Congrats
Congratulations on the promotion to Arbitrator. You will make a great addition to the Committee. Geo. Talk to me 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Essjay (Talk) 23:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Peeing
Hello Essjay. What do you think of moving User:Essjay/Never pee in the sandbox to Meta? It describes a tendency that is common on many wikis, not just on the English Wikipedia. A copy with {{mirrored}} could be left here, to benefit from the shortcut. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:53:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome to copy it over if you like, but I'd really rather keep the version in my userspace, and here's why: When something's in your userspace, you maintain control over it, so it never ends up saying something you didn't intend it to. I've seen it happen, at least a couple of times, that someone writes something (either in their userspace and it's moved to the projectspace, or directly in the projectspace) and it is later changed to the point that it no longer matches thier original intent, yet, because they started it, and in many cases, have the greatest number of contributions to it, they are identified as the "primary author." I'd rather make sure that any essay's I'm identified as primary author of stay safely where I can make sure they say what I intended them to. Essjay (Talk) 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Although the userspace is free for anyone to edit. ;P Navou banter / contribs 12:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Per Thatcher131's request, I have created this section for you
I wonder if you have looked at the facts in this case of mine: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_User:GordonWatts
I'm not the only one who thinks I have a case. Since I last posted, many new people have posted in my support!
Besides having over 4,500 edits with no major discipline or major problems, I now note that Thatcher131 suggested that: "I think a rebuttal to the votes of the arbitrators is a reasonable addition, but can you do something about the rest? If your main concern is that there was insufficient agreeement to constitute consensus, a link to the discussion and a brief recap should be sufficient; I would normally expect the arbitrators to follow significant links and verify them as part of their determination. Thatcher131 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)" [1]
I hope you do as Thatcher suggests and follow the links! I know I have posted a lot, but several statements by other editors were well-over 500 words, so please indulge me if I go a little over too: I'm being falsely accused!
To grant Thatcher's request, I have created a new section for you:
- 1.4.3.2 Rebuttal to the votes of the Arbitrators
- 1.4.3.2.1 -No Consensus existed to support Guy's admin action-
- 1.4.3.2.2 -These editors support my claims of innocence-
- 1.4.3.2.3 -These editors desire ArbCom intervention-
- [2]
If you mess up, it isn't my fault: I've done my part, and I have little to add to the somewhat lengthy ArbCom page in my matter.
--GordonWatts 06:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Statements on RFAR are for showing us that there is a case to be heard. They are not for making every last point of your case; if they were, we would have no need of evidence pages. Your statement passed 2300 words at one point; we don't need 2300 words worth of why we should open a case. Chosing to end with "If you mess up, it isn't my fault" doesn't particularly encourage me to believe that the community was wrong in their actions. Essjay (Talk) 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you remove my RfA?
I could possibly do that myself, but since I found no guidelines on removing a RfA just wanted to be careful and not create a 'mess'. The reasons are firstly, it doesn't seem to have any chance to succeed and secondly, I don't like the way pro and contra develop. Wandalstouring 11:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Essjay, hope you don't mind but to avoid opposes continuing before you could deal with this I explained to Wandalstouring that if he was sure he should withdraw on the RfA page. He did so, I then closed and delisted the RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wandalstouring. I know non-crat RfA closes are under some discussion at the moment but it seemed an uncontroversial matter. WjBscribe 12:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- If he withdrew, then there is really nothing controversial about it; had you made the decision to end it, that would have been controversial, but just cleaning up after a candidate withdrawal isn't, so nothing to worry about. Essjay (Talk) 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Monobook
Thanx, I'm using your MonoMonobook, but I don't want sysop etc tabs on it. how do I get rid of them. Also, I want to change text colour how do I do that? thanx a bunch Essjay, lovin your work... --Andrew Marsden 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are looking for User:Essjay/user/monobook.js. Also see my version, based heavily on Essjay's. Prodego talk 21:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Archiving
Hi Essjay - I'd appreciate if you could re-enable the talk page archiving - hopefully the problems will be largely cleared up very soon, and i've got a temporary phone line for internet until then :). Thanks, Martinp23 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 Done Essjay (Talk) 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks muchly :) Congrats on becoming an arbitrator - it's about time :) Martinp23 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Please
Hello, could you please read this: [3] I do not belong in the Arbcom, I hope you understand and remove me from it. Thanks.Azerbaijani 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Committee has had this type of requests a number of times, and our response is this: If you have not been part of the dispute, then you won't be part of the remedies. Being listed as a party in an Arbitration case doesn't automatically mean you're going to be sanctioned. If you haven't done anything, then you have nothing to be concerned about. Essjay (Talk) 23:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
OTRS
Hi Essjay, I hope you are still doing well. Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could do me a favor. I have been waiting in m:OTRS/volunteering since January 7. Could you expiate the process for me, I know you are a good person to contact for just about anything :-). My thanks if you can help me, Prodego talk 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmm; I'm really not active with OTRS anymore, and I don't have the ability to add anyone. I'll poke around to see who the active OTRS admins are and let you know. Essjay (Talk) 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm told that Bastique and Jredmond are the ones you seek. Essjay (Talk) 00:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, Prodego talk 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this page, because since you have left, no usernames have been changed (as far as I can tell).
