User:Essjay/RFC

Note: Please see removed straw poll here.

Note that RFCs do not, as a rule, allow for "users who do not endorse this summary" or threaded discussion. For the purposes of this section, and this section only, please discuss on the talk page, and rebutt in your own outside view.

Please try to keep the number of sections to a minimum as there is inevitably going to be a lot to wade through and multiple views from the same user will only add to the confusion.

Outside Views

Outside view by Catchpole

Essjay, in using bogus credentials in a letter such as this, has shown poor judgment and has caused great harm to his standing in our community. Catchpole 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Durova^Charge! 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. MartinMcCann 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Good grief ... that goes beyond inventing a persona for purposes of anonymity --BigDT 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
4. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Yep. Gwen Gale 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
6. YES ! I have also recently been the victim of real life harassment because of my involvement with Wikipedia, but have never felt the need to lie about anything to 'protect' myself. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Absolutely. ju66l3r 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Doesn't go far enough, but 100% correct. GRBerry 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Now that is going too far. Yoinks --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
10. I don't think it's a big deal, but this has caused (unfounded IMO) great disruption to the community. Milto LOL pia 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Lying to other Wikipedia editors from an invented position of authority and lying to the media when representing Wikipedia is completely unacceptable. A Train ^{take the} 21:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
12. This much is obvious. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Yes. Shimeru 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Regrettably, yes. William Pietri 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
15. Oh my ... I hadn't seen this before. I cannot what it takes to write such a thing, knowing full well that the entire thing is a deception. --Cyde Weys 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
16. I think this would go beyond poor judgment. Falsification of credentials and/or records is, I believe, a borderline felony.TheGreenFaerae 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
17. Outright imposture is not anonymity, with or without media exposure - Skysmith 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
18. Should have just used a pseudonym, not lied. hurt us overall because of this. - Denny 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
19. Agree, but I lost faith in Wikipedia as a community. [1] Andries 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
20. That link is horrible - why is Jimbo allowing this to go on? Essjay has discredited the whole project. Giano 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
21. Endorse. Whatever concerns the professor may have had about the reliability of Wikipedia are probably now multiplied tenfold and rightly so if these are the deceits practiced by those who tout its reliability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
22. Regretful endorse. I have actually referred content disputes to Essjay in the past, because I felt that his background and qualifications as a Catholic scholar would have been helpful. Fabricating an identity to protect oneself online is one thing; using that fabricated identity to add authority to one's words is entirely another. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside finding of fact by User:Hipocrite

Essjay's deception successfuly prevented outside influences, which have shown a willingess to engage in extrordinarily and damaging harassment (see User:Snowspinner, User:Katefan0) to those they dislike from acquiring his identity. As a note, while one of those influences did, in fact, finally get him, they had been trying since at least July 2006

Users who endorse this summary

1. Oddly enough. Milto LOL pia 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. ... I must endorse this summary as factually accurate but note that it is missing the point. While creating a false persona to throw off would-be harassers is in itself benign, giving that false persona false credentials and worse, trading on those false credentials, is not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. For the sake of completeness, I do have to endorse this—with the same reservations as those noted by Antaeus Feldspar. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by GRBerry

Essjay, in stating these bogus credentials to outside parties, has damaged the reputation of the Wikipedia encyclopedia and damaged the reputation of the leadership of the community. Jimbo's apparent endorsement of these actions has made the damage worse. Essjay's involuntary or voluntary departure from those positions would repair some of the damage; involuntary removal would repair more. GRBerry 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Absolutely. To the point that my continued participation here may hinge on how this is handled. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Yeah and he seems to have shaken up the confidence of many editors by blowing it off. I mean, from the money/brand recognition side, is WP only a high traffic MUD after all? Gwen Gale 21:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Yes, especially the part about Jimbo endorsing it. PTO 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Indeed. Essjay's actions call his own itegrety into question, but Jimbo's apparent condoning of his fraud calls the integrety of Wikipedia as an entity into question. MartinMcCann 21:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Partially endorse. The "voluntary" part. Reserve judgment for now on the "involuntary" part. Shimeru 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Agreed per Doug Bell. This is very bad for Wikipedia and must be resolved in such a way that it does not look like we tolerate academic dishonesty and fake credentials used to gain the upper hand in arguments. --Cyde Weys 22:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Yes, with two caveats. I think involuntary departure would be less helpful than voluntary, and I would rather Jimbo not depart from any position he holds. Otherwise, I agree. William Pietri 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Essential, if Wikipedia's reputation and our work, is to be salvaged Giano 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Endorsing an impostor can only damage Wikipedi's reputation Skysmith 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Agree, I think that Jimbo has made a mistake. Andries 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Unfortunately endorse. If he doesn't step down Jimbo needs to remove him or it needs to be a review by the Arbcom he's on. - Denny 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Heligoland

