Misplaced Pages

I thought we'd been through this already. -- Kendrick7 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, see this → WP:CCC. (→Netscott) 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically: WP:CCC#Consensus_can_change. (→Netscott) 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no I agree with that. I just don't forsee any consensus forming here. -- Kendrick7 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

END OF DISCUSSION on IMAGE REMOVAL!

The folks trying to get the screenshots removed are making some of the most asinine wikilawyering arguments I have ever heard.

The screenshots are referenced to DEAD LINKS. One is right now in Google cache HERE. Now, from What to do when a reference link goes dead:

• If you cannot find the page on the Internet Archive, remember that you can often find recently deleted pages in Google's cache. They will not be there long, and it is no use linking to them, but this may let you find the content, which can be useful in finding an equivalent page elsewhere on the Internet and linking to that.

However, The other is not in Google cache. Now again from What to do when a reference link goes dead:

• If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced.

End of discussion!

C.m.jones 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is easy to verify the screenshots. Just get an e-mail from someone at the Foundation who will verify them. Then we file this e-mail appropriately for others to view for all time to come. We do this with other agencies, we can do it with Wikimedia. Johntex\ 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, we have long-standing precedent that images have much less in the way of verifiability that is required. Otherwise we could never have users upload images of locations where they personally took the photographs (for example). Let's not wikilawyer about this. JoshuaZ 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask this question again, broadly now: Is anyone saying I've been WP:Wikilawyering about these screenshots/images? Gwen Gale 19:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No jones, not the end of the discussion, we discuss forever and consensus can change. _InBC 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not me, Gwen Gale. The removal of these images is an editorial decision. The presence of these images is not supported by the text of the article itself, therefore they should not be there. Essjay's image (whether his or not) has nothing to do with the subject of the article. An image of his user page that doesn't have the controversial credentials on it is probably worse than no image of the user page at all. Risker 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, truth be told I was mostly asking C.m.Jones and QuackGuru, who have both used the term, Gwen Gale 19:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry to much Gwen, I for one don't take those allegations seriously. _InBC 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, what are you all afraid of. You know, letting the images stay up and letting a discussion about it go on for a week or so??? What;s the big huge rush?? (No-brainer inferred answer already taken). C.m.jones 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't have any relevant information, it is an editorial decision. Consensus can change at whatever speed the editors manage to change it. _InBC 19:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My worry is self-reference along with pileon. If the article breaks WP policy it can be attacked by editors who want it erased. If it seems like it carries unsupported, negative PoV about Essjay, the article loses credibility and hence is less helpful to readers looking for a supported, verifiable take. Gwen Gale 19:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mob Attack

The next step might be to report this incident to the noticeboard. Again, many contribtors expressed to keep images. Their consensus has NOT changed. QuackGuru 19:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Save for the fact that it might waste folks' time I'd say by all means head on over to WP:AN or WP:ANI and make a report. (→Netscott) 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a input from uninvolved people will settle this, but I think they will tell you that consensus can change. _InBC 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey QuackGuru, to nick the words of a widely known arbcomm member, I would think long and hard before taking this to the admin noticeboard. Gwen Gale 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice.... back to protection. Come on folks... (→Netscott) 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it, this article has had a very rapid evolution. As it has progressed, and more and more reliable sources have been identified, the need for such stop-gap measures as those images, the primary sources, and the mountain of external links has decreased. They are no longer helpful to the article. Risker 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. _InBC 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, so too. Gwen Gale 19:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreeance as well over here. (→Netscott) 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And another Munta 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I reject the notion that repeating the mantra concensus can change is really going to cause it to happen. -- Kendrick7 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I don't wanna sound like an echo here or anything but I agree with that too. I based my rm'l of the screenshots on WP policy against self-reference along with concerns about NPoV. Gwen Gale 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "Consensus has changed". That much is clear from recent discussions. _InBC 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

* it, echo that. Gwen Gale 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep No consensus has been reached. Further, many editors have stated previously they want to maintain the images in the article. QuackGuru 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So then we are back to where we were before, WP:NPOV and WP:SELF. So: Who's POV these pictures represent? Answer: no ones that I can tell. What part of WP:SELF applies to these screenshots? It doesn't; we're allowed to have articles about wikipedia, so of course we can have articles containing screenshots of wikipedia. -- Kendrick7 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick image survey

The following content is under discussion:

• Screenshot of Google's cache of Essjay's Misplaced Pages user page, March 1 2007
• Screenshot of Essjay's Wikia staff user page, circa March 1 2007 Screenshot of Essjay's Wikia staff user page, circa March 1 2007
• Image posted by Essjay as himself

Here's where it looks like we stand of the folks voicing themselves in this image discussion:

• For images:User:DGG, User:Kendrick7, User:C.m.jones, User:QuackGuru
• Not for images:User:WJBscribe, User:ElinorD, User:HighInBC, User:Gwen Gale, User:Risker, User:Netscott, User:Munta
• For photo, against page images: User:Doug Bell