Regards,
~Steptrip 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, there is controversy regarding that page at this time, and I have elected not to be active there until the controversy is over. Essjay (Talk) 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for letting me know. ~Steptrip 01:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- While I'm not sure I can say there's any discernible consensus that's been formed, the controversy/discussion seems to have died down - approaching 24 hours with no edits to the discussion now. I'm sorry to see that controversy seems to be trying to follow you around recently, I certainly don't think you deserve it, your contributions to Wikipedia are too valuable to lose. Obviously, your decision to return to CHU is your own, I just hope you agree that the controversy is dying down and return soon to the great work you do there. Thanks, and don't let the detractors get you down - they obviously don't understand your reasoning, and have no desire to do so. —Krellis (Talk) 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
New Errors, New Error Page
Hi... I'm not sure why but I am guessing you might have an answer to my question: For the first time ever, starting today, I have started seeing a new error page, from time to time, when trying to edit. My guess is that the error page is new and/or something has changed with respect to the servers. Please do not think I am complaining; I am genuinely curious and wondering if you know anything about it. If not, do you know the best user to ask about it. KatalavenoTC 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is it the "Wikipedia (or Wikimedia) is experiencing an error" page? I get it every once in a while, but usually a click of the back button and a resubmission solves it. If that is the one, and it's just intermittent, I wouldn't worry about it. If it's a different one, let me know what it says, and I'll poke around and see if I can find anything out. Essjay (Talk) 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, clicking the back button and resubmitting works for me, too. It's a Wikipedia error page (it has error in about 25 of different languages on the top of the page). The thing that caught my eye, however, was that... I started editing four months ago, and now, over 2000 edits later, I had never got this error page... until today. Maybe I was just lucky? Again, just curious... In any event, thanks for your response. KatalavenoTC 04:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
RfA
Hi Essjay, if you're still around, can you close Georgewilliamherbert's RfA? I'd close it as a clear success, but I did vote in it. I don't really consider that a conflict considering my comments, but I'd prefer if someone else closed it. Thanks - Taxman Talk 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've closed it; for some reason, I thought it was closing tomorrow morning. Essjay (Talk) 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. Yeah, I'll never get thoroughly used to UTC. - Taxman Talk 03:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I use a neat little to-do list that sends me an instant message when tasks are due, and it makes it really easy to catch things quickly; I've been adding RFAs to it lately, but I think in converting from UTC to local time, I completely messed that one up. Essjay (Talk) 04:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, I caught that in your congrats message, you'd inadvertently linked to the candidates earlier RfA rather than the current one; I mention it only to remind, in case there's another 2nd nomination closing anytime soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Oh, yes, thanks; I use the PAGENAMEE magic word for that (so the log links work too). Since the person knows where the RFA was, I could probably just delink that. Essjay (Talk) 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a way to set up one of your bots to archive the talk page at Talk:Josette Sheeran Shiner ?? Thank you for your time. Smee 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
- Sure, as long as there is consensus to do so; just propose it on the talk page, get agreement for it, and settle on how old posts should be before being archived, what the archive scheme should be, and how big the archives should get in KB before the next one is created. Essjay (Talk) 14:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have copied this and posed those points on the article's talk page... Smee 14:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Talk Page
Essjay, I am sorry for deleting this comment on your talk page, because I thought it was a personal attack against you. I didn't know that you had a personal philosophy about people not deleting comments from your talk page, even if it is a NPA or trolling. Hope to work with you soon! Real96 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
New Yorker article
You may want to take that link down
Just a heads up -- there's an old link on your user page that says, "I was mentioned several times in an article about Wikipedia in The New Yorker." You may want to take it down now. The editor of The New Yorker appendeded a note to the article that says you're a liar. 68.89.128.115 15:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- The comment above appears to be by Daniel Brandt. His motivations aside, you should probably be made aware that there's a discussion about this going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales#The New Yorker quotes you (also triggered by Mr. Brandt). I have a great deal of respect for your work on Wikipeda, Essjay, and I think it's important that you respond to this matter. Did you misrepresent yourself on your user page and/or to the New Yorker reporter? Can you explain this? If this was a simple error of judgment, you would do well to acknowledge it.