Controversial this may be, but I think some users have sensed that Essjay is vulnerable and there's opportunities to grab a seat on the Arbitration Committee, there's gonna be a need for another bureaucrat, and there's gonna be checkuser and oversight permissions possibly up for grabs. I fully understand Essjay has upset some people but I think some people might be making the best of this wonderful opportunity to try and depose Essjay and grab some of his tools. It's also been known for weeks now, I don't understand why now, unless there might just be some ulterior motives at work here. As an aside, as a Chemistry student, I couldn't give a toss about someone faking qualifications on the internet, but if they took a job from under my nose, then I'd be pretty pissed. -- Heligoland 21:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside finding of fact by Doug Bell

Essjay has leveraged his false credentials both in an effort to bolster claims and statements in content discussions on Wikipedia, and outside of Wikipedia when acting in a capacity as a representative of Wikipedia. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples copied here from User talk:Essjay#Oh, come off it.....:

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 "Wikipedia'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 [2].
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 [3].
4. Here again you offer 'expert advice' as a scholar of Catholicism again [4]
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 [5]
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.[6]
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.[7]

Users who endorse this summary

1. Hard to disagree with unfortunately. JoshuaZ 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes. GRBerry 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Yep. Gwen Gale 22:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Hard to disagree with unfortunately. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Nice summary that succinctly explains what a lot of us find wrong about this situation (and thus cannot simply ignore it). --Cyde Weys 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
6. True Giano 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Agree. Andries 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
8. This section makes me saddest to read, but I have to agree. For completeness, let me add [8], where he defends his very first edit on Wikipedia by saying, "This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's credibility.". William Pietri 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Agree. I don't particularly care what pseudonym an editor chooses to assume, but argument based on pretended credentials does not meet the ethical standard to which we should hold administrators. - Meersan 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Agreed - Skysmith 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Yes, unfortunately. Note also User:Essjay/Letter (linked as well by Hipocrite below), where he used his false credentials to lend authority to a letter he wrote to a (real) professor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
12. For me, this is the crux of the matter. I don't have much of a problem with deception, even to the point of exaggerating credentials (although obviously I would prefer otherwise), but then using those "credentials" in an argument crosses a line for me. Trebor 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Doug Bell

Essjay has failed to properly acknowledge that he acted wrongly. His statement on his actions is completely lacking as a response for his actions. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. While a real and sincere apology could help, it needs to be one that recognizes first that the actions were wrong and second the amount of damage that was done. This does neither. GRBerry 22:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. His "apology" didn't convince me at all. He tried to pass it all off as some sort of defense about his identity? If so, he shouldn't have revealed any details. But what he did do, make up an elaborate persona with multiple doctorates, and then use it in editorial disputes, was beyond the pale. --Cyde Weys 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. It was no apology but a series of excuses - Skysmith 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Reluctantly agree. While I appreciate the effort Essjay put into making his lengthy statements, they have come across as extremely self-serving. "Stalkers and vandals and trolls, oh my!" is hardly a reason to pretend to greater academic authority than he, in fact, possessed. And his confessed surprise at being taken at his word by The New Yorker has all the artlessness of a thief, on being taken to task for a robbery, who tells the magistrate: "It was their fault for not lockin' the door, y'Onor!" I would view the situation in a much different light if Essjay seemed to understand the gravity of the situation. With the outside media involved, this is no longer an internal WP matter that can (or should) be swept under the rug. - Meersan 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside Finding of Fact 2 by User:Hipocrite

Essjay, in using bogus credentials in a letter such as this, has caused great harm to his standing in our community.

Users who endorse this summary

A toned down version of a summary before that merely states that his standing is damaged, which appears obviously factual. I continue to evaluate my view. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Sagaciousuk

Essjay's actions are not the cause of aforementioned 'great harm' to Wikipedia and/or it's community. The quick and at times irrational response from the community has caused far more damage to Wikipedia's reputation than Essjay. Essjay should therefore not be pressured or harassed to the point of being forced to step down from any of his current held positions. He is an invaluable asset to Wikipedia, and should not be treated in the manner he has been by a large proportion of users since this matter came to light. (Re: User talk:Essjay). --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Sam Blacketer 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. -- Heligoland 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. David Gerard 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Brian | (Talk) 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by SakotGrimshine

I don't think it will be noticed much except by Wikipedia Review and Wikitruth crowds. I think using fake credentials on Wikipedia is fine until you get into a position of authority and Essjay did at some point correct himself I believe, like when he got onto Wikia. I also think that it's necessary for administrators to avoid stalkers. There are lots of people out there that just spend their time stalking Wikipedia administrators. Daniel Brandt has a site dedicated to stalking admins. Essjay says at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Archives/52#Profiles_don.27t_mesh... that he did his thing to avoid stalkers. SakotGrimshine 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside comment by David Gerard

I believe this suddenly drastically urgent RFC can be summarised:

HANG HIM! HANG HIM!