Is this right? (→Netscott) 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks right to me. _InBC 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forgot JoshuaZ, he takes Saturdays off I believe. -- Kendrick7 20:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about previous discussion (of which User:JoshuaZ was a part of), I'm talking about this one. (→Netscott) 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Having had a cup of tea, I keep coming back to the idea that these images are now superfluous to the article; they just aren't all that pertinent. The user page image, in particular, is a version that does not include the much-discussed credentials and thus fails to support the information in the article. I think we need to be absolutely clear why each of those images should be in the article - those of you who feel they should stay, please give your reasoning based on policy/guidelines so that we can reach a consensus. Risker 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus. Therefore a keep. QuackGuru 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, you cannot just say there is no consensus and expect that to change anything. The consensus is clear, deal with it. _InBC 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You really should refamiliarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kendrick7 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It actually does contain the crendentials; it doesn't mention the exact degrees he claimed to have. -- Kendrick7 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The false credentials are fully described and cited from independent sources in the article text. Why is a picture of text so helpful? (my question is sincere) Gwen Gale 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I think the message we are being given by this block is that it is time for us to sit back as a group of interested editors and make some editing decisions based on the current, evolved status of the article. The last time we had a discussion about the images was two days ago, and there have been dramatic changes and a ton of new reliable sources since then. It's entirely reasonable that we look at the article as a whole and see what is missing and what no longer needs to be there. Risker 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My rational for keeping is still WP:ENC; these could be of interest in 100 years, maybe not. I'm pressed to a good reason to exclude them. -- Kendrick7 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC) btw, can someone archive the talk page? my comp is giving up the ghost

I'd like to see more input here then. Meanwhile I'm asking protection be lifted, I'm indifferent as to whether the images are tucked onto the bottom of the article while we try to stabilize it and find out what the consensus truly is. Thanks. Gwen Gale 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've lifted protection, but if the edit warring continues it will have to go right back on. Please discuss before making any further changes. Thanks. Trebor 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha way to go QuackGuru, thanks for talking about it before leaping in to put the images back. :) So leave 'em in for now and let's see what others have to say. Gwen Gale 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I save remove them. Munta 21:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think they should be removed, what changed, why are they back? _InBC 21:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked for protection to be removed and QuackGuru leapt through the window of opportunity to restore the images and revert a bunch of other stuff too. Gwen Gale 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the letter again

Aside from the webcite link, has anyone else seen a reference to this letter in any of the dozens of media reports? If not, doesn't this become more or less self-reference? Risker 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Guardian article which is cited as support and even includes a quote:

"There was a letter sent to a professor, in which his phony credentials were used as part of an endorsement of Misplaced Pages's value and accuracy: "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Misplaced Pages." Later, describing fooling magazines, he bragged about "doing a good job playing the part".

I had checked the bragging statement a few minutes ago and I remembered having seen the letter referred to also. Gwen Gale 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I'd missed that. Risker 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru's reverts

QuakGuru has also reverted back to the ragged, PoV, bloggy factoring scheme. I don't think that's a very helpful reaction to the lifting of protection. Gwen Gale 21:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely inclined to revert User:QuackGuru's problematic changes but I'm holding off in the interest of seeing the article not become locked again. (→Netscott) 22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be reverted, it is a step backwards. _InBC 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the factoring and structure but have left the images in. QuackGuru, please heed the need for other input ok? Gwen Gale 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed in you User:QuackGuru for just leaping ahead without discussing. You still have not provided a rationale for including each of these images. We need to discuss this; much as I hate edit warring, these images are all problematic and we need to have a better reason for having them there than "there's no rule against it." Keeping anything in this article that is not supported by reliable, outside sources makes it a target for AfD. Risker 22:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Gwen Gale 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, User:QuackGuru has reverted all the way back again. Is this bordering on true 3rr or what? Gwen Gale 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Given User:QuackGuru's inappropriate editing behavior I'm now thinking that the article's come off of protection too soon. (→Netscott) 22:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have organized the article. The other version was clutter and hard to read. QuackGuru 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The last diff looked mostly cosmetic to me. -- Kendrick7 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Those "cosmetics" turn it into a bloggy, strident mess. If you can't see that, there's not much more I can say. Gwen Gale 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see the part Risker just rm'd. Yeah, that is kinda bloggy. -- Kendrick7 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The headings have all been reverted back to versions that were improved upon some time ago. I concur that protection came off too soon; there was insufficient discussion prior to unprotection to warrant the change. Risker 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was assuming good faith, but the edit warring has continued. Not much choice but to reprotect. Trebor 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Internal Link

The internal link is a historical event. It is the offical "My response" from Essjay himself in its entirety. QuackGuru 22:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read the response on the "internal link" (which should have a clearer name) and feel strongly that it should be included. Someone learning of the user Essjay and his actions would want to see how he presented himself on his talk page, I imagine--I know I did. Especially telling is comment #17 on his talk page, where someone who was burned by a content-specific decision attacks him and his fake credentials. These types of real responses are extremely important. 100DashSix 22:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Essjay's response in his own words on his talk page at 16:06, 1 March 2007 Wikipedian time. My response Retrieved on 2007-03-07. < Please add this link to article.