- Respectfully yours, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have; there was a considerable discussion right here on this page, triggered by Mr. Brandt and his Wikipedia Review cronies, and I made myself quite clear on the subject. I consider the matter closed, and see no reason to repeat myself every few weeks when someone else finds out about it "for the first time." Jimmy has made his support for me known, the people who actually know me have made thier support known, and that is good enough for me. Essjay (Talk) 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I only just found the previous discussions in your archives. I now understand the reasons behind your "disinformation". That said, given the New Yorker's correction of its story, it is likely that more people will be discovering this in the near future, and to a newcomer's eye it doesn't look good. It is also an unfortunate truth that the New Yorker correction will damage the reputation of Wikipedia, unless it is answered clearly and forcefully. (Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?) The New Yorker correction doesn't provide any context for the apparent misrepresentation. I think it's important for the sake of Wikipedia that you provide that context, preferably somewhere more easily accessible than your archives. This goes beyond your own reputation and affects that of Wikipedia as a whole. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It's not my place to make a public statement on this; anything I say at this point is going to be repeatable in the press, so the best thing for me is to say nothing at all. Wikimedia has it's own press team, and Wikia has a PR firm; when I receive communications relating to the press, I refer them to the appropriate press division (in this case, Wikia's PR firm made my response to The New Yorker). At this point, my role is to say "No comment." Essjay (Talk) 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It is getting more media attention for some reason. Freakonomics Blog Killerdark 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- No comment. :) Essjay (Talk) 00:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Essjay, to be honest, I find your lack of transparency on this troubling. Why can't you post on a subpage an essay or statement that summarizes your position as to why you gave one identity to a journalists who you (I assume) corresponded with personally, instead of having us hunt through the edit history and archives to divine what the situation is. Also, I think to shrug it off on Wikipedia's press team and Wikia's PR is disingenuous -- Wikipedia is a community made of its members who act on their own accord. If there is an issue with the actions or edits of an individual, the individual is responsible. That's how Wikipedia can maintain safe harbor as a forum and why Seigenthaler and Fuzzy Zoeller have to look for the individuals in question, and not the Wikimedia Foundation office. Putting the burden of your (NPOV: discrepancy | POV: deception) on the backs of the Wikipedia press team I think is unfair to the rest of your peers, to put it mildly. (I had to take a 30 second timeout to prevent writing something I would regret.) -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Anything I say now is likely to be repeated in the press. The press teams are trained in making statements that should be repeated in the press; I am not. It is best for Wikipedia that I not say something about this that then is repeated all over the world, making the situation far worse. I'm afraid I have to stick to "No comment." Essjay (Talk) 03:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Essjay, you're probably being advised by the PR folks not to comment, but I hope that you and they can craft a reply early tomorrow (Thursday). This story is only going to spread, and with the current information at large it will reflect badly on you, Wikipedia, and Jimbo. A story in the press which includes your account of events is better for you and for Wikipedia than a story which presents only the New Yorker's correction, or even the information that can be gleaned from your archives. Also, I have to agree with Fuzheado — you have already presented yourself to the press as a representative of Wikipedia. It's not fair to your fellow Wikipedians to back out now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Essjay & Josh, It's hit Metafilter, so the volume of inquiries is going to skyrocket. And you're way behind the curve in formulating a response. If you've got stuff in archive to represent your position, get in front of this, and post linkage. At this point you're in Damage Control, and listening to the PR Flacks whenever they get back to you isn't going to do YOUR reputation any good. Mikelieman 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This is a real disgrace. I hope you understand how you are shitting all over the thousands of people who have made real effort to turn Wikipedia into a credible source of information and not a place for freaks like you to enact their misguided fantasies. It's a sad, sad day for Wikipedia and all it stood for... And no, MichaelBillington, it doesn't matter how many times you revert it -- that's the sad reality and you cannot change it by simply erasing it from Wikipedia, you know.--131.246.137.16 12:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This is just comical. "...repeated all over the world." My, we do think highly of ourselves don't we? Like any of this actually matters. Who's the troll now? Lying troll even. I'm laughing heartily that this made slashdot as an actual "news" story. Pfft. Singingjim (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
But of course
this explains everything [4]. Thatcher131 07:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, so it does! Essjay (Talk) 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, Let's Get This Straight...