Seriously. This RFC is all but meritless. You're embarrassed by Slashdot? - David Gerard 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by PullToOpen

Essjay really screwed up when he decided to lie about his credentials. He has also used these forged credentials to deceive the community and the media that he was an expert on what he was talking about. However, Essjay has done huge amounts of work for Wikipedia, and that fact can't be denied. He is literally the only one dealing with WP:CHU requests, and is instrumental to the WP:RFCU process. Essjay is an incredible asset to the community, and to force him out would be counterproductive and would have a strong negative impact on the Wikipedia core processes. PTO 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside veiw by User:Sbharris; My own experience with Essjay (exec summary: very bad)

There are ordinary vandals and malicious people on WIkipedia. It reflects the real world, after all. However, my ONLY negative experience with a Wikipedia *administrator* to date, in all the time I've been here, has been with *Essjay*. Otherwise I wouldn't know him from Adam, Cardinal Wolsey, or Torqumada. Hence, this note.

Introduction: I'm a scientist, basically-- an ordinary editor who first discovered Wikipedia in Nov, 2005 and by now has about 5000 edits on about 1000 articles (cleaning up and expanding medicine, chemistry, physics, history, and other stuff like that). I'm a physician with multiple qualifications and a long CV of science publications, academic positions, and a patent list, and all these are (ahem) real, not fake. I also edit under my real name (how many reading this have the balls for this?), as I have done so also for many years on USENET also. Where you can all anybody anything, and stalk them for nothing. And those credentials you're welcome to look up with the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance. (STEVEN BRADLEY HARRIS, MD G52760). I run a research lab for a living.

Soon after beginning editing here, as a newbie, I found myself locked out of Wikipedia completely, for participating in a legal discussion over what kinds of things can get people sued in the real world for libel. I hadn't made any threats myself (and indeed at that time was such a clueless newbie I didn't even know THAT was a no-no), but it didn't matter. I found myself blocked and locked out by some entity calling itselfs "ESSJAY". Here is his note and his reason, and the link [9], which you will find are all improper, and were promptly reverted by another admin who had found reason for a personal dislike of Essjay, to rival MY now-building one. In any case, in the maintime, I said: WHAT??? I found I couldn't even appeal about it on Wikipedia, due to the fact that blocks of this nature prevent you from even doing THAT. If you're blocked, you can't even appeal to ArbCom. You have to write email to JIMBO or the Lawyer BrianPatrick or something. But once unblocked, I could take it to ArbCom. Where I did, and where it promptly died. Essay's just too powerful, they more or less let me know. He's on there, too.

Here's what Brian Patrick, the Official Wiki attorney, said about it, on personal email to me (paraphrase, since it was personal mail) "Wow, you certainly picked a really POWERFUL administrator to tangle with". By which time I'm now really saying to myself (and everybody else): "Who IS this ESSJAY GUY??" (actually, more like "WTF IS THIS GUY???"), Powers are *dispensed* by people like Wikipedia's lawyers-- they don't just take them as handed down from God. So I thought. So maybe this is Jimbo's father-in-law or something. I did a little checking and found Essjay flashed on the scene not that long ago, and was immediately given ranks and privileges and powers on Wikipedia at such an astounding clip (and he now has them ALL), that I figured he couldn't be anything other than a senior programmer or founder-still-in-good-graces with Jimbo. Wrong again.

When I see people promoted that fast, for no obvious reason, in any kind of normal non-public business, I assume they're sleeping with the boss. Or there's some relationship between somebody's proboscis and somebody else's alimentary canal which makes for poor respiratory function. But I had no way of knowing in this case, and gave up. Later (like everybody else), I read the NY mag which mentions Essjay as a new and shinny Big-Wig on Wikipedia, and assumed that Essjay's academic robes and caps (which he was incautious enough to claim in print to a reporter, as you see above) and gowns and chains and whatnot, had impressed and overawed everybody (particularly JIMBO) so much, that WikiMedia just had to call him to Rome/Florida and make him a "Cardinal."

Wrong, too, now, I see. So what gives? I still haven't a clue, although the proboscis theory is gaining.

Now, aside from Jimbo's publicity problem, what's Essjay's problem? It is this. He's an anonymous *&%$ with too much power, he got it too fast, and he's capable of abusing it. And nobody at Wikipedia really rides herd on him, as I find out from the pitiful note from Brad Patrick, obviously following Jimbo's lead. So. Here we are.

