Misplaced Pages

• Comment I think I have to agree with the anonymous folks who are calling you a bloody liar. You need to own up to every lie you ever advanced on Misplaced Pages if you ever want to regain the respect of your fellow editors. I'm sure that the vast majority of your contributions to Misplaced Pages have been in good faith, but such prominent fraud shakes this project to its very core. Your user page must contain a confession of your faked credentials, as the first step in a long journey you must take to regain the trust of your fellow, honest editors. Matt Gies 19:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. I don't know this person, but I know the story. Your decision to create a pseudonym on what is essentially an anonymous web site is perfectly understandable. The shoddy journalism is not your fault. Most journalists verify facts (this is coming from a former journalism instructor, of sorts... or am I?). Midnightdreary 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay Must Resign

Essjay has openly lied about his credentials, not apologized for his lies, and instead rationalized them and excused his inexcusable behavior. Essjay represents what is wrong with Misplaced Pages; that people have no problem with gratuitous lying about themselves and their knowledge, and hide behind a false persona to escape judgment from other Wikipedians. I am disgusted and angry with Essjay and his actions, and he must resign immediately. If he was in any real academic institution or think-tank, and pulled this stunt, he would have been shown the door already. - MSTCrow 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He who is without sin, cast the first stone. PTO 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a cop-out that doesn't address the problem. You're attempting to tell us that nobody can ever have any kind of complaint or criticism because they're not perfect and "without sin". That's an unreasonable position and one that I'm willing to bet that you do not personally follow. Likwidshoe 02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else a administrator with false credentials uh no so lets stone em Atomic1fire 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not lied about my credentials, about who I am, or what I've accomplished. People must be held accountable. Senseless platitudes will not improve the sad state of Misplaced Pages. - MSTCrow 19:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo trusts him. Why don't you ask Jimbo to resign? You are missing the fact that someone's credentials don't matter on wikipedia. We don't care about degrees, nor should we. Equating wikipedia to an acadmic institution is just silliness. pschemp | talk 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

But we do care about trust. —Doug Bell  19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Trust based on on-wiki actions, not what reporters from the New Yorker say. Show me one place where his work on wiki was untrustworthy. pschemp | talk 20:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How about the parts where he used his supposed credentials to support his arguments? That is untrustworthy behavior. Likwidshoe 02:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay resigning? Resigning from what? He must be one of the most hardworking users there is, that would just be a bad thing to do. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

His log shows a bit under 250 actions a month. that does not however include oversight. There are admins who carry out that many actions a week. He does a fair bit of work yes but not that exceptional see ].Over all solidly active but I'm not sure he falls into the hyper active set.Geni 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not this month no...but he's also working for Wikia. However, in the past he has been extremely active. pschemp | talk 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Alf notes that he's on the deleters list next to Essjay and therefore should pull his finger out and resolves to delete the next five articles he comes across.

You go Alf!pschemp | talk 20:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

that deletion list goes back to mid october. Going back through the log the peak level appears to be 250 a month. Hyper active would probably mean twice that although of course things are squewed somewhat by the activity levels of some admins.Geni 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He's by far the most active bureaucrat, and the work he's done with checkuser is commendable – no one else really touches those areas. Without him would be a significant loss. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. To me at least it doesn't really matter what he claims to be offline. He can say he's the lost grandson of Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia or a Tibetan monk so long as he does productive work here. --tjstrf talk 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So what if he is a "hardworking user"? This isn't Essjay-pedia, this is a community-edited encyclopedia, and there is no reason why the community should allow him to keep special status when he has misrepresented the group and himself. Shoehorn 08:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages we decide ourselves if we want to use our real names or a made up, and that is an accepted policy. It is also up to the user what she/he want to reveal about themselves, but it must be true. I am talking about truth - not misinformation as user Essjay calls it.

He does not seem to understand that he has lied, and he does not seem to understand that this is bad for the community and Misplaced Pages at large. The proper action for user Essjay in my opinion is to resign as admin. Ulflarsen 12:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay and Misplaced Pages

It seems that some of the people here do not understand the huge role that Essjay plays in Misplaced Pages. Hell, when he takes wikibreaks, WP:CHU backlogs. He is essentially the only person who deals with that process. He is a very active RFA closer, closing most of the RFAs that I have watched in the last month or two. Making Essjay resign would be devastating to our internal proccesses! Essjay is one of our greatest assets. Why are people so keen on making him leave? PTO 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't care for all the good work he's done, that's why. Sad really. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

JIMBO ought to resign too - he has less integrity that Essjay for letting him stay. Lying about your credentials in any other work environment will get you fired - looks like wikipedia promotes lies and poor judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.25.44 (talk • contribs)

lol. Misplaced Pages isn't a job. pschemp | talk 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, so Essjay lied. We've all lied in the past. However, let me say this: Misplaced Pages is not a work enviroment. Rules that apply there do not apply here, and vice versa. This is the internet. You may have everything in the offline world. However, you come to the internet broke, lacking the only thing of value here: knowledge. Those who have it, rule. Those who want it, learn. Everybody else just sits in the stands, watching the internet world fly by. PTO 20:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe Wikia or whatever it is called, is a for-profit business. Putting people into a position of authority based on their credentials and then keeping them in that position after their lies have been exposed just screams hypocrisy and fraud. If I lied claiming to be an experienced commercial airline pilot, was hired as such and then exposed as a fraud you can bet that I would be removed from that position. A fake bio is one thing but he represented himself to a REAL academic as a tenured professor. Essjay is a fraud, plain and simple. As for you, I picture you as the character on South Park spending all of his waking hours killing people off on World of Warcraft. It's too bad you lack the social skills and integrity necessary to live in the real world. (Anon edit by User: 65.166.25.44)

Um, Essjay disclosed his identity to Wikia before he was hired (unless they are paying him in cash by dead drop). Thatcher131 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Essjay lied about his credentials. That is not in dispute - the question here is how far did those lies penetrate. No reputable media organisation will ever again believe a wikipedia editors credentials again on trust alone. Frankly, it worries me that they ever did. However, the question to be considered now is do wikipedia editors trust Essjay? - and secondly, does it matter a toss whether they do or they don't. Jimbo gave - so only Jimbo can take away. Jimbo is the person who has to weigh up on what he based his confidence in Essjay, and also the effect appointing such a person to the Arbcom has on his own standing. Basically, it is nothing to do with the rest of us - Jimbo's encyclopedia - Jimbo's the one who sinks or swims on this decision , not us. Giano 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think pschemp ought to just take essjay out for a nice romantic date and cut to the chase. pschemp, you are madly in love with essjay from the looks of things...apparently essjay can do no wrong in your eyes.

Cue: drama! Read: Cluestick for 500, Alex.

Really people, I do not understand what the big deal about this is. Perhaps it popped a few cherries of niavete, but anyone taking anyone else's posted "credentials" on Misplaced Pages as true has serious trust issues. There is absolutely no way to really verify anyones' claims here, this is not a new situation, in fact, it's why Larry forked Citizendium a long time ago.

We really have two contradictory messages here: On one hand we value ourselves as the encyclopedia anyone can edit, on the other hand we are calling for some silly inquisition because someone lied about their credentials, even to the point of calling for a ban. These two positions I find are rather irreconcilable. Essjay has never acted in bad faith; I have asked numerous times for the people claiming he has to prove it - but no one has. So are we going to chase away good faith contributors because they lack credentials or because they lied about them? If so, then we need to cure ourselves of the idea that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

I have always been one to judge people not on who they claim to be, but rather on their actions. Essjay has always been fair in his dealings on Misplaced Pages. He has always acted with integrity and diplomacy. These are things that we value on Misplaced Pages, not credentials, and I ask the trolls that claim otherwise to kindly get a clue. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Peter, the trolls dropping in from Slashdot and the like are one thing, but there are also committed Wikipedians who have serious concerns about Essjay misrepresenting himself in the real world (you've seen the letter, right?), and the effect this will have on Misplaced Pages's already bruised reputation. I have consistently praised and thanked Essjay for his hard work and many positive contributions to Misplaced Pages. I'm also asking for him to consider the consequences of his decisions, good faith or not. Please try not to lump all those who are troubled by this affair in with the trolls and vandals. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And what "damage" has been done? Misplaced Pages has never been really accepted by ivory tower academics so that's a non-issue. Brandt got uppity since he likes to stalk Essjay and found out that the person he was trying to stalk was just a ghost. The Slashdot lynch mob loves a good lynching, reason or no. Myself, I have yet to see a compelling reason why this is a bad thing in the context of Misplaced Pages, which, on Misplaced Pages, is the context that counts. It's just a lot of people going on with hot air and bruised feelings over a slight they have overreacted to, pure and simple. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The readership of the New Yorker is not limited to ivory tower academics. This will inevitably damage Misplaced Pages's public reputation. We know that Essjay has made Misplaced Pages a better place, but the public at large doesn't know, or care, about that. They will merely see that a high-up Misplaced Pages official who has falsified academic credentials. This may not make a difference here on Misplaced Pages, but it does make a difference in the real world. To deny that is to be exceedingly blinkered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• I don't want Essjay to leave, but I think the honorable thing to do would be to resign and reapply for the higher-level positions of trust. I'm not talking about adminship—heck we hand those out to just about anyone that sticks around without vandalizing or abusing. I'm talking about Checkuser, Bureaucrat, Oversight. I supported Essjay on his RfB. I would do it again. I don't know that I do trust him with checkuser though—not now at least. Oversight, I don't know. I do feel hurt by the extreme overrepresentation of his credentials. It was wrong, and there's not really any way to sugar coat that. This is a time to demonstrate character—that will be big step in rebuilding trust. Stepping down from the positions of higher trust and reapplying is the way forward. —Doug Bell  19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If he'd abused it, the other overisighters/checkusers can see the logs to see what has been done, and the developers can check it I believe. I don't think he needs to resign, he hasn't changed. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but he has changed in the eyes of many. I used to hold his word in the highest regard amoung editors here. I no longer do. Those positions are positions of very high trust—not positions where we expect people to have to even think about checking up on someone. I respect Essjay for his work here mightily, but my trust in him is damaged. He should step back—to do otherwise would not be a demonstration of the honor that I still account to him and his deeds. —Doug Bell  20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, he hasn't changed, he's still the same person, just without the false credentials... and to me that's all that matters. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
        • You know, I have a real problem with this thinking. Before this, he was someone whose character was beyond reproach, because there simply was no reason to believe otherwise. That is not true now. He may not have changed, but he has been revealed—at least to a degree. The point that seems to be going over the head of many people here is that there is a reason he did what he did that goes beyond what he has proclaimed, which was to hide his identity. That reason may well be seated in some deeper character flaw that has yet to reveal itself. I don't know why he did it, but the fact that he did is disturbing. Maybe he just suffers from insecurity, maybe it's something worse, I don't know. Don't get caught up in thinking that the problem is that he doesn't have a Ph.D.—the problem is that he significantly overrepresented his qualifications. Not just on his user page, but to the outside world when acting as a representative of Misplaced Pages. This is serious, and to minimize it with platitudes "he's still the same person" is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding what the real issue is. The fact is that his actions have created credible and significant doubt as to who he really is, what motivates him, his truthfulness and his judgement. Expressing concern regarding his access to the most sensitive tools here—the tools requiring the greatest trust and judgement—is not something that should invite rabid responses from apologists. These are legitimate concerns. Resigning the positions that were granted under false assumptions—the false assumption that Essjay was truthful—is entirely reasonable. —Doug Bell  21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
          • OK you have a point; which do you suggest he resigns? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I said above. I don't really care about the bureaucratship, although I think the honorable thing would be to step down. It is the access to checkuser and oversight I find concerning. —Doug Bell  21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The simple fact of the matter is that he shouldn't and if he did, he never would get those positions back and it would be a loos to the project. All this is to me is several trolls (and a few legitimate editors such as yourself the seem to have sucked in) demanding their pound of flesh, and then another, and then another ... ad infinitum. He has never abused these privelages and therefore there is no grounds to remove them. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
        • My response here has nothing to do with the trolls, and I would thank you not to tie my comments to the trolls in any fashion. —Doug Bell  20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It represents poor judgment. Keeping someone who many don't trust in high positions makes some of us uncomfortable. If Essjay resigned arbcom now, I would come back editing soon. If he doesn't and Jimbo saying this is "no big deal", I don't know when/if I'll be back because I'm not comfortable here. It's too bad, because I was working hard in recent days/weeks on toward a couple more featured articles. I was also toying with the idea of "adopting" an African country article(s) and try to get some up to good or featured status, among other things I was working on. I hope to resume my editing activities soon, but I'm on hiatus now. It's not just the falsehoods, but the way this is being handled that bothers me. Regards. --Aude (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Poor judgement? Your choice to impose your sense of moral superiority could qualify as poor judegement. There is no evidence at all that he abused his positions or tools on wiki. pschemp | talk 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, this is not only appalling judgement, these lies are devastating for whatever credentials and reputation Essjay has built up on Misplaced Pages. Catchpole 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • With all honesty if you're going to make us choose between Essjay, an established editor with a distinguished editing history on whom CHU and RFCU rely almost exclusively, and yourself, with whom my only interactions have been incinedary and abrasive comments about Essjay, well, I'm going to have to choose Essjay. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Begone Essjay. Get another username and start again, you can still be helpful. Best wishes, all the same. Gwen Gale 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Voluntarily step down for now