Speaking as a top award-winning particle physicist, race car driver, neurosurgeon, and rock star, I have a few questions... You're 24 now, and you where at one time an account manager with a Fortune 20 company? For How long? Let's just say a year for the sake of argument. But before that, you where a paralegal for five years? I'm just trying to do the math on this. You became a paralegal at 18 or 19? So, you must have started school for this licensed trade at what? 16? Ok...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.22.200.64 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
- This was indeed discussed in IRC when this first broke, and a few questions floated around about your current story. While I have nothing to say about this whole mess, I do hope that you at least issue a statement about this matter (not the age, the whole professor thing), in the interests of the Wiki. Cheers. – Chacor 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
is there a rodeo here or do I smell BS Atomic1fire 01:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am 24, I worked for the company for 5 or 6 months, and left it to work for Wikia. I started as a paralegal at 18, and didn't study for it at all; it's not a licensed trade in Kentucky, you merely have to be under the supervision of a licensed attorney. SCR 3.130(5.3) I worked directly for attorneys for three years, and went freelance after that. Essjay (Talk) 14:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- And please enlighten us Essjay as to why we are supposed to believe any of that? You say you "worked directly for attorneys for three years" just like you have four college degrees? Once you are gone, redistributing your workload will be trivial. However, your damage to Wikipedia will be impossible to repair. 206.13.74.249 1 March 2007
:-/
Greetings... I'm sorry but I must take this back: edit 65682140 -- I feel a bit cheated, lying to wikipedians to get ahead is one thing... but lying to the media... that's another. You have irreparably destroyed trust in the wikipedia administration, shame on you. Mineralè 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's funny! 131.22.200.64 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I knew it
Always knew you were lying scum, with your backing up certain users on a certain medical article to enforce status-quo cultural POV in contradiction to medical fact and human rights. You're scum, and you're the reason why this is my first wikipedia edit in 6 months. You disgust me.
I even talked to jimbo about these, i warned him about you and some others. This source is crap. 12.226.103.252 14:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking for a good writer with web knowledge in Louisville, KY
Hello Essjay,
I noticed an article referring to you (http://slashdot.org/articles/07/03/01/1313251.shtml). What most caught my eye was that you were a) a caring person, b) facile with the web and with wikipedia, c) articulate and d) in Louisville, KY (where I am).
I am involved in project that requires a good writer with encyclopedic range.
www.implicity.org/tour1.htm
www.childrenofthecode.org
I am planning on distilling the essence of over 100 interviews, over 3000 paper page equivalents, into a book. I need someone to help me write it who has an interest that spans 3500 years of history, an understanding of the web, and most importantly a deep care for humanity as a whole.
Credentials are less important than the quality of production.
Perhaps this won't interest you. Perhaps you know someone else that it might?
I wish you all the best in weathering whatever storms may come at Wikipedia...
Be you well,
David Boulton davidaboulton@gmail.com
Slashdot
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Slashdot_again - you made the front page. Well done. Just as a precaution, I've protected the three pages they linked directly to, as you don't seem to be around - I figure if you want them to remain unprotected (can't think why, but stull) you can do so when you get back on. Proto ► 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
My response
I would like to clear up an oversight on my part. I was, until this morning, under the impression that in my initial post on this subject (in response to a question from Dev920 made some weeks ago) I had made an apology for anyone who felt they were hurt by my decision to use misinformation. In speaking to various different people, including Jimbo, I did make it known that I was sorry that anyone felt hurt by my actions, and I believed I had done so in my initial statement. On re-reading that, I find I did not; it was a rather lengthy statement I had been thinking about for some time, and I seem to have left out a rather critical element of it. So, I rectify that now, with further apologies that it was not included originally, as I pointed people back to that statement in the belief it was complete.
