User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

I have blanked my entire talk page to make sure this statement gets adequate attention. Hopefully someone more clueful than me :-) can archive things properly. [Archived]

I have been for several days in a remote part of India with little or no Internet access. I only learned this morning that EssJay used his false credentials in content disputes. I understood this to be primarily the matter of a pseudonymous identity (something very mild and completely understandable given the personal dangers possible on the Internet) and not a matter of violation of people's trust. I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on. Even now, I have not been able to check diffs, etc.

I have asked EssJay to resign his positions of trust within the community. In terms of the full parameters of what happens next, I advise (as usual) that we take a calm, loving, and reasonable approach. From the moment this whole thing became known, EssJay has been contrite and apologetic. People who characterize him as being "proud" of it or "bragging" are badly mistaken.

On a personal level, EssJay has apologized to me, and I have accepted his apology on a personal level, and I think this is the right thing to do. If anyone else feels that they need or want a personal apology, please ask him for it. And if you find it to be sincere, then I hope you will accept it too, but each person must make their own judgments. Despite my personal forgiveness, I hope that he will accept my resignation request, because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now.

I still have limited net access... for a couple of hours here I will be online, and then I am offline until I am in Japan tomorrow morning. I believe I will have a fast and stable Internet connection at that time, and I will deal with this further at that time.

Wikipedia is built on (among other things) twin pillars of trust and tolerance. The integrity of the project depends on the core community being passionate about quality and integrity, so that we can trust each other. The harmony of our work depends on human understanding and forgiveness of errors.

--Jimbo Wales 06:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses

With deep regret, as I have been very fond of Essjay's work, I have to agree that he should accept your advice to voluntarily resign. I never suspected you would have promoted him if all the evidence was available to you, however, I am convinced he still would have been an excellent arbitrator.--MONGO 06:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the statement. I too have deep regrets, and high regards for his work here. By resigning positions of trust, it will go along way in "taking responsibility" for the situation. I see this as youthful indiscretion -- a situation I think/hope he's learned from and look forward to supporting him as we move forward. Regards. --Aude (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the solution you propose is a good middle path. It is rather unfortunate if Essjay did not get a chance to respond of his own accord before you made your statement, but the mix of your schedule and Essjay's relative inactivity perhaps threw a wrench into the works there. I agree that all such situations should be handled with maximum carefulness and respect. Unfortunately 100 people respectfully querying your actions at the same time is bound to feel for Essjay like an inquisition. That number is only scaling up as Wikipedia grows. More thought is needed about how to handle events like this. Regards, Christopher Parham (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not sure that there is another plausible or responsible course for Jimbo (or the community) to take in this scenario. This is it. I say that as a humongous fan of Essjay's who hopes that he sticks around and keeps contributing. He's given a lot to the project, and he has more to give. He's lost a lot of trust and respect right now, but, judging from his prior work, he'll get it back. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the statement. Stepping down from his roles may be hard for Essjay, but it's the right thing to do. And as Bbatsell has said, he can easily gain this trust back. Natalie 07:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Jimbo. I sadly believe that Essjay voluntarily resigning from his posts of authority is the best course of action, both for him and for Wikipedia. This affair had shaken my faith in the moral underpinnings of Wikipedia; this statement goes some distance towards restoring it. I hope that now we can all move forward and begin to heal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a good decision, and it will answer the community's concerns. Now all we have to do is convince the outside world that this is not the normal way of things in this project. It's the outside world that we depend on for recruitment, support and money, and we have to stop pretending that we're not subject to real-life ethical (and in case of faked academic credentials, possibly legal) standards. Zocky | picture popups 07:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Zocky. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, Jimbo. I do agree with others who say Essjay could earn back trust and meanwhile I leave drawing any helpful, pithy lessons from this to you. So far as "the outside world" goes I think the lines are wholly blurred but you know that. Gwen Gale 07:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jimbo. I support your decision and in the spirit of reconciliation I have suggested to Essjay that he improve a particular article. Durova^Charge! 07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If your are still online, a closure of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay might be nice to kill it dead. Teke ^(talk) 07:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we still need to hear a response from Essjay. I'm willing to move forward, but not without an appropriate statement from Essjay on the entire matter. Closing the RfC now would be premature. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Doug Bell. // Internet Esquire 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, thanks for clearing this up on your end, and thank you for taking the time to reply to my email. I'm glad that you don't condone this. This has been a troublesome period, but hopefully everyone can move on, and Essjay will eventually get what positions he needs back. – Chacor 07:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this episode terribly sad, but I agree that you had no choice but to ask Essjay to resign his positions. I too recognize Essjay's positive contributions and while he has fallen a long distance, I too hope that he continues to contribute as an ordinary user. But while I wish to encourage healing the wounds, I just left some comments expressing the hope that by further discussion of how this situation came about, the Wikipedia community can examine what changes may be needed to policies and customs regarding anonymity and other practices which, I fear, tend to promote deception and lack of accountability. ---CH 08:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for moving forward in a sensible and positive way. After trying to contribute to calming this firestorm I reluctantly became convinced by the evidence that Essjay's actions had damaged the trust necessary for responsible work. The whole episode underlines the wisdom of the policies well summarised at User:Uncle G/On sources and content#The Wikipedia model and sources and fact checking. It's reasonable that self descriptions on a user page can indicate careers, but listing credentials and qualifications should be discouraged, in my opinion. It's a great strength of Wikipedia that content is there to be read critically, not accepted as dicta ex cathedra. .. dave souza, talk 11:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Attn: New Yorker