Doug Bell said "Stepping down from the positions of higher trust and reapplying is the way forward." This makes sense. If Essjay voluntarily does this for the good of Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia (no other reasons need to be mentioned) we have made progress in solving this problem. On Jimbo's talk page I asked if it was important that arbcom members have a reputation for honesty. One person said no, it was only important that they be good at solving problems. Well, here's a chance for Essjay to show he is good at solving problems and has Misplaced Pages's best interests at heat. Vountarily resign from the arbcom and checkuser and perhaps one or two other positions. There is no problem with Essjay continuing as an editor. Essjay, you have Jimbo's support. It's not like resigning for now for the good of wikipedia is like resigning forever. WAS 4.250 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What would this accomplish? Arbitrators are appointed by Jimbo and Checkuser and Oversight are assigned by the Arbitration Committee. They already know all the details and if they wanted to remove those functions, they would have (obviously, he was appointed to ArbCom after being hired by Wikia, so jimbo knew everything at that point anyway). The only roles Essjay has that are subject to community approval are Admin and Bureaucrat. Do you think his false bio affects his performance of those two functions? Do you really think Misplaced Pages would be a better place by forcinig Essjay to go through RFA and RFB again? Thatcher131 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What it would accomplish is show that Misplaced Pages leaders are accountable for their actions. There's no way he should remain in a position of authority at Misplaced Pages. Rcade 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There are problems with regard to public perception of the credibility of Misplaced Pages and its management; problems with regard to Misplaced Pages editors percieving credibility problems when dealing with Essjay (why believe anything he says?); and possibly, just maybe, problems with Essjay actually not being trustworthy. This is a credibility issue and perception is at least half the issue. Being seen to respond appropriately is important. WAS 4.250 21:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To be sure, Essjay's conduct off-wiki and on has been most troubling. WP is a public web site, and the foremost online encyclopedia. Credibility to the reader should continue to be our most important concern - and when a user shreds WP's credibility off-wiki (as Essjay's lies in the New Yorker did) and on-wiki (by misrepresenting himself in subject debates as an 'expert'), he's doing real damage independently of 'which role' is involved therein. Sometimes bureaucracy can become blind to its core mission - and in our case, the bureaucracy's role should be to support and enable the project, not to ignore this torrent of valid criticism. All such conduct does is reinforce a 'gang rule' mentality. Whatever 'Jimmy knew', avoiding our clear responsibility to be accountable to the public (in other words, not to lie to them) is not acceptable.

This isn't to put it all on Essjay, since Jimbo also shares some blame for this debacle - if he did indeed know Essjay was operating under a false identity, having him speak with the press (and misrepresent his credentials/identity) appears to be a serious error in judgment. I've already been contacted a number of times by people who knew I was an editor here, asking me my opinion on the matter - and all I can do is hang my head and sigh.

The message that the press communicates cannot be controlled, so when you're giving an interview it's important that you're not patently lying. VERY IMPORTANT. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wondrous Youth

Giving your recent falsehoods, can you reassure about this? Your bio reads:

"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."

So, you are 24. 24 minus 5 is 19. 19 minus two is 17. So at 17 years old you worked freelance handling "special projects" for a United States trustee (whatever one of those is.) You might even be claiming this at age 16 or 15 depending on how long you claim to have worked as an account manager. Even if the two years is consecutive with the five, you are claiming it for aged 19.

Totally without credibility.

What wonders did you achieve aged 12? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.79.131 (talk • contribs).

If you would, like, read the page instead of drive-by trolling, you will find your answers. Thatcher131 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he should have told the truth and written "unlicensed paralegal." And the dates still don't marry up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.79.131 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what happens when you have a credibility problem. They won't believe you even when you are saying two plus two is four. WAS 4.250 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this is what happens when you have a Slashdot troll problem. They wouldn't believe Isaac Newton if he told them two plus two is four. —Krellis (Talk) 21:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of identity

I will say this for the record:

Creating a pseudonym is one thing. Creating an elaborate fake persona with fake credentials, and using it in arguments, letters, and interviews is another. I am deeply troubled by this behavior, consider it highly unethical, and would like to ask you to seriously consider stepping down from your official Wikimedia roles. At the very least, I believe you owe the community an apology for this behavior. You have damaged both the reputation of the project, and your own. I am deeply saddened and disappointed.--Eloquence* 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He already did apologise above. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I do believe the issue goes beyond the New Yorker article and interview. As the above diff shows (and other examples have been cited), Essjay has used his fraudulent credentials to support his arguments about articles. This is a serious breach of ethics that has nothing whatsoever to do with protection of identity.--Eloquence* 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, the above reference claims no more than having studied Catholicism for years, which seems to be the case. And cites sources, as Misplaced Pages should rather than accepting statements ex cathedra. Confession and apology are appropriate, and have been given. While I appreciate that you're without sin, no need to stone anyone. .. dave souza, talk 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"I've been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn't tell you know how many times I've heard this myth, in and outside class." In conjunction with the profile as a professor of theology on his userpage, there can be no doubt that he used fraudulent credentials to bolster his argument. Other Wikipedians will often look upon anyone claiming any professional credentials with awe, since it is fairly uncommon. Essjay knew this, and used it to his advantage. See Kelly's blog post on the topic for other examples.-Eloquence*

I concur with Eloquence. // Internet Esquire 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Plain and simple fraud. Spankr 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Plain and simple interpreting statements with hindsight and the assumption that those reading had already been to his user page to be impressed with his claimed credentials. My respect for Kelly Martin has gone down, given that s/he seems to think that one of Misplaced Pages's foremost experts on Catholicism (which looks rather tongue in cheek to me) justifies the statement (at the link Eloquence gives) that "Essjay has no more right to claim to be a scholar of Christianity (and certainly not "Misplaced Pages's leading scholar on Catholicism"!) than I do, and yet his totally inexpert opinion has been given undue weight because of his lies." Spot the missing "one of", and note that Essjay's current bio does indicate that he's a scholar of Christianity. As, of course, anyone attending Sunday School arguably is. The false bio was wrong, about time it was corrected. As it has been. Now what we need is some Christians to live up to their ethos of forgiving. Any takers? .. dave souza, talk 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking out, Eloquence. As a member of Wikimedia's Board of Trustees, you're in a position to hold the management of this project accountable. I don't see how Jordan can continue to serve in a position of leadership here, given the seriousness of the fraud. Rcade 02:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Eloquence - I agree with you. This isn't a matter of using a pseudonym. We can debate on the nature of "appeals to authority" but your Walter Mitty style behaviour is extremely damaging to us. The issue seems to be who decided that EssJay should be our representative in the media and whether any checks were done. Being someone's friend or knowing them on irc doesn't count. We can cope with fantacists but not as representatives. Secretlondon 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

New Yorker Article

LOL

--

Awkward indeed. Explanation? --AsianAstronaut 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up to find an explanation and apology, and try to leave new messages at the bottom of a page, please. Martinp23 22:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried, but only found a rationalization and an excuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.80.239.153 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Was that even an Apology?

Your response is terrible. If this is an apology, it is pathetically unapologetic. Every time you start to apologize, you take it back.

Your first paragraph explains that you thought you had already apologized and somehow that apology had been left out of previous statements. You say that you want to clear everything up and apologize publicly. Fair enough. The point is, the first paragraph sets up your response as an apology. But when you actually get to the part were you should say, "sorry, I lied" you don't. Instead, your apology is filled with justification and self-aggrandizement.

Essjay giveth, and Essjay taketh away

The actual "apology" begins in the second paragraph. In the first sentence, you're already making excuses. "Decision to use disinformation to protect" yourself is the kind of phraseology I would expect from a crooked politician, not a contrite community leader. Why can't you use a simple word like "lied"? The next sentence takes away from your apology even more. You bluntly say that you are not sorry for what you did, and that you still think doing it was the right thing to do. If what you did was protecting yourself, and you're not sorry you protected yourself, there's little left to apologize for.

Moving on, the next thing you say is that you have support from people on wikipedia in general and from Jimbo in particular. I'm not sure if you're trying to point out how popular you are, how close you are with the big man or just trying to point out that lots of people agree that what you did was right. The first two cases are pathetic attempts to make yourself look good and the last merely reinforces the idea that since what you did was right, you don't have anything to apologize for.