I suggest the internal link be put back in the article. People who are not familiar with this event may want to read it. The "My response" is of historical significance. QuackGuru 23:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why

Mr. Ryan was a friend,... Why is there a here? QuackGuru 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

He's Mr Jordan. Wales wasn't familiar with his true name yet, I guess. Gwen Gale 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Great work. QuackGuru 22:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I think you have been wholly disruptive, heedless and uncivil. Meanwhile this mangled and re-protected article speaks loudly as a witness to your skill as a Misplaced Pages editor. Gwen Gale 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

While normally it's adviseable to discuss contributions and not contributors on article talk pages I agree with Gwen Gale here. (→Netscott) 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have politely asked QuackGuru to return to this talk page and explain the editorial judgement he used in the edits he made. Unfortunately, he seems to have viewed my request as an ad hominem attack. I am at a loss as to what the appropriate next steps would be. Risker 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the correct course of action would be the undo changes made against consensus and enforce 3RR. _InBC 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me - QuackGuru seems uninterested in discussing consensus so I think there is little other alternative Munta 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The behaviour was clearly willfull and there's no evidence it'll stop. Gwen Gale 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in discussing the topic in the above subsection, and would very much like to hear why that information should not be included in this article. 100DashSix 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

100DashSix, there are several arguments against including this link. From my own perspective, the primary one is that it is original research; the entirety of this statement has not been published by a reliable, secondary source. Sections of it have been published now, and are included in the article proper. Removing the link at this point is part of the process of cleaning up an article that is getting close to a stable version. Risker 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand that another source has not duplicated his talk page, but I do not see how the linked information is somehow more unsubstantiated than, say, a link to a zdnet blog that does not cite from where it retrieved the included quote (http://blogs.zdnet.com/keen/?p=108, reference #11 in the current article, used to avoid 'original research').

It is, from my perspective as a relative newcomer to this topic, easy to perceive this omission as a deliberate attempt to hide unflattering information. The linked information is not obtainable without visiting Essjay's retired user page, visiting this page's retired discussion, and finding an italicized link at the bottom regarding "last revision before departure." Is anyone here familiar with: " were on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on it saying "beware of the leopard" ?" 100DashSix 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, we share the same literary taste. ;) This is a particularly thorny issue, because under other circumstances, links to people's user pages are not permitted in articles. If we are going to go against that practice, then we have to have a very clearly articulated, well thought out, logical reason to do so. "Because it's hard to find otherwise" isn't quite there yet. Risker 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How about, "Because those who read this article for the first time will be left with the question: he sounds like a jerk, but how can I tell?" Should we not let them answer this question by linking the page? Perhaps this is not a good reason, in which case I hope someone else will come up with a convincing one, as I feel it should be included, but lack the knowledge of Wikipedian arguments to convince those familiar with the system of rules and conventions. 100DashSix 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (P.S. And glad you like Douglas Adams.)

Okay, as there seems to be consensus against protection, I'll unprotect again (and probably could have judged this better from the start). User:QuackGuru is on a warning that any further reverts without discussion will result in a block. I'll ask again that any edits be made with at least a modicum of consensus on this page, and that if you disagree with the edit please discuss instead of reverting. Thanks. Trebor 23:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I propose reverting back to this revision by Doug Bell. Gwen Gale 23:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That version is cluttered and hard to follow when reading. I organized each section for flow and easy reading. It was merely cosmetic. QuackGuru 23:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the choice between the two versions, the Doug Bell one is easier to read from my perspective. Having said that, perhaps we need to compare the two indices to figure out where the middle ground lays, and what information needs to go into which section to better organize the contents and identify what we still need to add. Risker 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