I *am* sorry if anyone in the Wikipedia community has been hurt by my decision to use disinformation to protect myself. I'm not sorry that I protected myself; I believed, and continue to believe, that I was right to protect myself, in light of the problems encountered on the internet in these trying times. I have spoken to all of my close friends here about this, and have heard resoundingly that they understand my position, and they support me. Jimbo and many others in Wikipedia's hierarchy have made their support known as well. I'm also sorry the New Yorker chose to print what they did about me; there seems to be a belief that I knew they were going to print it, and that is not the case. I spoke with Stacy Shiff for over eight hours; in that time, she asked me about a variety of subjects related to Wikipedia and I gave her much to write on. (Those who know me will know I am rarely ever brief in my comments.) That she chose to focus on two rather trivial reverts to Justin Timberlake and what my userpage said came as a complete surprise to me; it was, quite honestly, my impression that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be, and that in the absence of any confirmation, no respectible publication would print it. I did not have an advance copy of the article, and indeed, didn't even get the complimentary print copy that others were given when it was published; I asked Stacy to send it to the Foundation for thier use instead. Further, she made several offers to compensate me for my time, and my response was that if she truly felt the need to do so, she should donate to the Foundation instead.
For two years, I have poured my life into making this site a better place. That many people feel hurt by my decision pains me greatly, and to them I am genuinely sorry. To the stalkers, the trolls, and the vandals, I am not sorry; they are abusive, hateful people, and they have done far worse things than those whole of the Wikipedia Community, myself included, have ever thought about doing. Now, I am going back to what I have always done: Making Wikipedia a better place. (In the immediate present, I'm going to bed, as I've been up for quite a long time.) Tonight, I will be back to my normal routine: Blocking vandals, closing RFAs, tending to the mailing lists, etc. I have no intention of going anywhere, because to do so would be to let the vandals, trolls, and stalkers win.
I have no doubt that others will continue to debate this matter; I have no intention to say anything further, as I have made my statement complete. If anyone needs me, look where the work of keeping the encyclopedia running is being done, and you'll probably find me there. Essjay (Talk) 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Responses from the rest of Wikipedia
 |
I'm putting this up here, because I feel that this message has to be read. This user page has been linked to by Slashdot, and as a result, has attracted a large number of the native Slashdot trolls. Essjay has explicitly said not to remove trollish comments. Just ignore the comments and move on. Cheers, PTO 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
-
-
- I refactored discussion following Essjay's comment because it deserves and needs to stand on its own --Durin 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Essjay. – Chacor 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're a bloody liar is what you are..
You're a bloody liar is what you are.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.9.213.10 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
- Strong support. Just wanted to express my 100% support for everything you do around here. I think you were totally entitled to protect your identity. Don't let all the fuss get you down! WjBscribe 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Essjay, having personally witnessed so many examples of stalking and threats (of death and otherwise) on Wikipedia in my time editing here I can fully comprehend inclinations for editors (and particularly administrators) to dissemble their personas on Wikipedia. Your response here is very enlightening and gives a fuller picture of how this chapter in your Wikipedia story unfolded. Having read your and Dev920's prior exchange I too had the impression that the knowledge of your dissembling was common. It is unfortunate that you did not have an opportunity to read a copy of The New Yorker story prior to its publication but I'm sure that you would have set the record straight from the get go. As well it is a bit surprising to read that such details weren't either confirmed with you or otherwise. Here's to looking forward to a potential quick end to this chapter of your involvement with the project. Sincerely, (→Netscott) 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight: you created a pseudonymous (thanks, Jimbo) identity to protect yourself from the evil people on the internet. Okay, fine. But where in your response do you address why you created so many (or such grandly) fictitious credentials? Your fake identity, frankly, is a little fat. Bloated. The degree (literally) to which you inflated your reputation (to protect yourself!) definitely IS a problem, and I think belies some rather unethical ambition and intentional obfuscation. I believe you didn't enter into it cleanly to protect yourself - I believe you also entered into it (or entered it in) to inflate your reputation, to lend undeserved credence to your edits and opinions, etc. In other words: nice try, but with some elementary scrutiny, you still appear to be a lying ass. But don't worry - I don't intend to hurt you or stalk you or anything. I'm just sayin'. Snackycakes 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- So what? A little dissembling would have been "ok" then? This isn't the proper forum to debate this but Snackycakes (a user I've never even heard of before in two years of editing here) your criticism is unduly harsh in my view. (→Netscott) 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- So, you haven't heard of "Snackycakes". So what? That automatically invalidates the statement? I see how it works here... 131.22.200.64 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't claim to be a major player in the Wikipedia universe, or handle more Spam than Hormel, but I have faithfully attempted to contribute to the project for the past six months. Essjay, and the Wikipedia community's defense of him, have completely soured me on spending any more time trying to improve the site. Snackycakes 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Does it really matter? So long as the work he's done is good (and it has been) that's all that matters. A userpage is a userpage, he can write what he likes there. Did you know that I'm a talking cheetah named Boris, with a Masters Degree in Computer Science? I wrote it here, doesn't mean it's true. So long as the work is good, it's all that matters clearly. Majorly (o rly?) 