The New Yorker

The rest of the second paragraph is about the New Yorker article. I'm still not sure what your point here is. It seems like what you're getting at is that you didn't try to spread this disinformation around. But in a more than 8 hour interview you were never asked about your qualifications? That seems quite ridiculous. The article says that "Initially, he contributed to articles in his field—on the penitential rite, transubstantiation, the papal tiara. Soon he was spending fourteen hours a day on the site, though he was careful to keep his online life a secret from his colleagues and friends." The story certainly comes off as if you talked about your wikipedia contributions in the context of your area of "expertise". Of course you didn't know which bits of the interview would get published, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is if you talked to the reporter about your false qualifications, and your response didn't address that.

Letter

Furthermore your response didn't address the letter that you allegedly sent to a professor on why wikipedia should be considered a respectable source. The letter says to "feel free to look at my Misplaced Pages userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials." If its such common knowledge that you're not who you say you are, why do you refer people to your false credentials?

In that letter you talk about your nonexistent degrees and students. This is blatently lying. You're no longer protecting your identity with false information, you're trying to persuade a university professor to let his students cite wikipedia. Aside from the part were you lied, I think that you made a good arguement. I want professors to encourage wikipedia too. But the hypocrisy of claiming accuracy and honesty while not displaying any kind of basic academic integrity is appalling. My disgust is only accentuated by the fact that you presented yourself as (and indeed are, or perhaps were) a leader of the community.

Ego

Your apology is further destroyed by your constant attempts to play up your own virtues. If you really want to apologize, it is completely inapporpriate to say more than that you are sorry . How you can expect any community member to feel that you are truly contrite? Why point out that you did the interview for free? Why tell us about how much of your life you've poured into wikipedia? Or how much you hate trolls and vandals, or how much work you do to fight against them? Why include a defiant statement that you have no intention of going anywhere? It seems like you're trying to get people on your side. You've done a lot of great work for wikipedia. But when you're apologizing, you shouldn't talk about it, or try to win people over to your side. Apologzing is about being humble and admitting that you were wrong. Making an argument for yourself takes away from that humility. It makes it impossible for me to take your apology seriously.

An apology would have been nice. Instead, we get a self aggrandizing justification. JosephMDecock 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the above. There is a higher road to take out of this mess Essjay, but so far, it's not the road you have chosen. The damage to your reputation here only increases the longer you avoid accepting true responsibility for your actions. There is clearly more to it than a simple attempt to hide your identity as you have on more than one occassion attempted to leverage your false persona into greater credibility—there were many options for hiding your identity, yet you chose this approach which offers more than a simple identity shield. I urge you to take the high road while that path is still available and step down from at least checkuser and oversight, but probably from ArbCom and as a bureaucrat as well. I say this with the utmost respect for your work here and because I would hate to see your reputation here completely destroyed. —Doug Bell  00:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the above. Fortunately, I can spell unfortunately ;) --Tagishsimon (talk)

Yeah, I battle with my missing spelling gene each and every day. —Doug Bell  02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see another comment on Essjay's "apology" not actually apologizing for anything.

Here's what I wrote at Slashdot (I have a four-digit ID there, for what it's worth) regarding the Essjay situation (Note that this was written before Essjay and Wales' attempts at ignoring the issue failed, forcing them to permit this current public discussion):

I've edited Misplaced Pages articles for going on three years now, and have always found it an impressive accomplishment. I've done more than my share (for one who isn't a basement-dwelling 21-year old who has way, way, way too much free time; Misplaced Pages, like many open-source projects, relies on an army of such fanatics to do much of the day-to-day work) of editing and copyediting articles and sometimes reverting vandalism when I catch it. The bottom line is that I like Misplaced Pages quite a bit.

Two things bother me about Essjay's case, though:

• As others have noted here, Wales is confusing--unintentionally or intentionally--a pseudonym with a falsified CV (I remember it impressing me when I read that The New Yorker article last year). If Essjay was concerned about Internet stalkers he simply didn't have to say anything at all on his User page, or simply say that he lived in British Columbia or Japan or Oregon instead of Kentucky. Instead, he came up with an entire, completely-plausible but completely-fake academic background in theology. It'd be one thing if he had stuck to edits on astronomy or Germany or Legos but, in fact, he specialized in articles on theology. Of course people would take edits by someone with those kinds of credentials more seriously.
• Beyond the pseudonym/fake-background issue. Essjay and some other admins don't like talking about this issue in public, and almost instantly threaten to ban those who do. I don't know if Purples is a sockpuppet for some otherwise-banned Misplaced Pages user, but he doesn't come across that way to me, and look what he gets in response to what I thought were pretty-legitimate questions. Yeechang Lee 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Now what?

I think that we should move this discussion somewhere else; it's starting to clog up Essjay's talk page. I'm thinking that we should move this to a subpage at WP:RFC (like Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Essjay or something similar). Thoughts? PTO 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I would prefer to hear a further response from Essjay first. I favor giving a brief period (no more than a day) for him to respond before starting an RfC. Let's give him another opportunity to make this right on his own—I think we owe him at least that. —Doug Bell  01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that would be a good idea. There's certainly plenty of commenting going on, so centralizing it would be good, if only to cut down on the chaos. And as I'm guessing this will end up in ArbCom's hands eventually, RFC is the next step along that path as well. William Pietri 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerned

When I first asked you about your dual identities, your explanation was both reasonable and justifiable. Claiming you have a Phd and theological tenure is a stupid thing a twenty two year old would say, so I don't have a problem there. However, the letter that has come to light and Kelly Martin's provision of times when you have used your fictious credentials to gain the upper hand in an argument disturbs me, far more than simply lying about your age. Wikipedians are drilled from the moment they edit in the principles of trust and assuming good faith, and as a Wikipedian yourself you took that trust and good faith and abused it for your own ends.

There have been many calls for you to resign; I have no opinion on your abilities as an administrator and bureaucrat, but it seems to me that the roles of checkuser and oversight are handed out specifically to the most trusted individuals on Misplaced Pages. You no longer are trusted by large swathes of the community, so I ask you to resign these roles until that trust has been restored. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Shut up.-BillDeanCarter 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he's entitled to his opinion whether you agree with it or not, Carter. I personally don't think that resigning would help him regain whatever trust he has lost, but would deprive us of an active checkuser and oversight, so it would be a negative for Misplaced Pages. --tjstrf talk 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is simply wrong-headed thinking. The workload is easy to compensate for. The loss of reputation to the project is magnitudes more difficult to repair. —Doug Bvell  01:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The loss of reputation already occurred. Saying that the embarrassing member has since been hung, drawn, and quartered after the fact would do little or nothing to reverse the reputation loss. This is a bad situation, I agree, and no his behaviour is not to be condoned. However, I have been taught that Misplaced Pages tries the be a realist in its actions, and not to deal out punishments (whether through official action or peer pressure) for their own sake. A forced resignation might slake the inevitable thirst for blood that arises after a mess like this, but would it actually help anything? I believe it would not. --tjstrf talk 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll happily take his place. I have a PhD in Badass from Awesometown University. 76.19.13.202 01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And apparently a masters in out-of-place juvenile smartassery to complement it. --tjstrf talk 02:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is clogging Essjay's talk page, and is basically harassment. He replied to the question, if you want more, ask, don't just pile on Yeah! Stick it to that Essjay guy! Essjay does a great deal for the community, and while I personally strongly disapprove of what he did, it does not change the fact that he has had a positive affect on the community. Imagine you are a new user. You don't want to reveal your identity, so you make a fake one. Over time, you become a major person in the community. Later, you regret that initial misinformation, and remove it from your userpage. When contacted by a magazine, you can't contradict yourself, or what would the readers think? But it is too late, it has spread to far. People look back and see... and judge. That is what I think happened to Essjay. If you want him to stop working for the project because he maliciously lied, I would agree with you. But to ask him to resign for something he no doubt regrets, is not something I could condone. I can tell this is stressful for him, and you are doing far more harm then good in this pointless discussion. Prodego 01:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that no mention is made of credentials other than being a "scholar" in the links Kelly puts up, and also note Kelly's misrepresentation of "one of Misplaced Pages's foremost experts on Catholicism" to read "Wikpedia's leading scholar on Catholicism". Rather careless when complaining about misrepresentation by someone else. ... dave souza, talk 01:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the sarcasm, people

Essjay is getting kicked around enough as-is without all of the random hecklers. Please, knock it off. PTO 01:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The guy deserves all the heckling he gets. When it's your job to be the guy who makes certain Misplaced Pages's content is truth, it becomes an Issue when you yourself can't be bothered to be truthful. It's like finding out that Merriam Webster can't actually speak English. 76.19.13.202 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay, along with 99% of editors, is not paid, so I don't think it would really be his 'job'. Prodego 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying he is not a paid employee of wikia? That seems to contradict information in evidence elsewhere. Jerry lavoie 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikia is a separate entity from Misplaced Pages, though they are closely related. He is paid for his work at Wikia, not his work here. --tjstrf talk 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but his description of his work at wikia seems to indicate that his work at wikia involves editing on various wikis' including the english wikipedia. So his edits here, in part appear to be part of his paid job at wikia. Not that it matters.... I was just confused about that. See my comment above "much ado about nothing", which sums up my opinion on the reaction to this situation. Essjay has been a major contributor to wikipedia, and his mentoring of other editors has earned him the positions he is in. I think his apology is sufficient, and it is time to move on. Jerry lavoie 04:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He got his job at wikia through his unpaid work for Misplaced Pages. Curiously no-one seems to have wondered why an academic hotshot cum paralegal would want to give it up to work for wikia.. Secretlondon 04:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Because this is a moment in which big babies can come out and whine. There isn't a lot of deep thought here on the part of those whining. These are first impressions, and heartfelt whimperings.-BillDeanCarter 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Shut up, you big babies

The work the guy has done far outweighs any misrepresentation on his part. What makes Misplaced Pages look bad is the constant whining.-BillDeanCarter 01:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Whining. That's probably it. 76.19.13.202 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages looks bad because it has serious credibility issues. This is further compounded by the fact that many Wikipedians so readily excuse these breaches of trust. Instead of addressing this concern, you'd rather go on a temper tantrum and project your own behavior onto those who are bringing up the concerns. Essjay's many contributions to Misplaced Pages is not the issue here, nor is it relevant. The issue here is using false credentials to gain an upper hand in arguments. Likwidshoe 02:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am delighted!

You and I share the same mental state... we believe we are someone we are not. I'm Napoleon, myself, and I'm a most excellent brain surgeon. Perhaps you can come over and visit me and the Queen for a spot of tea? You could even show me your degrees! Coolgamer 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed

I am just disappointed that what you did caused irreparable harm to wikipedia. I am also disappointed that you haven't apologized for using your fake credentials as leverage. -Ravedave 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Caveat It's rather early to be declaring any harm "irreparable", however wrong the actions of one person involved may have been. Matt Gies 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you cut open a pillow and scatter its feathers to the four winds you can never put all of the feathers back in the pillow. What he did is irreparable, you can't take back the doubt that is in peoples minds about wikipedians now. -Ravedave 06:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • OMG. Essjay is exactly what a Wikipedian is, and what I've always thought Wikipedians were. Some will be experts, professionals, others will pretend to be, some will be loons, and some will be highly educated unemployed individuals. Citizendium aims to be something more credible, but it loses it's creativity and accessibility in the process. Misplaced Pages is STRONGER because of what Essjay has done. It reveals what Wikipedians are and aren't. Get over yourself.-BillDeanCarter 06:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To Essjay:

I'm probably screwed for typing this, but:
Sometimes there are times when I feel there is nothing bonding myself to another Wikipedian, but your incident with your identidy is probably my connection to you. For years, concealing my real name and other information on the Internet has gone from a minor threat to a extreme hazard to the point of stalking because of Misplaced Pages editors and anti-Wiki users. Because of information I gave out, I was stalked to some extent and I had to throw a curveball somewhere to throw stalkers off. Stalkers looked for my last name (which I have heard at least 10 different last names, none of which are right), reasons for changing my Internet name, jobs (supposedly I was in the Military, a school teacher or a high school/college student, none of which are correct), my age (I've heard ages from 14 to 30 to 50), anything anybody tried to recover from me, I lied about or threw misinformation in the bunch. Some stuff was true though, like ya know, my birth name is David, or is it :) Seriously, some stuff is meant to be private and I feel you were entitled to keep whatever you wanted from your real-life, off-wiki and not given to the public. I am truly sympathetic towards you for the crap you had to put up with. I don't blame you for trying to cover up your identity, I did the same thing. — Moe 01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the people here don't have an issue with Essjay concealing his identity for protection (if that is what he was really doing), but choosing one with grandiose academic credentials and using those false credentials as way to gain authority and stature in a place where academic accomplishments significantly add to such. He used this persona and these false pretenses purposely and even with outside parties. Lying to the New Yorker in an interview about his background had nothing to do with protection, but fabrication. As Elonka said above, it wasn't like he was claiming to be "Father of 4 in Ohio, working as an insurance salesman." --Oakshade 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A chiming in

Didn't think a new header was needed, and I don't think this post is really needed, but I figured it would be the nice thing to do.

You said: "...it was, quite honestly, my impression that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be..."

I am in the same position mentality as you are in regards to this issue. Many people seem outraged, many are surprised, many are confused. But I long ago stopped figuring that you were a professor of Catholicism. It didn't fit anything you did and so I did reason it was for privacy reasons. I'm a fairly smart fellow so this just took a couple month deduction. The bottom line is, I don't care who you or any other user is in real life. You've become a stone in Misplaced Pages's corner over the past several years, and "scandal" be dammed. I never considered entrusting any user with any tool based on what they do in the professional world or academic training, and with Jimbo making you an arbitrator long after he knew of your identity is a testament to this assumption of good faith that personal lives are not relevant to judgment and abilities. Keep up the hard work. Teke 02:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Chin up

Chin up, stiff upper lip, this too will pass. InBC 02:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I appreciate your hard work around here. --A. B. 06:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A fresh start

Here's what I think should happen. Essjay should apologize (he did), and we should forgive him. That is paramount. However, he should also resign his powers for the sake of re-earning his trust with the community. This way, it's like he's rejoining Misplaced Pages; Dr. Essjay will be a thing of the past and he will be just plain Essjay. He will he a regular editor again, and when he gets his request for adminship ultimately comes, people won't be voting on Dr. Essjay, they'll be voting on the real Essjay. Same applies for other processes. This will allow him to continue contributing, eventually as the powerful person he is now, because even if he did some serious lying, he is extremely useful. Bludgeoning him will just prevent this great asset from being a help. Hugs and kisses are in order. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Addendum: My solution is a compromise, not entirely my personal opinion. It is supposed to be a median between catapulting him and ignoring it. As much as I'd like everyone to forgive, forget, and move on, there are quite a few people calling for Essjay's resignation. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great suggestion. By all accounts he's a hugely valuable contributor, and it'd be a shame to lose him. However, I would still like to see an apology, as I don't believe he has yet owned up to the full situation, probably even to himself. Once he's done that and resigned his posts, then I think people will find it much easier to forgive and, eventually, forget this ever happened. William Pietri 02:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seconded, although I think that it's unlikely that he will ever pass an RfA again. There are lots of people here who hate the idea of forgetting. PTO 02:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. – Chacor 02:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's where things stand, I think:

• You have acknowledged your incorrect decision to hide behind a huge lie
• You have not yet apologised for using this lie to gain an upper hand in content disputes (as laid out on the mailing list thread)
• You are in positions that require trust (admin, bureaucrat, arbcom, checkuser, access to arbcom list, oversight)
• People have called for your resignation from these positions
• It would be difficult for the general Misplaced Pages community to forgive you for this incident
• You do good work as an admin and bureaucrat and checkuser

I would recommend you voluntarily step down from arbcom and oversight, and temporarily suspend your checkuser activities until this blows over. You would have to apologise fully for any way you may have manipulated your false identity to gain an upper hand, sooner or later, so I'd ask you to do it now, or as soon as possible. You do good work as an admin and bureaucrat, so I'm not convinced you should step down from those positions. But just so you know, the whole community will find it quite hard to forgive. I know that first-hand. – Chacor 02:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not believe Essjay has acknowledged his decisions were incorrect, simply that they were hurtful. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say he acknowledged it was incorrect (I'd have said "decision to hide behind a huge lie was incorrect"), I meant to say I felt it was incorrect. Sorry for the ambiguity. – Chacor 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come off it.....

I am not, at this time, active on Misplaced Pages. And so I had no intention to comment on this. However, I'm afraid that I driven to do so precisely by your statement. Because, and it pains me to say this, I find the statement itself disingenuous. When one confesses, one ought to make a clean breast of it, rather than 'qualify' the apology with mitigation pleas and justifications that just don't stack up.

I *am* sorry if anyone in the Misplaced Pages 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

So, you've done nothing wrong? Well, I am not hurt by your decision to use disinformation. And you are quite entitled to protect yourself. But that self-righteous nonsense utterly misses the point. Concealing your identity is fine - I do it. Throwing in some red-herrings is clever - I wish I'd thought of it. What is unacceptable, is repeatedly relying on that disinformation to underline and reinforce your position in the community and to gain advantage in content and other disputes. You have paraded and exalted your false credentials. You have used them to pronounce authoritatively on matters - and bolstered your position in doing so. And what I find even worse, is you don't have the courage to admit it in the midst of your self-justifying twaddle.

Oh before I'm asked to verify this, I can. Others have already pointed to the diffs, but let me gather them here:

1. We should believe your testimony on what is a myth because "I've been a Catholic scholar for years"
2. This statement directly misleads a trusted admin to cite you in an arbitration case as "Misplaced Pages's foremost expert on Catholicism", a title which you yourself had the sheer arrogance to re-use to bolster your authority in another matter where you humbly "offer the community" your advice .
3. Here, in response to my own request, you testified as an expert in a debate, implying that what you as a scholar hadn't heard of was unlikely to be true .
4. Here again you offer 'expert advice' as a scholar of Catholicism again
5. More advice supported with the simple statement "I just happen to have spent my life studying the Church"
6. In a debate on expert testimony, you offer to speak for experts - with the doleful comment that you are one of the "marginalised" experts
7. Here you strengthen your case by slipping in "I'm an academic"
8. Here you declare "I understand the theology" whilst slipping in a subtle wikilink to your userpage which, of course, rehearses your credentials.
9. Here you brag on your own RfA "I am a theology scholar after all". Totally superfluous to any simple disinformation intention - but impressive as hell when you are gaming the system to seek position.
10. You also weeks pontificating on Catholic and related matters, all the while knowing that people were likely to listen because of the claims on your userpage.

It took me less than an hour to find all of these. So what more is there out there?

Mea culpa you (almost) say. Well 'almost' is not enough. This is not simply disinformation to befuddle trolls - like changing your name and inventing a boyfriend. This is fraudulent, consistent, and deliberate misrepresentation, used pompously to your own advantage and to gain position. Now, you are obviously quite an auto-dictat for an unqualified 24 year old (if you are 24). So, you'd have been able to contribute to these debates anyway. But the manner in which you smugly asserted yourself is quite unjustifiable, and especially with the nonsense you delivered to us above. You tried it on, you've been uncovered. Admit it.

But, on the other hand, it isn't actually that big a deal. You're 24, full of yourself, and you do silly immature things. Who hasn't? And - in the long run - who cares? But here's the thing, we can't move on to the long run, as long as you keep feeding us a line. Stop it - admit you've been an ass. Give a real apology, that doesn't tug at the heart strings and blame the trolls. And then? Then we can perhaps move on, and rebuild a modicum of trust and dignity.--Doc 02:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't even want to mention Robbie31 (talk · contribs). I'd like to think he is a real person, but... I'm just not sure anymore. -- tariqabjotu 02:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And with this edit, I sure hope he is real. -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch; I hope there's an explanation. — Deckiller 03:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the calls for Essjay to step down from ArbCom, let it be pointed out that Jimmy Wales named him to the committee, after meeting him in reality and knowing the truth of the identity deception. Teke 02:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course Jimbo can appoint who he wants, but he can't stem the hemorrhaging by fiat. A course of action that attempts to force an unaccepted solution on the community leads to the dark side. (I'm not trying to say what is acceptable to the community, just that "Jimbo says" is not going to fix this.) —Doug Bell  04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means I did not mean the "Jimbo says" as any sort of validation of the situation. I have made my position on that attitude know previously (I'm aginn' it). My reason for raising this in the thread was that I don't think this was an unforseen coming and I'm not expecting a resignation whether one is called for or not based on this elevation. This said, I'm leaving Essjay's talk page alone now. Happy editing to all. Teke 04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving this

Can we move this to another location? A format similar to a request for comment, although not necessarily a request for comment per se, would be nice. This is really starting to clutter the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a user talk subpage would be more appropriate. PTO 02:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard/Essjay? Teke 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is community noticeboard worthy for sure. (→Netscott) 03:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of this are messages addressed to Essjay. It would not be correct to move them. --Gmaxwell 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my point on this bouncing content, much of the first part of this page is directly addressed to Essjay and that would be appropriate to remain on his talk page. Discussion about him (if Essjay is really "a him") as a 3rd person is better suited for a community page. --Oakshade 03:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I addressed my comments to Essjay, and Essjay alone, on his talk page. He may move them, delete them, file them, as he sees fit. But no other user may do it. Especially do not move them to some obscure noticeboard I've never heard of. I did not address my comments to 'the community.--Doc 03:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification requested regarding your apology

I plan to cover the New Yorker story in this week's Signpost. Despite your statement that you do not intend to say anything further, I have to ask a further question. In your apology, you make some rather extraordinary claims about what Stacy Schiff communicated to you. Do you stand by those?

If you think there's anything more I need to know about this situation before I write, please let me know. --Michael Snow 03:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Liar

I simply will not let this go. I do not trust liars and I will let my lack of trust for you be known at every opportunity possible. I don't care what anyone says in response to this, it's a policy I deal with in real life and on here. If you didn't want people to know who you were, then just don't say anything. That's not hard. But no, you had to lie. I do not trust liars. Not a damn bit. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My take on the matter

Ok, I'm cutting into homework time to type this, but here it goes (forgive my long post):

I simply do not see why this matter has been blown completely out of proportion. Yes, many of us are disappointed in Essjay's apparent inflation of his credentials, as am I. Yes, many of us wish that he did not do so, as do I. However, I see that some users, anonymous IPs, vandals, trolls, and established editors alike, have all demanded harsh punishment for his actions in which he has already apologized for not far above. In short, these editors demand a Treaty of Versailles, Misplaced Pages-style, with demands ranging from resignation to desysopping to ban. Soon some editors will call for eternal divine damnation.

But what is the good of these drastic measures? Will it help Misplaced Pages if Essjay was stripped of his tools due to a publicized lapse of judgment? Will it help Misplaced Pages if Essjay was forced to leave here because some editors are calling for retribution of his unfortunately short-sighted actions? Will it help anyone if Essjay were to forcibly leave our presence, due to common immoral behavior that none of us have denied doing? Will it really benefit the hawks who so feverishly call for resignation, demotion, and public denunciation like those in the Cultural Revolution?

Though I may be disappointed in Essjay's actions, I choose to be one of the few who extend a hand of forgiveness. I do it not out of community approval or disapproval, I do it not out of Essjay's contentment, I do it not out of publicity. I forgive Essjay for his transgressions simply because that I, as many others, are not perfect, and will always make mistakes. I ask those who call for drastic measures to take a moment to step into Essjay's shoes, and visualize how it feels to be pressed by all sides, by both the Misplaced Pages community in which he has formed an intimate attachment to, and the online community and the world at large, in which he has become the de facto Misplaced Pages representative of sorts. Visualize how it feels to be remorseful, yet some still continue to demand more of your body, more of your mind, more of your soul.

But let me retrieve myself and you from this romantic-sounding daydream and get back to the point. I choose to forgive because a grudge is detrimental to all, to Essjay, to the avenger, to the community, and to Misplaced Pages. I choose to forgive because I recognize that I myself am imperfect, and will make (or perhaps already did) make the same mistakes. I choose to forgive because it is what I wish for others to do to me, and to each other, when we each fall into the same holes, the same traps. Forgiveness is not a resource that has to be rationed; it is a gift that we can provide to each other in abundant amounts. It is forgiveness that holds this community together, that gives people second chances to improve themselves, that gives an oppurtunity for the transgressor to reform him/herself, that allows us to tolerate each other without creating insurmountable friction, that gives Misplaced Pages a chance to survive, to grow, and to flourish, and to allow us to likewise survive, grow, and flourish. --physicq (c) 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could share the sentiment. I think Doc got it right—forgive and forget can't happen until Essjay comes clean and "gives a real apology, that doesn't tug at the heart strings and blame the trolls". Essjay has to acknowledge his wrongdoing, not attempt to rationalize it. —Doug Bell  07:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

True. Of course, a full apology is desired by many. However, I am a forgiving person; I do not hold grudges easily, unless they are out to get me, in which my response will not be so kind. However, Essjay has seemed to have recognized his faults, and I am willing to let it go to save myself, and many others, of future strife, stress, and suffering. --physicq (c) 07:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

However, I do recognize that Essjay has lost some trust within the community. I do not blame the community for being shocked and angered by such revelations. But I do ask for one thing: that the community respond to this incident in a calm and rational manner, and not resort to triggered and reflexive response that often have not been completely thought over and may hence worsen the situation rather than heal it. --physicq (c) 07:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you read this differently, but I think the primary desire from the community at this point is for Essjay to address the issue with more candor and character than he has to this point. The longer it goes without that, the more the sentiment is going to move away from forgiveness. —Doug Bell  07:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Then if the community wishes Essjay to fully reveal his remorse, then the community should persuade him and to prod him to do so. Creating an atmosphere of hatred and anger does not foster an environment of forgivenmess and regret, does it not? --physicq (c) 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It was Essjay who created the atmosphere of falsity and distrust and is exasperating it by not aknowledging it was wrong. Any bad feelins occuring are a direct result of his actions. --Oakshade 08:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And so you will further contribute to this atmosphere? And where is the point where we will hit rock bottom? --physicq (c) 08:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already at rock-bottom. Essjay's actions brought it here. When there's full accountability by him for wrong actions (and possible resignation of all of his posts), that will increase credibility for this project that was damaged due to this. --Oakshade 08:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't exactly what I meant. However, I respect your opinion. And what is the "accountability" (those are not scare quotes, but direct quotes) that you speak of? --physicq (c) 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The apology most people here are looking for, not some "qualified" one with excuses and justification. --Oakshade 08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's the community's responsibility to "persuade and prod" him anymore than they are. I think you need to look to Essjay to see where responsibility lies. I have no hatred; some anger, yes, but mostly sadness and profound disappointment. —Doug Bell  08:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

True; I'm not cutting Essjay off from his responsibility to fully coming out with an apology. But I do ask for rational responses, which, as far as I can see, have been somewhat lacking from some editors. However, you are right; what the community ultimately judges on depends on Essjay's actions from this point onward. --physicq (c) 08:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You might as well know ...

I'd figured you'd rather hear it about it first-hand rather than third-hand, so here are my externally-hosted reactions to this kerfluffle. I don't know what to say Essjay, I really don't. I trusted you. --Cyde Weys 03:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are a big baby.-BillDeanCarter 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a hard topic for all concerned, but please keep WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in mind. Even if you want to make a point like that, I'm sure you can find ways to say that that WP:AGF. William Pietri 04:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Using Fake Credentials to Justify Edits

Essjay has been using fake credentials to justify edits for as long as his account's been on Misplaced Pages. Here's one from April 2005, referring to a book he cited as authoritative: "This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's credibility." Rcade 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds of checkusers and other admin tasks, not to mention enough community confidence to have the most supported RFB of its time, and oh, those countless cases of mediation of dispute resolution mean NOTHING. HE LIED ABOUT THAT BOOK. Milto LOL pia 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to give him a pass from even a minimal standard of ethics because he's done a lot of work here, that's your prerogative. Personally, as an occasional Misplaced Pages editor, I'm waiting to see whether there's real accountability here from the top. Rcade 04:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethics? What are ethics? I'm far more internet evil than Essjay, I guarantee it. Let's see some "real acocuntability" regarding me!

Seriously though, what do you want to happen here? Do you want him banned? Desysopped? Maybe just de-checkusered and de-oversighted, what with those being "sensitive permissions". What are you holding out for? Milto LOL pia 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he should lose all admin privileges on Misplaced Pages and go through the process of seeking approval for them again. But I care more about what the management does than what happens to him. The fact that Wales appointed him to ArbCom by fiat *after* he admitted this fraud is unbelievable to me. Rcade 04:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you want him desysopped for principle's sake, and never mind all the vandals/sockpuppets who will squeak by in the mean time. On to the next post: does his lack of PhD make you doubt his capabilities as an admin/b'crat/checkuserer/oversighter? Milto LOL pia 04:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

His calculated attempt to present false academic credentials, here and in the press, makes me doubt his judgment on anything he's touched here. Rcade 04:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good find, Rcade, although I'm sad to see it. That's his fourth edit ever, and it's backing up his very first edit. Strange to think how such a momentary impulse set him on a course where he'd eventually mislead a Pulitzer-winning writer. William Pietri 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's so odd - before this, hardly anyone was worried about Essjay's administrative decisions. Was it because he had a PhD? Or was it because he had consistently shown good judgement? Milto LOL pia 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're talking to me, but in case you are, I'll say I'm not worried about his administrative decisions. I haven't even looked at them. But spending the better part of two years maintaining a fiction, including lying to an award-winning reporter writing an article for a major national magazine, and then falling back on (at best) a half-truth when it comes out? That's not something I'm willing to call "consistently showing good judgement". And good judgement is what I want in high places like ArbCom. William Pietri 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The "lied to a reporter" has got to stop, it's not his fault she was too much of a ninny to check his background before publishing it for the world to see. I mgiht try and set up an interview with her just so I can tell her lies for lulz. Milto LOL pia 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

From : "Essjay is serving a second term as chair of the mediation committee. He is also an admin, a bureaucrat, and a checkuser, which means that he is one of fourteen Wikipedians authorized to trace I.P. addresses in cases of suspected abuse. He often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz, and he keeps an eye on twenty I.R.C. chat channels, where users often trade gossip about abuses they have witnessed." Yes, she made a mistake in not checking what he said sufficiently. But that does not change the fact that he lied to her, and it certainly does not excuse it. William Pietri 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia - It's not his fault that he fooled a reporter? That's your position? Likwidshoe 02:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar time

This story is so sad. While I agree on much of the criticism, those things have already been said by so many others - I don't have to repeat them. Although you've suffered quite a bit of face loss, your contributions to Misplaced Pages remain the same. When the fury of this storm is over, I hope you will still be an active editor and appreciated administrator. // habj 13:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Community discussion

Given what I percieve to be the importance of this story on a community wide basis I have opened a thread at a more appropriate venue see: Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard#Essjay-The New Yorker community discussion. I encourage the Misplaced Pages community to voice itself relative to this story. (→Netscott) 04:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to know about Ryan Jordan (Misplaced Pages) and the AFD on it. – Chacor 04:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Subject of new WP article

(edit conflict) Courtesy notice.per Chacor. Already up for AfD. --Oakshade 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "apologies" sound fake

Essjay, I don't know you, but it's clear that you have done loads of valuable, tedious and often thankless work for Misplaced Pages, so I thank you for that.

Looking over your very first edits in Spring 2005, I see that you used your supposed credentials as Catholic scholar early on to bolster your positions when arguing with other Wikipedians. In May 2005, after not even two dozen edits in article space, you put the fake credentials on your user page. Your claim that this was done as an elaborate scheme of misinformation to mislead "trolls, vandals and stalkers" rings hollow: at that time you were not even close to becoming a target of the stalkers and that was certainly not on your mind; instead you were just a little troll yourself. You became enamored with the project, like so many of us; you rose through the ranks, and you couldn't find the strength to admit your initial deception. That's sad but understandable. Maybe you felt like a victim of your initial troll, trapped.

But no: you were happy to use your fake credentials in a letter to an outside academic, and you surely mentioned them in the hour long talk with the journalist and fact checker from the New Yorker. I have no doubt that you were quite certain to be quoted as an "Misplaced Pages editing academic". Your statement from today "it was, quite honestly, my impression that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be" is, in my judgment, another lie. On 00:56, 24 November 2006 you deleted User:Essjay/Personal, the page containing your fake credentials, with the comment "(This is really stuff people should already know...)"

It is clear that this story will explode and will be found in the world's newspapers before long. Misplaced Pages has been harmed in many ways by your actions. Write an honest apology. Resign your posts. Keep working on Misplaced Pages. AxelBoldt 08:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

From any objective take, on this narrow issue of credentials or disclosed background, Essjay has no credibility left. Nothing this user says about himself can be believed because his assertions of authority weren't innocently masked for security purposes, they were wholly misrepresented and what's more, seemed to have been used to gain sway in edits of content. He also showed a docking big lack of judgement in allowing a reporter from a major publication to take his fake screen credentials at face value and moreover seems to have used these fake credentials offline. What does this say about his judgement, say as a Wikia employee (never mind as a WP admin, CU and so on) overall? I don't agree with Jimbo's public reasoning on this but do agree there is no reason to ban the person behind the username. IMHO Essjay should take on a new username and be banned (or strongly discouraged) henceforth from making any representation as an editor about his educational or employment history. Gwen Gale 09:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

you are featured in this article. (unsigned comment by user:Felisberto 10:09, 2 March 2007)

Impostor among us

Well, well. So a real-world impostor has deciced to use wikipedia as a platform for his self-aggrandizement. Probably because we are more vulnerable than, say, Princeton that could expel James Hogue. Enjoy your notoriority in our expense - Skysmith 10:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bastards

We all know that the rules of internet personae are not well defined. And there are gripers in every crowd who will pontificate from any point of view. Don't let them get you down.-Ste|vertigo 12:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately though the rules and laws of fraud are very clearly defined. Deceiving the national press with false qualification to add weight to one's statements has disgraced us all. Giano 12:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your actions

Courtesy linking: A discussion regarding your actions has been initiated at WP:CN here. Regards, Navou / _contribs 12:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't listen to them

So you misled people about your credentials. Personally I don't care. Anyone who thinks that you have gained the influence you have within the community because of these 'credentials' has a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Misplaced Pages works, and could do us all a service by sodding off to Citizendium. Anyway, long story short I hope you aren't forced into giving up sysop, checkuser or any other of the capabilities which you've used for the benefit of this project. Keep up the good work. Cynical 12:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The facts - Synopsis

You have flatly lied about yourself. Contrary to your claim of it being a few minor insubstantial points to protect your identity, you clearly knew or should have known that in so doing you would influence the regard you had amongst users here. This was a flat-out fraud, and to call it by any other name is insulting to everyone who edits Misplaced Pages. The fact that Jimbo even seemed to endorse, or at least ignore, your outrageously deceitful actions brings the reputation of all higher ups into disrepute. - Abscissa 13:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (Member since 2003)

You are a big cry baby.-BillDeanCarter 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:No personal attacks, thanks. Gwen Gale 14:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just discovering this fracas.

The excuse appears BS imho, the fake page appeared way before I could find any type of threat(though this could unusually be blocked too) I'd have to say I have no trust in Essjay, or anyone else that posts/edits on here for that matter, I take everything objectively and go from there, goes back to the concept of Misplaced Pages by itself not being an adequate source. I work as a police officer, how would it look a report if I only took statements from one party, or biased my report for a certain side. Misplaced Pages will survive, we will move on, I am not sure about the administrators stand on this(as in questionability) but it's his/theirs project we just contribute to it, be that editting, donations or otherwise.

PS. Essjay if you fabricate any personas in the future, remember its thEIr, kind of struck me to think I had better spelling skills then a professor. Squashed that didn't we.

Dureo 13:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

just realized I called everyone on here a liar, I didn't mean it like that, not to be misconstrued, I only meant in the context that I don't take articles here as fact, just standing alone, only with sources and references.

Dureo 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Community opinion on the Essjay situation

• Express your opinions here: Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard/Essjay

I think it would be good to do an informal survey of community opinion on this situation regarding User:Essjay. Though all the comments up to now are helpful, I think Jimbo needs to see where the community stands and an informal poll or petition is the way to do it. --Aude (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also some added questions directed at Jimbo, asking for an apology or something from him might be appropriate too. Feel free to tweak the questions. --Aude (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good to do an informal survey of community opinion on this situation regarding User:Essjay. Yes? I think it would be good to do nothing at all for a week or so. Right now the amazing horrific shocking sensational whatever about Essjay is all the rage; a week from now those with short attention-spans will have directed them back to Britney Spears's hairstyle or similar and it will be that much easier for more thoughtful people to apply their brains to this issue (or non-issue). -- Hoary 14:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you think that's true, you're not thinking. This is a case of serious misconduct by someone who holds positions of power within the encyclopedia, and his misconduct has the potential to taint all of our work and destroy what has been built here. Who is going to donate to an encyclopedia which employs a known and admitted fabulist? FCYTravis 15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Here it "has the potential to taint"; some minutes later and a couple of paragraphs below you say it is actually "tainting"; at this rate, a few more paragraphs and you'll be saying it's actually "destroying". But then of course I'm "not thinking". Except that I'm thinking that an awful lot of people around here are getting terribly, terribly excited. Well, I'm going to bed. -- Hoary 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dira necessitas

When Brandt first started writing about how he doubted you were who you said you were I laughed. "A dependable guy like Essjay wouldn't be lieing about being an academic." When people criticized Misplaced Pages for having too few tenured academics on board you were one of my counterexamples. I was very disappointed to hear the truth and even more disappointed to read your non-apology apology above.

You say: I have no intention of going anywhere, because to do so would be to let the vandals, trolls, and stalkers win. I don't understand this. What do vandals have to do with anything? Even if they do why should you make decisions based on what they think?

You have lost the trust of such a large part of the community that I doubt you can effectively carry on your duties. Please resign. Haukur 14:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up vandals and trolls is the same straw man as "If you don't agree with me, the terrorists win." Gwen Gale 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have lost a lot of respect for Wikipedians because of how easily they turn on one of their own, instead of defending Essjay. It's probably a good idea to look at why Essjay created a persona, and see that it wasn't to defraud Misplaced Pages, but a little bit of fantasy role-playing and a little protection from prying eyes. This whining is embarrassing. This lynching is unacceptable.-BillDeanCarter 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Roleplaying is for MUDs, not for wikipedia - Skysmith 14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Damnit, I have to agree with Haukur. Misplaced Pages is not the place for falsification, disinformation, or using such to bolster your own arguments. You were one of my favorite Wikipedians up until this came out (and maybe I'm naive for not knowing sooner); now I have to re-evaluate everything I've thought up until now. -- nae'blis 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You must step down

There is no alternative, Essjay. Your lies and fabrications have caught up with you, like Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair. Nothing you ever write will be trusted, nor will any action of yours be respected. By selfishly refusing to quit your positions of trust within Misplaced Pages, you are tainting all our work with your misdeeds. For the good of the encyclopedia, you must resign your positions. FCYTravis 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh? The alternative is for him not to step down. Putting aside questions about what Essjay has done (non-trivial and interesting questions, better dealt with when fewer people are huffing and puffing so loudly), he hasn't "tainted" any of my work whatever, and I don't think I'm alone in believing or saying this. -- Hoary 15:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

non-trivial and interesting questions, better dealt with when fewer people are huffing and puffing so loudly Wise sentiments. Essjay certainly hasn't "tainted" my work either. Thatcher131 15:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If people come to believe that what appears in Misplaced Pages is influenced by deceit and manipulation, then he certainly has tainted your work as it would be percieved by others. The credibility of any written work is judged not just by its content but also by the integrity of those who write it. Dragons flight 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, context and provenance mean something. Gwen Gale 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

selfishly refusing to quit - I'd consider it selfiush if he did step down from various posts, as he keeps many parts of Misplaced Pages alive. Everyone makes judgement mistakes of different magnitude. I suggest that those who are calling for "resignation" get rid of the planks in their own eyes before pointing out the speck in Essjay's. Martinp23 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Which planks would those be? I have never lied about my academic credentials, pretended to have held jobs I have not held, tried to assert my superiority of knowledge based on fabricated experience or engaged in a campaign of deception in order to secure positions of trust within Misplaced Pages. Essjay has done all of the above. FCYTravis 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm yet to meet anyone without a plank in their eye, including myself. I doubt that Essjay intentionally engaged in a campaign of deception in order to secure positions of trust within Misplaced Pages - people are shouting WP:AGF needing to be backed up by honesty, so try assuming good faith for Essjay. Although I don't doubt that Essjay's ind Jimbo's comments have harmed Misplaced Pages at least for the short term, I also don't doubt that when I was involved with the blocking of Qatar, I harmed Misplaced Pages's reputation - no one screamed "stand down" at me (ie - from admin status). The communtiy is turning into a lynch mob, making a mountain out of a molehill, probably because of Essjay's influence. I feel that it would be easy to move on, and that by slowing the Encyclopedia down so much by wrangling over this, we're proably doing more damage than Essjay ever did. My feeling is effectively "move along folks, nothing to see here...". Martinp23 17:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Everyone makes judgement mistakes of different magnitude". Judgment mistakes? That is bullshit ! (to borrow a phrase). He willfully misrepresented himself to all of Misplaced Pages, not to mention to that reporter and a real professor (via 'that' letter). He has zero credibility left and can only hurt Misplaced Pages; if he had any remaining integrity at all he would have already departed from Misplaced Pages. Duke53 | 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I have had items sent to me (via USPS) that are associated with Misplaced Pages and are simply harassment and / or threatening in nature. Should I have claimed to be something / somebody else, ala essjay?

What he has done is associate Misplaced Pages's "most trusted" editors and administrators with lies, deceit and fabrications. The fact is that Essjay intentionally and maliciously faked his identity in an apparent effort to gain an upper hand in debates and establish credentials which led to his election to positions of trust within the Misplaced Pages community. It has been revealed that all of it is a lie, every single bit of it. He is a fraud, and by association, Misplaced Pages is a fraud as long as he sits in those positions of trust. Any newspaper, magazine or other publisher would fire such a liar in a moment, and if we hope to ever be taken seriously, we must not tolerate deceit either. As far as I'm concerned, anything Essjay says or does is a lie until proven otherwise - and that means he's unfit to serve in any position of trust. FCYTravis 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a little bossy FCYTravis, when using the word must, try to back it up with a policy. InBC 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy? How about common sense and good judgement? FCYTravis 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, a suggestion would suit better than a demand, as common sense and good judgment vary from person to person. InBC 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the "tainting" point. Misplaced Pages has been struggling for credibility due to a number of factors. Some people not previously decided on the issue are undoubtably going to see not only the fraud committed at the highest levels, but then condoned as if it were nothing by the founder. To say this doesn't taint all of Misplaced Pages is to deny the reality of the situation. —Doug Bell  16:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt Controversy, etc

Hey; hang in there with this whole fuss - hopefully it'll blow over in a few days. In the meanwhile, let me say you're doing a great job and it's just a disillusioned lynch mob out to get you.

Keep your chin up!

Kindest regards,
Anthonycfc 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a disillusioned lynch mob. Please don't minimize the legitimate concerns of well-meaning and established editors who have deep concerns about a trusted member of our community who has perpetuated a series of lies over a lengthy period of time. --ElKevbo 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good evening; I respectfully beg to differ - at the end of the day, we are an encyclopedia: and that means articles. No articles have suffered because Essjay (incorrectly) stated he had a formalised qualification in the areas in question. At the end of the day, he is still very knowledgable in those areas; the edits he made to these articles are not degraded because he doesn't have letters after his name, and that's why this has been blown out of all proportion.

The term disallusioned lynch mob was simply used as a metaphor to show that certain editors who haven't actually been directly affected are calling for him to be stripped of CheckUser, Oversight, Arbitrator, etc.. - from what I've seen, he's doing an excellent job on the ArbCom. Perhaps some should take a leaf out of Essjay's book and refrain from editing here until the room temperature has calmed down.

Dixi,
Anthonycfc 14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Quadell's message to Essjay

Essjay, thank you for all you have done for Misplaced Pages. I hope, no matter what happens here, that you will continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages and will feel at home. No one should forget how much of an asset you have been, and still are, to this project.

However, many above have documented how you used your false credentials to bolster your arguments, both inside and outside Misplaced Pages. You have not apologized for this.

Being an admin is "no big deal", and faking credentials is not a valid reason for de-administration, in my book. Your position at Wikia is not my concern, as I use only Misplaced Pages. But being a member of the arbitration committee requires the strong trust of the community. Similarly, your checkuser rights could reasonably be seen as inappropriate, since the community would have to trust your claim that two IPs are the same, and this trust does not currently exist. Your continued service in these roles will serve to damage Misplaced Pages, and I know you don't want that.

I strongly urge you to apologize for using your assumed credentials to bolster your arguments; that you resign from the Arbcom; and that you voluntarily surrender your checkuser rights. You have not violated any Misplaced Pages policy, and I don't see any reason you should no longer be an admin or a bureaucrat, but any position that depends on a high level of community trust is not one in which you can be effective at this time. Finally, I recommend that you don't let the haters get you down, and that you continue to use your obvious talents and strong work ethic to improve this worthy project.

Sincerely, – Quadell 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nandesuka

Without expressing or demanding any particular course of action, I see it as absolutely self-evident that you are of course permitted to fabricate a "persona" to protect yourself from stalkers on Misplaced Pages. However, I see it as equally self-evident that using that fabricated persona's nonexistent qualifications in the course of a content dispute is unethical in the extreme. I find your lackadaisical attitude towards that serious ethical lapse to be disappointing. Nandesuka 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I came here to say something, and found that Nandesuka had already put it quite well. All that I would add is that I'm disappointed that someone with a position of prestige at an encyclopedia has so little concern for intellectual honesty. Using a fake identity is something I have no problem with, but arguing from non-existent credentials is entirely different. If we don't stand for intellectual honesty, then Misplaced Pages has already failed. -GTBacchus 04:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You have my support

Regardless of the outcome of the mess you're currently in, you will always have my support and admiration, since what you've done for Misplaced Pages up until a few days ago is extraordinarily incredible. Whether you decide to step down or not should be based not on the opinions of trolls, malefactors, etc., but rather on your own self-judgment. Scobell302 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a Thought

I am a new user but I stumbled across this dispute and read all about it and searched the histories and all that. I'm not really sure what Essjay's motivations were but one thing I did notice is that Essjay's 7-month absence from Misplaced Pages last year approximately corresponds to the time of the interview to when he decided to come clean about his misrepresentation. Just my 2 cens Hallibrah 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Please don't shoot the messenger, but an RFC has been opened on your conduct (not by me). You can view it Here, and respond if you so choose. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Moral support

Although I can understand trust issues becuase of the fake credentials, please remember that a lot of us still respect what you have done and what you will (hopefully) continue to do for Misplaced Pages. Although I feel you should resign from ArbCom because of this issue, I feel that you can bounce back. Thanks a lot for your hard work! — Deckiller 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about Falun Gong arbitration process

You may not have noticed, by one of the Falun Gong practitioners who is party to the arbitration case now in evidence has launched a major edit discussion about one of the Falun Gong pages, Li Hongzhi, which is presently frozen here: Is it really appropriate to have that process continue independent of the current Arbitration case? It seems to me that an already complex situation will be rendered even more complex if there's simultaneouly disupted editing on one of these pages. Shouldn't Happy in General's issues be combined with the arbitration case in some way? --Tomananda 23:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to focus on building a consensus while editors are concerned about the Arbitration seems unlikely to work out, which is why the Mediation Committee and I agreed the Mediation should be put on hold. However, if editors want to try, that is their choice so far as I know. I believe the clerk, Thatcher131 moved that to the talk page because ArbCom focuses on behavioural issues rather than content ones, but you could ask him / her. Anyways, I am sure Essjay would know of something better to tell you, so I'll try to make sure he sees this message. : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just dropped by the site and discover a bit of a firestorm...

Essjay...my goodness, it's been too long. I hope you're well, although it appears from some of the pages I've seen today that life's a bit rough at Misplaced Pages right now. I just wanted to tell you congratulations about the promotion to the AC, and to warn you how difficult it can be to sit in that spotlight, but by now you know all about that, far better than I do. I hope all goes well, and while I'm sure my confidence means little (given how ghostly I've become around this place), I saw the news and felt compelled to let you know how much I trust you to make wise decisions here.

I noticed when I came to your userpage that you had a bio up...and was confused, since I had recalled your identity differently. I was about to post my congratulations with a note saying I had confused you somehow with someone else, but then I discovered the maelstrom here and read a little of it. I don't quite know what to say--I feel I must have made a bit of a fool of myself, seeking advice on theological matters, etc. But then trust is what the site is built on, and I want you to know you still have mine--a paltry gift, I feel sure, but it is yours, such as it is. If there is no such thing as Wikiforgiveness, there ought to be. I hope someday you'll let me know, via email or my talk page, why you chose to represent yourself the way you did, but then maybe I never knew you well enough to warrant having the whole story, or to justify this request for an explanation. I promise you, I ask it not in outrage, but in a desire to understand better someone I still think of as a friend at this place I have kept at an arm's length these many months. Maybe one day when the winds stop blowing you'll favor me with the story.

As always, I wish you well, and hope that March will go out like a lamb, as far as you're concerned. Until we speak again, happy wikiing, and may you continually find peace-- Jwrosenzweig 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A Wink and a Nod

You know, this New Yorker thing you pulled off was the craziest thing I've heard of in a long time. Now of course I wouldn't go so far as to say that I approved of it, but a good bluff is a good bluff. Happy (and stress-free!) editing, --Merovingian ※ Talk 05:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a special circle of reserved for duplicitous like you.

I can't believe that now that you've been outed as a complete fraud you've gone on to make up an entirely NEW story on your user bio, describing yourself as a former paralegal and account manager at a major corporation. Kade 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi...your comments here are simply ridiculous, do nothing but convince myself that you are a troll and I see no reason you shouldn't be permabanned indefinitely. There is a way to voice your opinion without resorting to the kind of heinous comments as you have done here.--MONGO 06:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. (You've gotta admit, it's worth a chuckle) Maîtresse 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say that the tone of some contributions here are real bad, on the Norwegian bokmåls/riksmålswikipedia postings like the one that started this thread would have been deleted immediately and the user banned for quite some time. Dont see any reason to accept a language like that. Ulflarsen 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But Ulflarsen, you appear to be an Old European. Me too, and we're not equipped for such flights of rhetoric. (For one thing, does the fill the brain or the sack ?) This (redacted) language goes with big belt buckles, the appeal to truthiness, and other mysteries. Team America helps us gain an inkling about this inscrutable higher civilization. -- Hoary 08:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC), "redacted" (such an impressive word!) by autoredactor Hoary at 09:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to remind Kade of our no personal attacks policy, which this violates seven ways from Sunday. Aside from it being policy and good manners, people are unlikely to take your concerns seriously if you can't state them in a reasonable tone. William Pietri 08:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's comment

FYI - User talk:Jimbo Wales. Can we stop trying to figure out who to blame and start thinking about how to move on? Guettarda 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to wait for Essjay's answer. Thatcher131 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the figuring out who to blame is over. How we move on depends on EssJay's answer but I think at this point, it mostly affects EssJay. What I would like to see is this to stop being a spectacle. Those who derive great pleasure in the drama and oppose the project will work to keep this alive. EssJay is a great contributor. I hope EssJay realizes that the "positions of trust" are "no big deal" and continues to work on making the encyclopedia better as he has for the past few years. --Tbeatty 07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

People keep saying "EssJay is a great contributor." How do I know that's not just as false as the other stuff you used to believe about him? How do I know the vandals he fought weren't sockpuppets of his? Why should I believe anything about him without really good evidence? Apparently his friends have been accepting his self appraisal on things without checking for years. How do I know anything you guys claim for each other is true when you show such utter contempt for truth? His friends say so what he lied. Well, with that attitude why should I believe anything his supporters say? WAS 4.250 09:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't like Essjay less because of this, I don't have "utter contempt for the truth", although I do think honesty is overrated. Anyway, if I added evidence to my statement, when/if I have time, would that actually make a difference? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 09:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think "utter contempt for the truth" here is a little strong even for Essjay, and certainly for his friends and supporters. Personally, I think Essjay just fell into a classic "tangled webs" situtation. He told a small lie very early on in his career here, which unfortunately snowballed into an international sensation. Although I'm not necessarily asking you to cut him some slack, I'd like you to consider how horrible this must be for him. He's just given a big black eye not just to himself, but to a project he clearly loves. I'm not saying you shouldn't be upset, but you can be upset and compassionate at the same time. William Pietri 09:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I will ask people to cut him some slack. He's only given himself a black eye, not the project. Let's not overreact, and let's wait for him to comment. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fairly niave. Of course he's given the project a black eye. That doesn't mean it won't recover, but to deny that effect is naive. —Doug Bell  09:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

99.99% of wikipedia readers will never realise this happened, have never heard of Essjay, will never hear of him or of this mistake. For most editors, those numbers won't be a lot higher. For those of us that are active, it will be higher, but we have the experience to know that no real damage has been done, except to Essjay. The servers won't miss a beat. Articles will still be created, improved, vandalised, reverted and read. That is what matters, not this. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Only time will tell, but I don't think I'm overreacting. This won't be nearly the sensation that the Segenthaller thing was, but it goes far beyond affecting Essjay alone. I count dozens of blog reactions, some very prominent, a number of news items, and several friends asking me about it. As the Chronicle of Higher Education says, " the incident is clearly damaging to Misplaced Pages's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud." You're right that the world will keep turning and Misplaced Pages will survive, so this isn't a trip to the ICU. But I am still willing to call it a black eye for Misplaced Pages. William Pietri 10:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of Essjay. I guess that makes me 0.01%. He's a pretty important guy, which is why this is such a big deal in the first place. – Lantoka (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay has been around longer than any other Editors I know and since I joined Misplaced Pages, I have heard about all the good things he has done for Misplaced Pages and 1 mistake should not halt his happiness. He is one of the the most notable of all Wikipedians and to forgive him would be the right thing to do because then we can actually move forward. Jimbo did the right thing by accepting his apology and now I dont think there is any problem and we should stop blaming Essjay for his one mistake and look at what he has done since he joined Misplaced Pages..--Cometstyles 12:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It hurts to see Essjay in such a mess, but I second Comestyles comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"... we should stop blaming Essjay for his one mistake". And what would be his "one mistake"?

• Lying about his background / work experience / credentials on his user page?
• Lying to the New Yorker reporter?
• Lying when he wrote that letter to the authentic professor?
• (etc., etc., etc.)

AFAIAC, every edit he ever made was built on a foundation of dishonesty; rather than 'licking his wounds' and showing remorse he is proud of his lies. He should walk away from Misplaced Pages now. Duke53 | 17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as you recall? Obviously your don't recall is off. Quote from JImbo for you, "People who characterize him as being "proud" of it or "bragging" are badly mistaken." Now take your nastiness and go home. pschemp | talk 19:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, can't we drop it now? Surely we don't want to make it impossible for Essjay ever to come back? ElinorD (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Luck

Hi essjay - I was one of the folk who prodded you about this, and was sorry to see it escalate so seriously. i see jimbo has asked you to resign your positions, which is really the only sensible thing possible at the mo.

As i've said all along, you do good work, and seem to be a very nice person - and maybe this is a beginning, not an end? - good luck and hope you're well none-the-less..... Purples 07:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time

I think it's time we heard from you Essjay. Jimbo has communicated with you and briefly with us. There are many open questions. I know you need to read this all before responding, but I have to believe that you have been. There is no way forward from here without hearing from you. We wait, but perhaps not as patiently as we should. —Doug Bell  08:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Doug Bell, the longer you wait, the harder it gets. And everyone who is reading this, lay off Essjay for the moment. With some of you criticizing him, and even swearing at him, it isn't surprising that he haven't replied yet. --K.Z 10:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it is time for essjay to fish or cut bait. For someone who bragged about how much time he spent here (and that he would be returning to his normal activity after sleeping for a while) the silence from essjay is deafening! His last activity is here: ... his pseudo-apology (more than 48 hours ago). This indicates to me that he may be a coward, in addition to being a confirmed liar. Note to essjay: do the right thing for once ... leave Misplaced Pages forever, and do it now. Duke53 | 19:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Lay off; be civil ~ Arjun 20:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No; if anybody is not being civil in this incident it is the confirmed liar (essjay). Duke53 | 20:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

These kind of comments from Duke53 are really, really unhelpful. The more I see of them, the more my sympathy grows for Essjay (whom I have criticised). I'd remove them as trolling, except that Essjay has a notice at the top of this page asking people not to do that. I really don't see the point of kicking him when he's down, unless we want him not to feel able to come back ever. ElinorD (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"unless we want him not to feel able to come back ever". By George, I think you've got it ! Duke53 | 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Whither Misplaced Pages?

Having been away from WP for some months perhaps make it easier for me to see that essentially, just about everything everyone said above is correct!

1. I agree with User:Doc glasgow, User:Axel Boldt, User:Eloquence and the others who pointed out that while protecting yourself from harrassment by choosing a pseudonymous "handle" or withholding personal information on your user page might be prudent, there is a huge difference between withholding your real life identity and fabricating a fake real life identity.
2. I agree with those who point out that the positions held by Essjay in the Misplaced Pages are analogous, in American political life, to the office of Supreme Court Justice. How would Americans feel if a Justice revealed that he had fabricated his legal credentials? How could they retain confidence in their judicial institutions? Jimbo simply had no choice but to demand Essjay's resignation. Misplaced Pages can and must find others to fill his shoes.
3. I agree with all those who recognize the innumerable positive contributions Essjay has made to the Misplaced Pages, and his reputation for apparently (aye, there's the rub!) acting responsibly in his position of trust.
4. I agree with all those who feel that, as of the date of my comment, given the violation of trust and the power of his former privileges, Essjay's apologies have been woefully inadequate.
5. A hypothetical justice who revealed that his legal credentials are fraudulent would most likely not work in the legal profession again, and I feel that the real life analogy holds true: regretfully, I must agree with those who argue that Essjay cannot be entrusted with positions of high responsibility again within Misplaced Pages society--- his deception has been far too damaging for that level of forgiveness.
6. I agree with User:Prodego's analysis of how Essjay might have gotten himself into this mess, and I agree with those who argue that the Misplaced Pages community should offer him the opportunity to continue to contribute as an ordinary user.

Which is where I feel we can move the discussion beyond the particulars of Essjay's fall from grace. I propose that the community turn its attention to the question of what lessons can be drawn from Essjay's mistakes. I feel that one lesson is glaringly obvious, if only because I have been arguing along these lines for almost a year: Misplaced Pages policies and customs encouraging anonymity and ambiguous identities inevitably blur the boundaries of moral behavior, which renders it entirely too easy for a newbie to fall into the errors made by Essjay early in his Misplaced Pages career. In addition, the fact that

1. some users edit under their real name (and indeed endure endless harrassment on and off-wiki, with the result that we are inevitably driven out of the WP),
2. some users adopt a pseudonym and divulge little personal information about themselves, but construct a coherent wikidentity, possibly gaining the trust of the community and rising to positions of authority, entirely on the basis of the quality of their edits and the public record of their actions at WP,
3. some users, like Essay, go further and construct an elaborate but falsified "real life" identity to complement their wikidentity,
4. some users register numerous sockpuppet accounts,
5. some users edit as IP anons

tends to create a profound inequity of accountability for one's actions here, and leads to innumerable other social problems within the Misplaced Pages community. On the basis of my (extensive) experience participating in the Misplaced Pages, I feel that number two is the best choice, and should be the only choice allowed from this point forth.

I'd like to see Jimbo Wales and the Misplaced Pages community finally acknowledge that despite the venerable tradition of anonymity in expressing political arguments such as those set out in the Federalist papers, the Misplaced Pages is or should be ultimately an encyclopedia, and as such, the need to ensure the veracity, balance, and integrity of information presented in Misplaced Pages articles, and therefore, to ensure the accountability and integrity of its editors, must in the end trump all other considerations. The political structure of Misplaced Pages is, or should be, only a means to the end of building an encyclopedia. Editing the Misplaced Pages is a privilege, not a right. Those who for whatever reason are unwilling to accept the same level of accountability voluntarily assumed by editors like myself should not be allowed to edit at all. Those who repeatedly and seriously abuse the privilege of editing (e.g. by vandalism, obstructive editing, threatening other users) should be evicted from the community. And should not expect to find it easy to sneak back in under an assumed identity.

I'd like to see Jimbo and the community bite the bitter bullet and acknowledge that continuing to allow unfettered ambiguity of wikidentities is simply not in the best interests of the project. I feel that the rules should be changed to state that everyone must provide some proof of identity to register (visible only to carefully admins--- but it surely doesn't help sell my proposal that I must immediately acknowledge that no-one but perhaps Jimbo had more privileges here than Essjay!) and must then either use their real name or choose once and for all a single pseudonym for their WP account. I note that all other public access forums with which I am familiar (save UseNet) strictly proscribe sockpuppetry, and while many users in such forums do attempt to evade such rules, at least they are clearly breaking a rule and can be summarily evicted when caught. (Few forums are comparable to Misplaced Pages in size and complexity, but I offer physicsforums.com as one small example.)

But the onus does not lie entirely on the shoulders of the individual editors. The Misplaced Pages leadership also bears a heavy responsibility in this social contract: the leadership (now that the ArbCom has been so badly compromised, perhaps the requisite leadership can come only from Jimbo himself) must provide clear, well organized, and maximally unambiguous policies and guidelines in order to ensure that all Misplaced Pages users know what is expected of them at all times--- or can find out what is expected of them in any given situation, without expending undue effort. Compare the physicsforums behavioral guidelines and privacy policy with the murky and disorganized shamble of Misplaced Pages policies. (Stacy Schiff refered to a "regulatory thicket", aptly suggesting a dark, thorny, and impenetrable place.)

Misplaced Pages provides a social environment in which to edit collaboratively. Because Misplaced Pages is (or was, five years ago) so innovative, this social environment has evolved rapidly, in part because it has by tradition been so flexible. But I feel that Jimbo and the community need to explicitly recognize that with one million articles (perhaps fifty thousand worth the ink they aren't printed with), Misplaced Pages is now a mature enterprise, perhaps the single most widely consulted information resource on planet Earth. I feel that the need for clarity, focus, stability, and integrity has for some time outweighed the former need for flexibility intended to ensure further rapid growth.---CH 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Time for some quiet thought

I am becoming increasing concerned about the effect all this is having personally on Essjay. Everyone (including me) has had their say. This continuous sniping and shooting that is still happening all over the site is now becoming nasty and unpleasant to watch. Essjay cannot be feeling very happy, or pleased with himself - so what is the point of continuing this? Nothing more can be said that will change things. Let's just now show some humane civilized behaviour and let him lick his wounds in peace, and come to his own conclusions. Giano 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, also seeing this post of Giano (and its endorsers), I would honestly feel very comfortable (just plainly happy) with a "Hey guys, back again, but give me some time to think things over… okay?" sort of I’am-alive-and-kinking kind of comeback. Looking forward to that. --Van helsing 18:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that any indication of moving forward at this point would be welcome. —Doug Bell  18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be both pleased and relieved if this all went quiet until Essjay had a chance to reflect and reply. But this place runs on consensus, and that inevitably involves a lot of discussion. I strongly believe that discussion should be civil, cool-headed, respectful, and compassionate. But the point of letting discussion continue is that done right, it will help people come to terms with the strong emotions they are feeling. William Pietri 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar from Banaticus

Archive setup (EssjayBotIII)

I believe the form should be like this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<archivebot>
  <target>
    <page>User talk:Meteoroid</page>
    <archive>User talk:Meteoroid/Archive $A</archive>
    <mode>autoincrement</mode>
    <age>8</age>
    <counter>1</counter>
    <maxsize>100</maxsize>
  </target>
</archivebot>

can you explain this part of the code before integrating EssjayBotIII to my talk page: <counter>1</counter>

 Meteoroid »  19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)