Misplaced Pages

User talk:Essjay/RFC

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Essjay

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Gerard (talk | contribs) at 00:40, 4 March 2007 (→Unendorsed RFC - to be killed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:40, 4 March 2007 by David Gerard (talk | contribs) (→Unendorsed RFC - to be killed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

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"

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)

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)
User talk:Essjay/RFC Add topic