When I compare Doug's reivision that with the current article the only substantial difference is the image gallery and a few section titles. What's this argument about exactly? (Speaking of section titles, does anyone have an idea for a better name for the "proposed solutions in the coming months" section? It sounds ackward.) --tjstrf talk 23:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, with the re-factoring you and I have done since the lift that's about all there is left. Gwen Gale 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So do we have consensus to kill/keep the images yet? --tjstrf talk 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rm them please, WP:SELF, WP:NPOV (undue weight). Gwen Gale 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think the images should be removed, I like the wording by Doug Bell that Gwen suggested. _InBC 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur that they should be removed because nobody has yet justified why they should stay in. Having said that, the article has already been protected once on this issue today, and I am not exactly sure we have consensus yet. Risker 23:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The above sections of talk suggest tipping towards removal of at least the screen shots... with Doug Bell holding out on the photo shot. With User:C.m.jones and User:QuackGuru out of reverts for today I doubt an edit war would recommence though. (→Netscott) 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Because I see a consensus to remove the images. I suppose there is no harm in waiting though. _InBC 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From my earlier survey of today's discussion I'm seeing 75% in favor of removing the screenshots and 25% in favor of keeping them.... User:tjstrf's view would secure a general consensus about this right now though with a support for removal. (→Netscott) 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them. Doug Bell is welcome to give his reasoning as to why the photo is more relevant than the screenshots, but since he never explained himself it's hard to see why he says that. --tjstrf talk 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the first two images should be kept. Unless I am very much mistaken, they serve as the sole record of how this user chose to present himself on his own user page, and this information is directly relevant to the topic; it is a record of his personality that is otherwise lost due to his "retired" status. I imagine that a first time reader of this article would find a direct copy of his words worthwhile. 100DashSix 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sole record? The article text handles that rather pithily with full support from independent, reliable sources. Why is his personality notable? I thought it was agreed that this article wasn't about Essjay, but about the Essjay controversy. Only my thoughts, mind :) Gwen Gale 00:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, which referenced article has a direct copy of his user page on Misplaced Pages and Wikia? Perhaps the scope of this article is smaller than what I think it is or should be, but I'd like to see archived information about this person's dishonest actions; these actions constitute the true controversy, not the fact that a news outlet caught him. 100DashSix 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELF. Anyway the scope of the article is as the title says. I don't think a snap of his userpage adds a thing and yes, the article puts it rather starkly that he was dishonest about his academic background. Gwen Gale 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I accept your argument that this article is only about him as a person insofar as his dishonest credentials. I submit, then, that the information about him personally (only regarding his involvement with Misplaced Pages, edits he made, people he interacted with and how they feel) is interesting in and of itself and deserves content-space somewhere. Also, this information has direct relevance to criticisms & support of Misplaced Pages and consequently should not be lost or hidden. 100DashSix 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I so do agree that project space information about the Essjay controversy mustn't be dropped down the memory hole. So put it up on a free blog or web-page somewhere, it's GFDL, after all and meanwhile let's work to preserve those project pages. The article however, is in the encyclopedia space and is built under very clear policies as to citation, NPOV and narrative. Gwen Gale 01:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELF doesn't apply. -- Kendrick7 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We're gonna have to disagree on that then :) Gwen Gale 00:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't apply, see WP:SELF#Writing_about_Wikipedia_itself. Feel free to continue being wrong, and I will feel free to continue restoring the images. -- Kendrick7 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, RE:100-6) Then link to it from your userpage or something. Essjay is not himself a notable individual outside of Misplaced Pages, except for his starting a messy PR fiasco, so neither is his userpage. --tjstrf talk 00:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

These images are directly related to the Essay controversy, which is the topic of the article. -- Kendrick7 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, exactly how do essentially unreadable thumbnails of userpages help this article? The WP user page does not include the credentials that caused the uproar (except the professorial claim)-and those are already discussed and better sourced in the article. The Wikia userpage tells even less - and again the information is better sourced in the article. Risker 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:SELF does apply, as this self reference is not needed as a primary source to confirm information in the text, which can be supported by secondary sources. _InBC 01:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with User:HighInBC. Besides the primary source question, Misplaced Pages in general is not considered a reliable source. (→Netscott) 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

True. _InBC 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, they pass WP:V. -- Kendrick7 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They do pass WP:V IMO (my worries are strictly sr and pileon). Gwen Gale 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is not the only one thing to consider, there is relevance, and self reference to consider too. _InBC 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to convince me they are irrelevant. Go on. -- Kendrick7 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Now this might be a nitpick but those blockquotes seems awfully over-dramatic to me. Wales and Essjay aren't Charlotte Bronte and Karl Popper, for example. Why not straight quotes like, uhm, a text? Gwen Gale 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think quotes that are too long and included in text are ugly. Put 'em in a block quote just for style. (This is just me voicing personal preference, I have nothing to back it up other than "I think long quotes look prettier as block quotes") --Dookama 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But two sentences are not "long". According the the Chicago Manual of Style, Section 11.12, block quotes are usually reserved for >100 words or eight lines of text. There are other exceptions, but the quotations here do not seem to fil those requirements either. My opinion is that both gramatically and æsthetically speaking, these {{cquote}} tags for tiny excerpts are improper. -- Avi 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This Is A News Worthy Story About How Wikipedians Are Editing the Essjay Controversy Article.

Serious Questions:

Currently the quotes are gone from the "Wales response" and "Essjay's response" and there is an abnormally huge Reactions section. I could fix the clutter and improve the article. First, the quotes should be put back in the article. Second, the reactions section should be divided into two sections because it is undue weight to have such a long section. Third, someone recently changed a sentence that is now factually false in the Essjay letter's section. Fourth, a link to the offical "My response" of Essjay is of historical significance that belongs in the article. Fifth, many editors already wanted the images to stay in the article. Sixth, this is becoming a story within a story. Some editors want to delete the article. Since deletion is not possible. Then, they want to make the article cluttered, unreadable, and short as possible. Removing the images and the internal link is just some examples to shorten the article. The huge reactions section is just one example of clutter and improper structuring. I do not know what is the next step forward in this kind of environment. Currently they are trying to suppress pictures of screenshots and images of Essjay's for no valid reason. A few minor cosmetic changes, organization, and direction will dramatically improve the article and flow of reading.

Any suggestions? QuackGuru 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there you are on the talk page! Good. Your overdramatization with this headline seems slightly disruptive but better than mindless non-discussion reverting. Which line is factually inaccurate? (→Netscott) 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(Whoever is reading this: eyes in the sky above; notice the words above: disruptive and mindless) The first sentence of the Essjay's letter. Compare it now to the prior version earlier. QuackGuru 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Which line is factually inaccurate? _InBC 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm tired or something but I'm not seeing a factual difference between the two versions myself. (→Netscott) 02:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify QG, are these 'your'questions or someone else's? Risker 02:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(Note the editor Risker has commented about the editor Q.G. and not about the article. Talk pages are for the betterment of articles.) Thanks for your replies above. Essjay's advocacy letter: The first line of the first sentence is confusing. QuackGuru has fixed a previous confusing sentence that had a reference. References must back up the sentence but more importantly as to not to cause a hint of confusion. Reconsider a rewrite to the dispute of the sentence. QuackGuru has many more questions as stated above that weren't responsed to. A response would be appreciated and noteworthy. A widespreadedness discussion about the body of the article is warranted. Many questions have not been appropriatly addressed. How will there be collaboration? Please tell us. QuackGuru 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I asked whether these were your questions or someone else's, because if they are someone else's, it would be good to have that person join in this conversation directly. I apologize that my inquiry could have been perceived as a comment on you personally, as that was not my intent. While I do not necessarily agree with some of your positions, I respect you as an editor. Risker 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, to whom are you addressing yourself when you make little notes like this: "(Note the editor Risker has commented about the editor Q.G. and not about the article. Talk pages are for the betterment of articles.) "? That strikes me as unecessary and uncivil. The way that you've titled this section of talk it is normal for editors to be wondering if you are asking questions on another's behalf. I wondered this myself. (→Netscott) 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Many questions have been raised above without appropiate attention. Please consider answering the questions for the betterment of the article. Thank you QuackGuru 03:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindly answer my question: Whom are you addressing with such seemingly unecessary commentary? (→Netscott) 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I have reinserted the blockquote wikification as suggested by Dookama (the quotes were there, just part of the text). Risker 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I took them out, see above section for why. -- Avi 04:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also reviewed the quote from the advocacy letter. The quote within the article has not changed for some time, and is as referenced; only the introductory sentence has been modified. Risker 04:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The matter has not thoroughly been discussed on the talk page about the various aspects to the style and organization of this article. Many questions have been raised without any appropriate responses to the specific questions at hand. In this situation, when other editors have ignored questions, what is the next step to take. After discussion, on the talk page, then can editing begin to orgainize the sections in a resonable time appropiated. The edits speak for themselves. I did a good job of organizing the sections. Currently there is a huge reactions section. It is recommended to divide that section into to separate sections and put back the styling of the quotes to Wales' response and Essjay's response. I see nothing wrong with restoring the images. We (amomg many editors) do not understand the reason behind the image removal. For example, Mr. Wales has a picture of himself in an article about him. Their is a clear pattern among editors. I want to include information and organize the article. All my edits have been to organize and maintain accuracy. Addtionally, I removed the links under the references because that was clutter under the references. That was not a revert. There was a long list of links which has not been put back in the article. That affirms that edit. Someone added incorrect info to the article and I remove it and replaced it with a >fact<. Because of that effort it has been corrected now. That affirms that edit. I organized many sections. Although some of my organizations have been removed, but some still remain. That affirms organizing the sections. There is still some organizing left though. At the moment it seems a bit cluttered. Again a huge section under reactions is undue weight. I suggest to divide it into two headings. I still believe there can be an improvement for style and organization of sections. Any suggestions. Please comment to better the quality of this article. This is essential. Thank you. QuackGuru 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not ignoring your comments, QG. I've taken the opportunity to review this whole page and ferreted out a couple of other issues that need to be addressed as well. I've grouped them together here: . Can you please review this list and add in any issues that are not identified there? This might be an appropriate time to seek out opinions from "fresh eyes", and it would be easier for them to see what we know still needs to be resolved. Thanks. Risker 05:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached. The neutrality is now disputed. This article is in need of an expert to organize the sections for better flow of reading. Clearly, its "undue weight" to have such a long reactions section. Please divide the reactions section into two separate sections. QuackGuru 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

q for Quackguru

What other editors disagree with the current consensus besides yourself and Dab? Please list them and diffs/links showing they oppose. - Denny 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the way

to deal with really controversial topics--and this one counts as such at least around here--is to rely on quotes--and the screen shots are essentially quotes. The article should be built around them.DGG 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But not quotes from a reliable source. _InBC 02:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Quoting what the screenshots say (and using the screenshots as a source) is one thing. But what does including the screenshots achieve? They are not readable in the size they would appear in the article, so are just pictoral links. What does having them achieve? WjBscribe 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't quote what the screen shots say or use them as a source. That would be WP:OR. All we can do is present them as they existed as such. Of course, you realize these thumbs act as links the curious can click on and see a bigger version? -- Kendrick7 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's clarify exactly what this article is about

I'm afraid we are all getting trapped in the minutiae again, which is to be expected when many of us have been working on this article for a few days running. So let's step back and reaffirm exactly which article we are writing here.

What it is not: An article about Essjay and his actions. I think the point is widely conceded that Essjay should not have claimed credentials that he did not have, and that he used those non-existent credentials inappropriately.

What it is: An article about the resultant reaction to the discovery that Essjay had claimed credentials he did not have and had used them inappropriately. The issue is not that Essjay did something wrong, it is that his error created a firestorm of reaction, both inside and outside Misplaced Pages. It is this reaction that we are trying to document in this article.

Have I missed something here? Risker 02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, unless something has been reported by a reliable source, then we should not include it. Screenshots of wikipedia pages are not relevant unless a reliable source has featured the content. _InBC 02:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again User:Risker (along with User:Gwen Gale) bringing clarity to the editing/discussion here. Totally agree... which explains why the "reactions" section is the size it is (at least up to this point). (→Netscott) 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to hear from some of the other editors who have also been working hard on this article. QuackGuru? DGG? It's important that we are heading in the same direction, or we will wind up with more edit warring and frustration. Your perspectives are important. Risker 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the nut graf here, is that he lied to the media about his credentials, claiming what was on his user page was true (gee, we should get a screenshot of that...) when in fact it wasn't. That was his cardinal sin, as a professor of theology might put it. So it is about that action, and what resulted from that action. -- Kendrick7 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the screen shot of the user page that is kicking around right now doesn't list any of the problematic credentials except the professorship. I could probably go for a screen shot of his user page on the day the article appeared, but that doesn't exist. And I have to tell you that I can't think of another page on Misplaced Pages where a screenshot like that would be considered acceptable - not for content reasons, but because it is barely identifiable, let alone legible, in the thumbnail size. Risker 03:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the nut graf, though. It should be reworked. Risker 03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

well, it is a good point that the shot doesn't exactly correspond with what the author of the article saw. Still thinking about that one.... -- Kendrick7 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues remaining to be resolved

Based on the active threads on the talk page right now, the following issues remain to be resolved in this article:

• Lead section is weighted on the inciting activity rather than the controversy itself (identified by User:Kendrick7)
• Reaction section should be refactored/split up, or may be too long (identified byUser:QuackGuru, splitting up supported by User:Risker)
• Images of Essjay's Misplaced Pages user page, Wikia user page, and photo uploaded by Essjay continue to be an issue based on comments from several editors
• Whether or not the full text of Essjay's post to his Misplaced Pages user talk page, dated 15:06 on 1 March 2007 and titled "My response" should be included in the article as a direct link to userspace, or if the quoted section of this post currently in the article is sufficient (identified by User:QuackGuru)

I think this is an accurate summary of the key issues to be addressed at this point. Is there anything else I have missed? Risker 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually perfectly happy with the lead as is. Not sure where we are on that one.... -- Kendrick7 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK, the new lead is rather more succinct. -- Kendrick7 06:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you were right on target there. After working on the same article for so long, it was easy for us to get some tunnel vision. Good to have a fresh set of eyes on board. Risker 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

About the user page screenshots

OK, so it seems that a majority of editors feel that the images of the screenshots of Essjay's Misplaced Pages and Wikia pages are inappopriate, for various reasons. I can understand that. But I feel that the ability to see Essjay's claimed identity in the context in which he presented it is useful for readers of the article. Some users have suggested that links to cached versions of these pages would be acceptable. One possible problem: the only site that I know of which has all of these screenshots is Daniel Brandt's Misplaced Pages Watch. It has screenshots of Essjay's user page from August 2005, during the period when it contained the degree claims, and his Wikia page from the period when he identified himself as Ryan Jordan, "a 24 year old guy from Kentucky". These seem to me to be two key visual elements of the story which readers may wish to see.

The question is whether it would be acceptable to link to Misplaced Pages Watch or not. Daniel Brandt does, but of course that article is perpetually on AfD and probably shouldn't be cited as an example. How do other editors feel about possibly adding external links to these two pages on Misplaced Pages Watch ? Is this an acceptable compromise on the image/screenshot issue? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be. Linking to cached versions is nothing but an indirect way of inserting the exact same self-reference, and linking to troll sites especially should be discouraged. --tjstrf talk 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the running issue that screenshots can be modified (having had that happen to me in Real Life, I have no question about that), and Mr. Brandt and Misplaced Pages Watch are hardly impartial in this situation. Risker 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Hmmm...wonder if that means Daniel Brandt is notable?

I'd have to say I like this idea a bit less. (1) Daniel Brandt's site can be considered a reliable source? (2) Possible conflict of interest given that Brandt supposedly has been directly involved in all of this. (→Netscott) 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(reply after several edit conflicts) I'm no fan of Brandt's, but I'm not sure that "troll site" is a particularly useful characterization. And I didn't think that self-reference was the problem, exactly — as Kendrick points out above, WP:SELF#Writing about Misplaced Pages itself indicates that self-reference in an article about Misplaced Pages is unavoidable and non-problematic.

The question I see is whether Misplaced Pages Watch can be considered a reliable and verifiable source. For most purposes, it almost certainly wouldn't be, but an argument can be made that for the subject of this article, the Essjay controversy, it may be considered a reliable source for the perspective of one participant in the affair. (Recall the definition of a reliable source, from WP:ATT#Misplaced Pages articles must be based on reliable sources: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. ") Verifiability is more problematic: I happen to know (because I'm a Misplaced Pages admin, and can see the deleted content) that the screenshot of Essjay's Misplaced Pages is accurate and has not been altered, but a random reader of this article can't verify that. On the other hand, the standard for links to external sites are not quite the same as the standards for sources — many featured articles contain links to sites which provide additional information about their subjects, but which would not be acceptable sources for claims in the article.

I can see both sides on this one, but I do think that on balance these links would benefit the article, and their inclusion might be a compromise between those who support and those who oppose the inclusion of the screenshots as images. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do all this. We already have the screenshots on the wikipedia. If people aren't happy with the thumbs nails we can always use the leading colon notation ] to just link the the images themselves. -- Kendrick7 07:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we don't have the same screenshots. The Wikia one is only a partial page and does not include Essjay's credentials. The Misplaced Pages one is from March 2007. I'm not advocating a link to Misplaced Pages Watch, I just don't want to lose sight of what we do and don't have right now. Risker 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought he didn't lie about his credential on Wikia? But OK, I looked at Brandt's screenshots. That was also published on Slashdot, though of course, the link is now dead. -- Kendrick7 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Revised lead

I have revised the lead to be more in keeping with the title of the article, that is, the focus on the controversy. I've left the citations blank for the various media right now, because I'd appreciate input from other editors on how many citations we would need to add for each one. The easy way would be to use references we already have in the article, and we certainly couldn't include all of the outlets that have referred to the story (which is over 100, if I remember correctly). Opinions? Risker 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Gwern is of the opinion they are not needed. Risker 06:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We've already had to make some changes. "Jordan" appeared out of nowhere in the third paragraph after your changes, because he now wasn't identified until later in the article. The fact tags in the second paragraph were redundant at best, because the first paragraph already referred to media sources. There were even spacing problems between paragraphs. Gwern and I fixed these problems. Really, though, the new lede seems less informative than the old, and I almost did a complete revert. But I didn't want to set off another edit war. Casey Abell 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Casey Abell and Gwern for jumping in. I have no intention of reverting anyone, so feel free to make the changes you feel are appropriate, including reverting to the previous version if you feel that is best. The intention of my changes was to redirect focus on the controversy rather than the actions of an individual; however, I have no doubt my efforts can be improved upon. Risker 07:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comma placement

In English, commas go inside quotes in spite of logic. It's not "Essjay", it's "Essjay," which follows the standard punctuation convention. Many literate readers will tend to shake their heads at a comma placed outside quotation marks. Gwen Gale 10:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And many won't Glen 10:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That project page says it's ok in UK English but in truth it's more "tolerated" than "ok." Anyway I wanted to bring it up is all, it's not like I think my nitpicky change'll stick or anything :) Gwen Gale 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that the whole time I've been editing up here. I always thought it was inside, but having seen in incorrect so often, I was having serious doubts. Thanks for the tip. -- Kendrick7 11:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For those wanting a reference, check CMS 6.8 :) -- Avi 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

merge with extreme prejudice

whatever happened to "no self-reference"? Misplaced Pages:Recentism? WP:UNDUE? This article is pure omphaloskepsis. Speedy merge into Criticism of Misplaced Pages. dab (𒁳) 13:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Recentism may be a problem, but this also is an international story. No merge required, or warranted. Also, please read WP:SELF - articles about Misplaced Pages are not bad "self-references." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, do please cite any item of text in the article which is supported by a direct self-reference to Misplaced Pages's article space. I'll be happy to delete it myself. I thought they'd all been rm'd though. Thanks! Gwen Gale 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, anyway. The article is wholly sourced, has been widely documented in the media and stands on its own. Gwen Gale 13:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

sheesh, not self-reference then. Still a recentism, and way below Misplaced Pages:Notability requirements. Misplaced Pages does not, should not, and cannot cover every news headline, redirect and transwiki to wikinews then. 14:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge: Let this article mature and let the dust settle and then let's revisit the idea of deletion/merging. (→Netscott) 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:N recently? This is getting to be silly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge, clearly notable, don't see WP:UNDUE issues, we are fighting against self-references. That same issues would exist in the Criticism of Misplaced Pages, but it would be too large for it. This is fine, it just needs plenty of attention from people who uphold policy. _InBC 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, this has made foreign-language international press, so clearly notable enough. – Chacor 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Charcor and HighIn, clearly notable enough to stand on its own, and much too long to be merged into the already overly long criticisms article. JoshuaZ 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the Criticism of Misplaced Pages article should be shaved down. Interesting to see though that the whole section about Larry Sanger and his blog - you remember, the one that didn't fly in this article - seems to be present in that article. Not sure why his comments are more important in that article than, say, the New Yorker's. Also interesting that someone managed to get a screenshot of Essjay's user page from an unknown date, but one that includes the disputed credentials on the front page, and that it was uploaded on March 3rd. Also interesting that several people have edited both articles. Striking my comment that failed to assume good faith. Risker 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Right now, I do think that this article is superior and considerably less "navel-gazing" than the entry in the Criticism of Misplaced Pages article, so would not be bothered to merge it for the reasons noted by HighInBC and Chacor and others. Risker 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Press/Notability I think this ranks with the John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy in terms of coverage/public interest. (→Netscott) 15:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No merge. Notability/public interest trumps other interests, keep independent. - Denny 15:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

um, you cannot just claim it is notable. You'll have to show it is. Unless you do that, I would ask you not to remove the templates. It's not like I deleted the article: I placed these templates in good faith, and they should not be removed until the issue is resolved (as Netscott puts it, until the dust has settled). The article is categorized in "History of Misplaced Pages", "Scandals" and "Internet culture". I ask you, is it notable in the history of Misplaced Pages? Not yet at any rate, and "Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a crystal ball". Does it qualify as a notable scandal (think Dreyfus or Abu Ghraib)? Don't make me laugh. Is it a notable part of Internet culture? Notability is not popularity: popular Internet fads may be the subject of few or no reliable sources and fail to be notable. I suggest we can branch the article off "Criticism of Misplaced Pages" once "Essjay" appears in hacker's jargon on similar. At this point, simply no case is being made as to why there should be an article on the topic except that it concerns Misplaced Pages (which is not a valid argument per "no self-references"). dab (𒁳) 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

e/cDbachmann, with all respect due you've had two people revert you with a third gesturing to do so (User:JoshuaZ who apparently hadn't seen that the tags were already removed). This is becoming disruptive (in particular given the strong evidence of consensus right here). Kindly self-revert before someone has to revert you again. (→Netscott) 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't just claim anything, I stated my opinion... which is backed by the AfDs and everyone's opinion. We have articles on Misplaced Pages also. This one is heavily sourced, and too big to merge I think, but no one person gets to make choices thankfully and have them stick (yours, mine). Everyone decides, but opinion seems to be to keep it seperate... - Denny 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability is based on almost 300 articles now showing on a Google news search for Essjay, dealing with a widely reported scandal (Jimbo Wales' word for it) having to do with one of the world's highest traffic websites, Misplaced Pages. Gwen Gale 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The plethora of mainstream sources brought in the article about the event and fallout should more than adequately suffice for a reasonable claim for notability. The {{notability}} tag is not warranted; further discussion of notability needs to be handled through AfD, which should be on hold for now as well. -- Avi 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

More I think about this, I believe the notability tag is a tactic of disruption and I would like a disinterested admin to have a look at it, thanks. Gwen Gale 16:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Already gone... - Denny 16:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Meanwhile the merge tag remains. Consensus is so far is overwhelmingly against a merge. The article already survived two AfD attempts with overwhelming consensus to keep. Why is this tag still on the article? Gwen Gale 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let it stick for 24 hours, and then we'll remove it when the consensus is explicitly clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, we're in no rush; the article is solid as-is... - Denny 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But if people re-add it repeatedly/ongoing (the notability one too) after consensus shows it to be unsupported, remove it then as disruption. - Denny 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

q for Dab

Also, question for Dab... but your logic in your reply to me we should delete/merge John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy. Agree/disagree? And why, compared to this article? I am curious as to how you differentiate the two and why, and future articles like this, of this nature. Note that WP is notable enough itself to generate these stories more and more with each passing year... - Denny 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told, following his highly PoV logic, one might merge Jimbo Wales with Internet. Gwen Gale 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the Siegenthaler case is already notable for the history of Misplaced Pages. It has resulted in major new guidelines (BLP) and software updates (semiprotection). Once the "Essjay" case gives rise to similar consequences, I will admit it deserves its own article, but not before. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So by your logic articles on things related to Misplaced Pages should only be kept if they significantly alter/change how WP does things... and discard the policies we use for every other article? Why should Essjay get extra protections/provisions that other articles dont? - Denny 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Source for this? For the article

Gwen said: "dealing with a widely reported scandal (Jimbo Wales' word for it) having to do with one of the world's highest traffic websites, Misplaced Pages."

Do we have a source for this? Would be good for the article. - Denny 16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this one then. Gwen Gale 16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not seeing it in there... I wasn't able to find it on Google with some searches of Jimmy refering to it as that? No worries if it was a paraphrase, just got me thinking that having that with RS would be great to settle some of the semantic squabbling. - Denny 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Add this one, citing WP as 9th most visited in US. Gwen Gale 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)