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose what really matters is that in Wikipedia people take these things at face value. All of these articles are written by random people, yet we take them in stride. Essjay could've created any number of other identities for himself, ones that did not imply that he was an extremely educated individual. I've personally never gotten involved with the wikipedia politics, but I imagine it must've given some weight to whatever he was saying if he could pretend he was knowledgeable - it's just human nature. Had he said he was simply a tow truck driver in New Jersey, or a store owner in Vancouver or an account manager in a Fortune 1000 company, his identity would still have been protected, but he would not be inviting people to attribute to him expertise he doesn't have. Pseudonym or not, I thought Wikipedia was aiming to be an internet-repository-of-information, not an elaborate MUD. The problem is not that he made up a past, the problem is that his embellishments might have given him undue credit, all the while rising to a significant community position. As for his current identity, there might be some problems with that as well. hif 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- The particular question you link to about the current identity is addressed above. —Krellis (Talk) 17:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have high regard for your work on Wikipedia, and absolutely 100% support Wikipedians protecting their identity. This can be done without faking credentials, such as a Ph.D. Something less than a Ph.D. would be okay and you can say you live somewhere other than Kentucky, and change up other details. But, these fabrications were way excessive. Sorry to say, it will be a while before I (and many others here) can trust you again. I think it would be prudent for you to step down from Arbcom. At present, there is no way I'd be comfortable coming to Arbcom with any matter. For the benefit of people working on articles and other things, it's important that we have a comfortable editing environment, which includes trust in arbcom and others in "high" positions. I only wish the best for you, but it would be prudent for you to step back and give us time for this all to shake out and regain confidence. Regards.--Aude (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I felt the need to come here and say something regarding your misrepresentation of your credentials. Aude has captured my sentiments well, so I'll just say per Aude. —Doug Bell talk 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Absolute support of all the good work you've done for Wikipedia. I fully understand wanting to keep yourself anonymous, and while I may not have done it in the same way, I support what you did, and think your contributions speak for themselves. —Krellis (Talk) 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Less than nil support! I don't even know where to start! Softwarehistorian 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support based on your work on Wikipedia. However, may I recommend you that, for the time being, recuse yourself from the Arbitration Board since your trust as been called into question. SYSS Mouse 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think I may be bringing this case to Arbitration Committee. SYSS Mouse 18:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Banned You need to get banned from wikipedia for using fake credentials to promote your religious ideas on wikipedia. There should be a committee formed to review your past edits to make sure that they are not biased. 72.209.65.29 18:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)wikiuser
- No. PTO 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence that Essjay was trying to promote a religious agenda. That's not the point. And a call for banning is seriously disproportionate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - Come on, people. Does it matter who Essjay claims he is in the real world? All that matters here is that he has contributed huge amounts of his time into this website. His work thus far has earned my trust, and an incident such as this will not ruin it. Shame on all of the people who think that Essjay is trying to blow himself up. PTO 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reading some of the comments below has given me a new perspective and has changed my mind. PTO 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)- Suggestion: - Here is a suggestion, you could contact Stacy Schiff from The New Yorker and ask to have a small follow-up piece, to explain the reasoning behind your motivations... Smee 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
-
-
- Unfortunately, Stacy appears to have published Essjay's details without actually asking him to confirm their truthfulness; rather careless. She has also been badgered by Daniel Brandt, who contacted the New Yorker, Schiff's agent, and Schiff's book publisher about this, so I suspect she would not be enthusiastic about a followup. Thatcher131 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Zero Support or Sympathy Essjay is a liar. How can anyone trust his edits? 206.13.74.249 1 March 2007
- Comment: Essjay, thank you for your apology and for your years of hard work on Wikipedia. Thank you also for addressing the matter of the New Yorker report — although in hindsight it would have been better to mention the false persona at some point during the eight-hour interview. Your assumption "that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be, and that in the absence of any confirmation, no respectible publication would print it" has unfortunately resulted in damage to the public reputation of Wikipedia.
Your statement also does not address why you felt the need, in "using disinformation to protect" yourself, to create a persona with high credentials. Doing this in the real world is considered academic fraud, and although the expectations of the online world are often lower, pretending to have credentials you don't have is still morally suspect. I don't want to keep pressing you for more and more apologies, but it would be nice if you could address this aspect of the issue.
This affair does not erase the good work you have done for Wikipedia, but it does affect the trust that the Wikipedia community has placed in you. I'm not going to presume to tell you what you should do, but I hope that you will consider what you have done, its effects, and how best to proceed from here with thought and prayer. It's Lent — perhaps it would be fitting to withdraw into the desert for a time, and return at Easter? Just a thought. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Essjay, Josiah Rowe's request is sensible particularly in view of the letter. (→Netscott) 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- disappointment. it's alright to be anonymous, just pick a name like "Wikijoedoe" and no-one will blame you. Also, it's silly to blame Wikipedia for this, because, while we have policy on verifiability for content, we have no such policy regarding statements users make about themselves, so that's not an issue. A Wikipedia admin that is caught lying about his credentials like this is still rendering the project a disservice. We have no way of enforcing this, but I strongly feel it should be a matter of honour among bona fide editors to not lie about their identity. You can be anonymous all you like, just don't make up bullshit like that, it hurts Wikipedia. At least speaking as someone who spends a lot of time trying to raise Wikipedia's academic credibility, this is somewhat of a stab in the back. I also feel that at we need a policy of real-life identities revealed, or at least revealed to the board, for arbitrators. Arbitrators wield quite a lot of power in the wikiverse, and it will not do to expose ourselves to such hiccups on that level. dab (𒁳) 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Illegitimi non carborundum. Corvus cornix 19:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - (why are we voting for fsck's sake?) Wikipedia is not based on credentials. It never was. It does not matter what your credentials are when you edit here. Therefore, it doesn't matter a whit what someone says they do in real life. I see no proof at all of this damaging wikipedia's reputation. No harm has been done to the project. We've never required people to be truthful about their personal details, and we shouldn't because credentials don't mean a damn thing on Wikipedia. We need our articles to be truthful and sourced, but that's it. If people can't tell the difference between an article and the people who edit them, they have issues. pschemp | talk 19:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- maybe because we knows this, just like we know it means bugger all if some anon inserts a claim that Siegenthaler is a killer, but the public will still see the headline "high WP functionary caught lying through his teeth" -- lying about your identity is not an RfArable offense to be sure, in the community, but just like Siegenthaler gave us semiprotection, there could be a lesson here. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Credentials may not mean a damn thing on Wikipedia, but they do mean something in the real world, and Essjay used these credentials in the real world, in the letter. He also failed to prevent them from being used in the New Yorker piece. To use Catholic terminology, the latter may be considered a sin of omission, but the former is a sin of commission. Creating a false identity online is one thing. Perpetuating that false identity in the real world is another. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- If "credentials don't mean a damn thing on Wikipedia" then why did Essjay find it necessary to lie about his credentials? 206.13.74.249 1 March 2007
- While assigning any problems that our readers may have with us to their own "issues" is convenient, it's entirely facile. As encyclopedia editors we are all aware of the role sources play
|