What do I WANT? I *don't* want Essay banned, as he tried to ban me. I believe in redemption. If he does good editorial work, fine. And if he's dishonest, that's his problem. Though personally, I really, really hate dishonesty and hypocrisy, as it can be the death of what I for a living in science. For Essjay and his presumably Roman Catholic God, maybe 10 Hail Marys and an Act of Contrition is enough.

But more than dishonesty, I hate the abuse of power, and the abuse of ways to attain it. If I caught one of my own employees with a lying CV and caught him abusing A VOLUNTEER by trying to lock him out (like the attempt to block me unilaterally and indefinitely, in Essjay's case), as the boss HERE in my fiefdom I'd make sure that first abusive administrator would be out the door so fast he'd have to be opening the locking bar with his butt, inasmuch as his arms would be full of his desk belongings he was holding with both arms, in the cardboard box he'd be carrying out, as I watched him go through the front building door on day #1. I make sure my employees don't abuse the staff, and I surely don't let them abuse newbies and volunteers. How Jimbo runs his business, is his problem. This is free advice, so take it for what it is worth.

What I WANT, therefore, is to see Essjay relieved of any power to block nameuser editors (vs. IPs and checkuser IP socks, which he's free to go wild with, for all I care). If you have a nameuser editor acting up, if he has good history, you have plenty of time for ArbCom. Thus, you don't need Essjay, and his bolts from the blue. (Nutshell: Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition, and Nobody Expects Essjay, either). Essjay's problem is that he just can't handle this with the delicacy he needs for it. IP vandals are one thing. Blocking a new username editor in violation of WP:AGF and certainly WP: DON'T BITE NEWBIES, let alone messing with WP policy on legal arcane-ia without consulting anybody, is quite another.

Now, I haven't gotten word one of apology from Essjay, nor from the people (Jimbo, Brian Patrick) who let him run roughshod on name-user editors. I don't expect one. Nor, in the circumstances, do I care if I get one now, since most of this is by now, in the nature of "sorry I got caught". But This note is to let you know I'm here. Until somebody manages to get me banned from Wikipedia permanently for speaking my mind, I'll be here, like the Recording Angel from Hell, every time Essay comes up. This was my worst experience on Wikipedia by far, and it is due solely to Essjay, and the people who are responsible for him, but don't watch him. And, yeah, almost a year later, I'm still really, really, REALLY angry about it. I don't get how people can engage in Wiki-stalking and other "meatspace" actions which happen for essentially cyberspace infractions. But after my interaction with Essjay, I suddenly, for the first time UNDERSTOOD it. If you've put a lot of work in, and you really haven't done anything to deserve that kind of treatment, you can see why people go off the deep end if you get removed from somebody's website. So my thanks for finally getting me to understand that. I'm a better editor for it.

And it's been worth my time to write, because I feel a lot better for giving my opinion on an admin who smelled bad to me, right from the very first electron of communication I got from him. If *this* letter has been too long (sorry!), my apologies for that. SBHarris 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Christopher Parham

(Some of this is redundant to other positions above but I think this is a bit more complete expression of my judgment.)

While the use of pseudonyms is accepted, and fictionalizing non-relevant personal details (location, gender, race among them) is harmless, fabricating academic qualifications is damaging because Wikipedia is an intellectual enterprise and therefore, although we do not privilege those with advanced degrees, academic qualifications are relevant to our work. Essjay's fabrication of qualifications was not limited to his user page, but rather was invoked or alluded to repeatedly by Essjay ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) in the course of his editorial contributions. Without making a specific assertion about Essjay's intent, his deception of fellow editors is reasonably characterized as irresponsible or foolish and represents a severe failure of judgment. Generally, an atmosphere of honesty and, reciprocally, trust is necessary for our collaborative editing process to work at its best. Essjay's deception inhibits this atmosphere of trust.

Further, Essjay's invocation of these falsified credentials in communication with outside parties was an act of personal bad faith. Further, the eventual exposure of his deception damages Wikipedia in a way that a reasonable person could easily have anticipated. Essjay's conduct demonstrated a severe lack of judgment. The conduct with regard to outside parties is especially severe since Essjay's actions in the outside sphere reflect on the integrity of the project as a whole. As a general principle, editors should demonstrate intellectual integrity when editing Wikipedia and when speaking about Wikipedia to outside parties.

Contrary to Jimmy Wales's statement, Essjay's fabricated background cannot be described as a "pseudonym". Further, it cannot be regarded as a matter of no consequence. The events raises serious questions about Essjay's judgment, honesty, and personal integrity, and his current positions of trust should be reconsidered in light of recent events. Whether he continues to hold the general trust of the community will depend partly on his response to queries about his actions, specifically whether he acknowledges and understands that his actions were erroneous and unacceptable. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view: