would be to show the press that we are more concerned with sweeping our problems under the rug than with solving them, while showing all Wikipedians that members of an elite clique are offered a measure of charity not on offer to editors whose missteps were far less egregious.Proabivouac 03:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

One more for close and archive, but don't delete. --AnonEMouse 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's got to be deleted as an uncertified RFC. You do understand why uncertified RFCs are deleted, don't you? - David Gerard 14:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That suggestion is ruleslawyering of the more ridiculous kind. Clearly, this RFC generated lots of feedback on this issue, as was the intention. Friday (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave it closed (Essjay's departure and resignation makes further comment moot), but do not delete. This type of issue is one that may arise again in the future, and this page is a record of how many of us viewed the matter (ranging from "who cares" to "serious breach of trust"). WP:NOT a bureaucracy, and we don't ignore the obvious (that dozens of people were involved in a discussion about this issue, and dozens of people could certify this RFC), just because line 133A on Form X9384 was not filled out correctly. Seraphimblade 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unclose

I'm sure we'd all like to see this over with, but I don't think we should close this RfC yet. There's still things a lot of people want to say, on both "sides". Essjay has been ripped a new a-hole, and his "retirement" doesn't surprise me, but how many users have claimed retirement only to turn around and come back? It also seems a little screwed up this closure was a mostly admin-decision, with some of the closure discussion open only to admins. Like I said, we all want this to end, but haven't we had enough of the knee-jerk reactions from this incident? -- Ned Scott 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. No one argued for his outright banning. If he chooses to return as a normal user, that is perfectly fine. He has lost his "bits", his special powers, that's all anyone was seriously asking for. Beyond that, it is beating, not just a dead horse, but a real person, with feelings. --AnonEMouse 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I mentioned "both sides". Now that people seem to be calming down a bit, it's safer to show one's support for Essjay.. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If Essjay comes back under a pseudonym, without repeating the additional issues that caused a problem, he should be praised (privately) by those who learn of it. I don't think anyone suggested that he not be allowed to edit, so what more is there to discuss. The ArbComm language about "giving up rights under a cloud" needing to go through the normal process to get them back certainly applies. So there is nothing more to do here. Additionally, in a week or so, most of this discussion should be courtesy blanked. GRBerry 04:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He left. the rfc can accomplish nothing. This is the bloodlust I'm talking about, that people keep accusing me of making up. Leave it. It should be closed. If you have other issues, go start a discussion elsewhere. pschemp | talk 04:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pschecmp, he left, nothing we can accomplish with this RFC now, I'll archive it. Ja 04:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I unprotected the RfC. The whole result of the protection was that only admins kept on editing it (see the history).

I think it is a really bad idea to forcefully close or protect RfC's. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to stay protected. It is a troll target linked from slashdot, and there is no reason for anyone to edit it. Rylung was just fixing the template. pschemp | talk 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought there could have been a little longer close discussion in the first place, but I oppose reverting the close. Discussion of any policy issues can be started on an appropriate policy page, or at the village pump. (I suggest waiting a couple of days first.) A cross-reference can be left here for anyone who has or wants to watchlist this page. This does not necessitate keeping the RfC open when by definition there is no longer a user to have a dispute with or whose conduct needs to change. Newyorkbrad 04:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits following the protection were to fix wording and to switch to the tiny padlock. Misplaced Pages gets nothing from keeping an RfC on a user who has left the project. If he returns, then we'll reopen it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur - there were a few admins who edited in the few minutes after the protection, but then it stopped. It should remain closed. --TheOtherBob 04:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My edit went through before I knew the page was protected. (I gather a content edit doesn't cause an edit-conflict with a protection.) Newyorkbrad 04:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, thinking that Essjay is really gone for good is a bit nieave. Who wouldn't annouce they were "quiting" after having all this happen? -- Ned Scott 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If he comes back, he no longer holds any position of community trust. So there's nothing else to discuss here. --BigDT 04:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There certainly is other things to discuss. I don't know why you guys think your helping him by denying his existence, shoving the whole issue under a rug. Closing this RfC, already deleting his userpages, you might as well said "don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out, Essjay". He's not thinking straight, and now you guys are making it worse. Way to fucking go. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think BigDT referred to the fact that Essjay gave up all his bits, considering adminship, bureacratship, arbcom, etc, "position of community trust". -- ReyBrujo 04:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course ... and I'm not sure who "you guys" is - I haven't closed or deleted anything. I am saddened to see him go, and plenty of people are wishing him well on his talk page ... but nothing good can come from leaving this page open. If you want to wish him well, ask him to stay, leave him a barnstar, whatever, you can do so on his talk page or via email. This RFC is moot. --BigDT 04:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BigDT. The only reason I can see for unprotecting the page is to continue the drama. There are certainly issues that need to be discussed, but this isn't the place as Essjay has left. If you want to discuss policy changes that may be needed as a result of this mess, why not go to the Village pump. He took over 48 hours between apologizing and deciding to leave, and the admins are respecting his decision and doing what he wanted with the deletions. AniMate 05:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I think it is a really bad idea to simply revert another admin's action without trying to discuss it first. It's that kind of sudden revert (in this case, of something which was endorsed by several admins) which has been causing all these wheel wars lately. --cesarb 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not think too well. However, I felt that discussion was closed too suddenly. It would have been better I think to leave it open say for half a day more, or until more people voted to close it. Rushing things could be another cause for those wheel wars. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, this RFC did not fulfill the basics, and should have been deleted in the very near future. I think it is better to close now, which saves the problem about whether to delete this bad formatted entry or not. -- ReyBrujo 05:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's bad to only let admins decide this in a knee-jerk reaction. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin who has watched this all unfold, I fully concur with this close. Risker 05:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it closed, please. Don't delete anything more - at least not until some days have passed and everyone has had a chance to absorb what has happened. If there are underlying issues to discuss, let's discuss them at the Village Pump or somewhere, but again it's best to leave it for a few days. We can all take a deep breath before putting any proposals about the future. Jimbo and the Foundation will have to handle any media blowback. Metamagician3000 05:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For what (little) it's worth, although I opposed the proposal to delete this page, I support its closure, especially in light of Essjay's announced departure. Discussion of the ramifications of this event can be held on the Village Pump or the Community Noticeboard, but the central question "What should happen to Essjay on Misplaced Pages?" is, obviously, now moot. I believe the page should be retained, at least for a few weeks until the dust settles, at which point a fresh deletion discussion can be opened. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. A discussion on the broader issues should proceed elsewhere. But, a specific focus on Essjay isn't necessary for that conversation. The archive is appropriate, but a deletion at this time would be a terrible misjudgement. Derex 06:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's gone and this had to do with wider stuff anyway. There are now more helpful places to talk about this. I say tag the page as closed to editing. Gwen Gale 06:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything closed after less than five days should tell people where they can go to make a further comment if they wish. a talk page. a sub page. anything that tells people we are not saying shutup. WAS 4.250 07:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Essjay was a member of the Arbitration Committee, and has already stood in judgement over a number of other editors, it would seem only fair to offer the same right to speedy closure and subsequent deletion of unfavorable commentary to all editors whose conduct has come under review by the committee.Proabivouac 07:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Grace note

A grace note, as it were, in the same discordant key, is that Essjay lied right to the end, and lied about other people. My comment in the RFC -- that professional liars lie all the time about everything -- was made before I found this out. But Fuzheado (Andrew Lih) realized that in his "apology" Essjay felt it necessary to suggest offhandedly (and apparently only for his self-aggrandizement as humble and generous) that Stacy Schiff had offered to pay him for his interview, without realizing this would be a serious breach of journalistic ethics. Kelly Martin also commented. I wish some of those leaving encomia on User_talk:Essjay seemed more aware of this troubling aspect of his personality; on this RFC and talk there were attacks on other editors who were critical of Essjay, a few of them even vicious. (My Psych 101 diagnosis is a heavy dose of defensiveness and denial.)

But we need not dwell on this longer, we need only face up to the problem. Martin has followed up with some potential remedies the community could explore in the wake of this. I would like to see some of these suggestions transformed into real proposals, and have the community start hammering out what we're going to do to be more effective at heading these kinds of problems off well before they become problems. I see there is some discussion at Jimbo's talk, but that isn't notably constructive either. If there are discussions ongoing of that nature, please post pointers here. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really trust Wikipedians to be level headed about this situation anymore. Look at how many people jumped to the conclusion that Jimbo supported Essjay's use of his lie in discussions, when that wasn't true at all. Some of these people are even so bold as to claimed that Jimbo changed his position, when he didn't change anything. Maybe she offered to give him a free "I love to read The Newyorker" T-shirt and he thought she meant money. It would be nice if we could ask Essjay, but he got run off the site by an angry mob. You guys would rather be set on a label you've given him and not even consider other factors. For one, Stacy Schiff printed information she didn't know was true or not, which had to have been embarrassing. I doubt she would admit to any other possible human mistake that would have made her look bad. All speculation, of course, and unlike many of my disrespectful and hate-filled Wikipedians, I only consider it speculation and give it no more weight than that. -- Ned Scott 15:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales found to have lied about credentials, asks self to resign

WIKIALITY, St Petersburg, Friday — In a stunning and horrifying turn of events on top-10 social networking site Misplaced Pages, founder Jimmy Wales has been found to have fibbed to a New Yorker reporter about his favourite color, as discovered when the New Yorker filed a correction to an interview with him when he was at grade school.

Jimbo failed to make himself available for press interviews on the matter, being high in the mountains of Tibet and out of contact with civilisation at the time. His initial reply, sent by cross-Himalayan semaphore, of "wtf? srsly" served only to stoke the fires of discontent.

Reaction was fast and spurious, with posters to the English Misplaced Pages mailing list expressing how deeply saddened they were by this terrible turn of events, and that he should promptly strip himself of all powers on the wiki and fire his own ass from his project.

"We have called for a Request For Lynching," said administrator WikiViolin451. "Unfortunately, some people have unhelpfully commented on it that we're acting like a rabid mob and that piling shit on shit on more shit is unlikely to achieve more of anything that would actually be worth having happen. Which shows terrible bad faith in our bad faith, and is undoubtedly a personal attack. So we removed those dissenting comments to show the unity of our feeling on the matter."

Lara "Stillwaters" Sanger did not miss a golden opportunity for comment. "It's obvious Jimbo should have been intimately aware of each and every individual edit and action on his stupid project. I certainly am on mine. So he should have known better than to make a comment on the matter that showed anything less than total awareness. Waiting until he was actually back in radio range of civilisation before dealing with these IMMENSELY important matters of wikiality shows how terminally doomed the Misplaced Pages project is, and why my wiki, ChineseDemocracyDium, will be so much better, when it appears. Any month now!"

Misplaced Pages administrators called for calm. "The moon has returned. I repeat, THE MOON HAS RETURNED. With the sacrifice and repeated flogging of the pieces of the corpse of Jimbo, the Great Red Demon that Ate The Moon has coughed it back up again. If you keep trying to sacrifice the thin film of Jimbo cells on the asphalt, the Great Red Demon might eat YOU next. So cool it."

- David Gerard 14:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be serious David, this isn't Uncyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 14:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

True, I don't think Uncyclopedia has lynch mobs like Essjay saw. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 14:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the RFL bit describes quite a few things on this RFC accurately. This was a disgraceful enterprise and I eagerly await its deletion as an uncertified RFC. - David Gerard 14:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look much like lynching to me. Catchpole 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You, of all people, calling for a page's deletion because of an undotted i—particularly when A) it's clear that dozens of those who edited the page had attempted discussion with Essjay, some of them for weeks, and B) they can't dot that i, because the page is protected and marked Please do not modify—is ironic, to say the least. —Cryptic 14:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And a note to Gwen Gale - deleting a comment noting that people's comments are being deleted looks really silly, particularly when it's all still in the history. It's entirely unclear what you hoped to achieve by doing so - David Gerard 14:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice I deleted your entire parody? Someone restored it straight off. That's ok. I do appreciate your opinion that reaction to Essjay's misrepresentation of his academic credentials has been overblown and sometimes hasn't quite followed standard WP policy and procedure. However, can you truthfully say you've never closed an eye to botched processes which nonetheless were expressing a PoV you agreed with? I think your parody is a personal attack on people who were posting their sincere opinions in good faith. Yeah, some editors have used this as an excuse to troll, others as an excuse to vent over past grudges but nonetheless, I don't think your over the top posts have been at all helpful, IMHO they seem to have only polarized and stirred things up even more. Gwen Gale 14:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave poor Jimmy alone, so what if he lied, he has only been helpful to the cause! InBC 14:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I noticed someone restored the comment. I thought talk pages were to talk about the article they were related, and not the topic. Unless that is only applied to anonymous who come to ask for cheats in games and to talk about how great the singer is, and not to Misplaced Pages talk pages. -- ReyBrujo 14:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

DG looks serious to me. He's lacking in solemnity, though -- and I find this lack very refreshing. -- Hoary 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big thing to me if he truly wants to express himself that way. Gwen Gale 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it strikes me as a mix of personal attacks and wikilawyering that only serves to create further ill-will and resentment. But the only response to it would be to continue the discussion of the underlying conduct by Essjay and how / why the community and Jimbo should have reacted . . . and I don't care to. --TheOtherBob 15:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete this and delete Essjay. --Sagaciousuk 16:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Gerard. It's clear you think this is all a big to-do over nothing. Jimmy asked Essjay to resign. Why? Is Jimmy part of the lynch mob too? Or, is he too cowardly to resist a lynching? Derex 17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope everyone is satisfied

This should satisfy everybody's desire for a pound of flesh. I think Misplaced Pages has lost a good contributor. That is what happens when you wish to take punitive action instead of preventative. InBC 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is helpful. Please re-consider blaming everyone here for him leaving. Nobody made him lie. --Cyde Weys 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

'Preventative' actions such as what, exactly? Not trying to brazen it out with the whole "embolden our enemies" line, until the matter did indeed get to this point? Or preventative on the part of the community, in being less keen to over-promote people to be such obvious "single points of failure" in the first place, perhaps? (Especially such clear-cut conflicts as being both on the bot approval group and active as a bureaucrat in setting bot flags (ideally separate roles); and being on the arbcom, and <almost anything else>, as the AC is our "court of (second) last resort", and thus the very place questions of "abuse of a position of trust" will likely end up.) However in this case, given the AC promotion being done directly by Jimmy Wales (and come to that, Essjay's rather contentious RfB having been closed by a Foundation employee), I'm not sure we can necessarily entirely blame "the community" as such. But unless JW actually does fire himself -- or to put it less hysterically than David Gerard's ridiculous flamebait, make the relationship between the Foundation, himself and the community (via the ArbCom or otherwise) better defined and morte transparent -- there's little we can do about that single point of failure. Alai 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Beating dead horses

The image you left on the Essjay discussion would have been better if it had been the chainsaw removal of the dead horse in Animal House. Had you yourself ever been a victim of Essjay's childish highhandedness and abuse of ill-gotten power, you'd have some better understanding of those of us who were. Meanwhile: I suggest a visit to your local city court building. Find some victims of some crimes just adjudicated. Tell them to get over it, and move on! Note their reactions. Come here, and report. SBHarris 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The image was meant for HighInBC, to stop discussions that basically blame others for Essjay's departure, as it only opens a wound that should close, not infect. -- ReyBrujo 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but THIS wound needs massive debridement, open drainage, and liberal use of a hyperbaric chamber to kill remnants of the gangrene causing the stink that leaks from it. SBHarris 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the target (and evidently in this case, the target wasn't at all clear), I'm not sure it's exactly a helpful type of debating tactic (or indeed debate-stopping tactic). Alai 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Sbharris, what do you suggest? He is already gone and relinquished all his bits. What else do you want? Do you want to undo every one of his contributions? Do you want an oversight to permanently delete every one of his contributions? Do you want to reopen every one of his closed debates? Maybe stalk him? What else YOU do want? Revenge? -- ReyBrujo 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume the straw men are snacks for the deceased equines. Once again, I seriously suggest dialing the rhetoric down a notch. Or eight. Alai 19:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)