Jimbo, you wrote,"I understood this to be primarily the matter of a pseudonymous identity (something very mild and completely understandable given the personal dangers possible on the Internet) and not a matter of violation of people's trust. I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on."

This, along with the letter to the professor, is what did it for me, and I have no doubt that, as you say, you were not aware of these when you'd made your earlier statement.

Though it may seem counterintuitive, I recommend that you or someone in your trust contact the New Yorker, and point them to the relevant RfC. It will show them that we well understand - overwhelmingly in fact - the difference between pseudonymity and the abuse of false credentials. One may contrast this with similar examples in academia (see Ward Churchill) which took years to act upon, the responses to which included a great deal more ambiguity and excuse-making than is found here.Proabivouac 07:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a little difficult to square "I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on. Even now, I have not been able to check diffs, etc." with (on 1 March): "Essjay has always been, and still is, a fantastic editor and trusted member of the community. He apologized to me and to the community for any harm caused. Trolls are claiming that he "bragged" about it: this is bullshit. He has been thoughtful and contrite about the entire matter and I consider it settled." Especially difficult to reconcile in view of the very strong language used to support User:Essjay. The earlier remarks suggest knowledge of at least some of the issues. --luke 08:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wales's initial comment to the New Yorker “I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it” [1] seems to indicate some knowledge of the duplicity, if not a full realization of its implications for the project. Academy Leader 10:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the professor also needs an explanation and apology, rather than finding out about all this through some other means. Tyrenius 07:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stopping by

The politics never seem to end. Just wanted to stop in and say hi Jimbo. I'm really impressed with Wikipedia and I've having a blast. See you on the Web 2.0. Mkdw^talk 06:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cautious Thank You

Thanks for the statement - and i'm glad you've put on record your thoughts. However, just for the record really, you mention that essjay was contrite and apologetic at all times, which i'm afraid isn't entirely true - i had tried for a couple of weeks to raise the issue politely and calmly, and felt very brushed off in response - no contrition or apology was offered to me. Hopefully essjay will be able to step back gracefully for a while, and continue the amazing work he does around here - and as I mentioned to him, maybe this is a beginning, not an end... Purples 07:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering the nasty way you put everything, I'm not sure you deserve an apology. pschemp | talk 07:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

<personal attack by anon removed>,

Though, I consider your remark a borderline personal attack also. Let's all be civil, drop such remarks, and lets please move forward. --Aude (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No I'm sorry. Purples went way beyond just asking questions and into obvious harassment. His self-righteous statement here is a falsehood. This whole thing is bad enough, but for him to be kicking Essjay when he's down is not acceptable and I will not let him do it. pschemp | talk 08:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that you have lost some of your WP:COOL here? I didn't read any of that in to Purples' statement above. Thanks, William Pietri 08:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because it isn't in his statements above. Its in his repeated statements days ago on Essjay's talk page and in his refusal to stop badgering him. He harassed. Essjay was polite and contrite. pschemp | talk 08:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but based only upon what I know now, User:Purples (Daniel Brandt or otherwise) was telling the truth. Surely that must count for something? Were it simply a matter of Essjay wishing to conceal his identity, it would be a different story, but it isn't: he took it upon himself to represent the community in his communications with the press and the public.Proabivouac 09:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yow are missing the point. Purples is claiming Essjay wasn't contrite and polite. That's the lie. He was polite, and in the face of harassment. He didn't call him names and rant and rave. Purples does not deserve an apology for anything. pschemp | talk 09:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay was certainly polite, and Purples says nothing about his politeness. He is questioning whether he is being contrite, i.e. "feeling regret and sorrow for one's sins or offenses; penitent". That's a matter of opinion, and judging by Essjay's talk page and the RFC, Purples is hardly the only person to question that. He may be unpleasant, but being unpleasant back is not helpful. Zocky | picture popups 10:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Indeed. As the person who first asked Essjay about his dual identities, I got a prompt, polite, and (as always with Essjay) thorough explanation. One which I was satisfied with (and come on, you tell a twenty two year old he can be whoever he wants to be on the Internet, he's inevitably going to choose something gradiose), and as far as I was concerned closed the matter. I have Essjay's page watchlisted, and can verify that Purples has been aggressive to the point of harrassment in asking Essjay about his identity - possibly Essjay may have ended Purples' pursuit by linking to my question and his reply instead of asking someone to search through his archives, but no matter.

Like Jimbo, Essjay's misuse of his false identity to win arguments only came to my notice yesterday - and now I suddenly find I can't make myself instinctively trust him the way I used to. I'm sure I'm not the only one that likes Essjay very much but has a niggling "How do I know this is actually true?" in the back of my mind with regards to all claims and edits he has made without external verification. Resignation seems the only way forward, for him and for us. I hope it works. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a bun fight, but I'll simply ask folk to have a look through my contributions. Essjay was always polite to me, just not contrite or apologetic. I have not lied or harrassed and i think it's rude to say i have. that's all really - Purples 11:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Posting the same message, trying to WP:OWN it, and then yelling at the people that tell you that you are disruptive is certainly harrasment in my books. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not nearly good enough

Jimbo,

So Essjay has "been asked to resign" (aka fired). Big deal.

The problem of abusive administrators, fake personalities with spurious qualifications (essjay isn't the only one), edit cabals (such as the Muslim guild, or the ones on Israel/Palestine), blatent abuse of Wikipedia for personal gain (Mantanmoreland/Gary Weiss, cberlet etc) and the overall lousy state of most articles in terms of readability, notability and citations will continue.

Essjay is simply the tip of a much larger iceberg of systematic falsification of the historical record on Wikipedia. It's time Wikipedians stop trying to blame outsiders for the faults of the project. Its time administrators were called to account for their actions and banned from making edits themselves. It's time that some administrators stopped being slapped on the wrists for abusing their powers and actually get thrown off the project.

You could start by requiring all editors to register. You could continue by requiring all editors to register real information about themselves with the Foundation. You could instigate proper root-and-branch reform of the administration of Wikipedia. You could institute proper review of articles before publication.

But I guess you won't.

Throwing Essjay off the parapet won't fix what ails Wikipedia. --86.131.93.168 10:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"You could start by requiring all editors to register." Coming from an anon - the irony Glen 11:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Since anon editing is currently allowed, and the above user merely wanted to make a comment, then it isn't unreasonable for him/her to do so without registering first, and this doesn't make him/her a hypocrite for thinking that anon editing should ultimately be done away with. As long as anon editing is allowed, Wikipedia will be, at best, an exercise in "openness" and "anti-elitism", but not a comprehensive encyclopedia. Because of anon editing, Wikipedia is bombarded by a constant stream of vandalism and other nonsense that, while the majority of it is probably reverted and doesn't cause permanent harm, forces more dedicated users to spend time cleaning it up rather than contributing to articles themselves. And as I said, the majority of the vandalism is reverted (mainly that which takes place on pages with a very high viewership), but that which is done to more obscure pages often stays for weeks or even months before being reverted, and I recall one instance in which an IP editor inserted false info into an article on a living person which wasn't reverted until the article's subject saw it. And one last concern is that because most vandalism comes from IPs, IP editors are often looked down upon just for being IP editors (I often see them branded as "anons" or "anonymous cowards"); therefore, allowing IP editing actually encourages elitism.--Azer Red Si? 16:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As an observer, I must say it seems really immature to expect any one person to be able fix any of the upteen social problems on this site. It seems, further, like an immaturity of the site's current structural development for dedicated participants to invest final decision making authority on content and user problems in any one person. This situation creates an inherent imbalance of power that seems to me contrary to the popularly promoted goals and aims of the project. If publicly agreed on policies and processes are not held to and evenly enforced by all dedicated users, especially by those at or near the "top" of Wikipedia's administrative hierarchies, it creates the impression among the "rank and file" that corruption is rampant from the top down. To some extent, I think this perception may be a product of any political system with a singular autocratic authority at "the head." As far as this site goes, I think some of the current problems could be mitigated somewhat by strictly limiting the capacity of those involved in foundation or other visible "real world" Wikimedia support or leadership roles to make binding decisions regarding anything to do with the content, policies, or processes of the site itself. This would help to eliminate the cult of personality that seems to circulate around foundation figures, and allow Wikipedia to grow into it's next stage of social and political development, whatever that is. Academy Leader 12:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Requiring all editors to register would be potentially damaging. Many a time, I find vandalism to Sesame Street related articles is done by a registered vandal, and reverted by an anonymous passerby. Other times, I often see anons fixing spelling or grammatical errors that I missed, and likely dozens of other registered users reading the article skimmed by. Anons can be a nuisance, but they can also be wonderfully helpful. -- Zanimum 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But the amount of harm that is caused by anon editing greatly outweighs the amount of good that it does. So you pointed out one instance of good anon editing on a single article. But what about the constant stream of vandalism that users have to spend their time reverting every day rather than contributing to the encyclopedia themselves? What about the fact that, because of the huge amount of vandalism that comes from anons, any anon editor is immediately looked down upon just for being anon, thereby encouraging elitism rather than preventing it as allowing anon editing supposedly does? What if a troll gets ticked off by an anon vandal fighter and decides to trace the anon's visible IP and hack into his/her computer? And so the questions continue. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: so long as anon editing is allowed, Wikipedia will be, at it's best, an experiment in "openness" and the "Wiki way", but not a reliable encyclopedia, which I though was its first and foremost goal. Saying something like "Well, the other day, I saw an anon editor correct a typo... etc. etc. etc." does not negate the harm that anon editing causes this project on the whole, and does not change the fact that it must be done away with if Wikipedia is to ever reach its full potential. End of story.--Azer Red Si? 19:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa-- first, I meant this has happened in dozens of articles related to Sesame Street, and I expect Sesame Street is a microcausm of the entire project, within any realm of study. I'm not sure if this is true, as I've been focusing on other Wikimedia projects other than vandalism reverting, but I suspect this to be so.

As for anons creating vandalism, just as many vandals create accounts. End of story. I'm pretty sure I've blocked more accounts than IPs in my day. -- Zanimum 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Foundation were to require people to send copies of real information to themselves, this would be a nightmare to administrate. Would the records be kept in hardcopy, or digital? Either way, the offices or servers would be a prime target for identity thieves to gather. And believe me, Citizendium's current less intensive structure is prone to anyone with five minutes getting in with a fake ID. -- Zanimum 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me your comment Zanimum. As an editor who is not anonymous I would not want to be a part of a system that involved any dangers of identity theft (and I have been a victim of this crime, albeit in the pre-digital era). Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone not subject to arbcom can freely edit and I think were we to change that it could only harm wikipedia, SqueakBox 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the above 2 comments and would add that most anons are not vandals (or at least aren't trying to be). Also, even if we require all users to register, we still won't be a legitimate encyclopedia. The majority of articles will still be edited and created by amateurs. There will still be vandalism, though there would be less. But there would also be fewer of the thousands of helpful anon edits. Closing wiki to anons would create an inclusive atmosphere, almost the opposite of the ideal that Wikipedia and the Foundation was founded on. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Further to the point of not banning unregistered users, I think part of the attraction of Wikipedia is the notion that 'you can edit this page right now'. Banning unregistered users would get rid of this attraction. In addition, 30% of legitimate edits come from anonymous users, as noted here. Hut 8.5 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fantastic stat, to know that so many people are willing to make a little change here, a little change there. -- Zanimum 21:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Something I just thought of while on RCP: Forcing users to register in order to stop vandalism, etc. wouldn't be as effective as many people seem to think. This is based on the logic that people register because they want to help the project. I think that vandals don't register simply because, for vandalism, its easier not to register. If we require registration to edit, persistent, bad faith vandals will just get accounts to vandalize. All this would stop is good faith, "test" vandalism, and legit passerby edits like Zanimum mentioned. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry (by Doc)

I, for one, am satisfied by what you have done. If everyone had assumed a little more good faith on your part, then perhaps half the fury could have been avoided. We should have simply waited for your response. You have acted. It is sufficient. Thank you.

As for Essjay, using his credentials in content disputes and parading them in the community was unacceptable. His previous half-apology, blaming trolls for his need to use disinformation, was disingenuous and unwise. However, a 24 year-old, who has treated wikipedia as a bit of a role-playing game, is not to be treated as a criminal. His content contributions, aside from the fraud, have been quite outstanding. And I do credit him as being an expert in his field, if an unqualified auto-dictat. He not pushed an agenda, and has passionately respected our neutrality. His contributions to the administration of wikipedia have also been second to none. Although it has sometimes looked like an intention to accumulate power - power has never been misused, quite the opposite. That he will not be able to continue in these roles, is a loss to Wikipedia. Further, the 'role' he has played has been one of a neutral, friendly, pacifying and wise wikipedian - I do not believe that these qualities are too far removed from the reality of the individual. Despite everything, he still strikes me as a thoroughly decent individual.

Should he resign? Yes. (Although I'd give him back his administrative functions tomorrow should he re-apply.) He has damaged the community. The incident with the reporter was highly inappropriate. But, my reckoning is that things have just got out of hand, and so we should let bygones pass. Further, the penalty of ridicule and abuse he has faced from the community far outweighs the sins committed. There was no malice here. If Essjay now apologises fully, it is time for Wikipedians to rally round and offer support. Again, and this is a favourite theme of mine at the moment, we need to remember that the in-house games can have real-life consequences. Essjay has played a game, but Ryan Jordan is a decent bloke who has got burned in that silly game. My thoughts are with him; and my sympathy fully.

--Doc^g 11:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Viridae^Talk 11:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

He used his fictional CV both to sway content and as a nominally official representative of WP to a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter (WP management referred her to him). Gwen Gale 11:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you believe that his name is actually Ryan Jordan? WAS 4.250 14:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's give that a rest now. – Steel 14:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay has played a game, but Ryan Jordan is a decent bloke who has got burned in that silly game - uh... aren't they the same person? And how is being 24 a mitigating factor? Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 14:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. Well said. .... dave souza, talk 15:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Being 24 should indeed be a mitigating factor. Lets not condemn a very young man for ever or try to wreck his career for a silly mistake that from what we can see wont be repeated, SqueakBox 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Career? Is he getting paid for this? No one is saying he can't be a valuable contributor. It's just he won't be a valuable contributor in special areas of the project that requires a certain level of trust. There are many things he can help with or write about, with special powers. -- Zanimum 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Doc, unlike Essjay, I have genuine if limited experience teaching in American classrooms, and your comment immediately reminded of something I sometimes heard my undergraduate students say, to the effect that "we're in our twenties, of course we try to cheat on exams!" All I can say is that this is a simply dreadful excuse for misbehavior, unless Americans plan to raise the drinking, driving, and voting age to thirty. As I sometimes heard my foreign-born colleagues say when we discussed such excuses, "talk like this shows why we tend to regard Americans as childish".

Jimbo, there are some important points here which I hope are not being lost.

1. I agree with those who offer another argument why Essjay is not entirely to blame for this scandal. I think his career amply illustrates one danger posed by offering teenagers the opportunity to lie extravagantly about their identity: some of these young people stay with Wikipedia for years, maturing as they age and acquire more life experience on and off-wiki. Some even come to hold positions of enormous trust and respect within the Wikipedia community. I suspect that there are cases other than Essjay in which admins have come to regret some poor decision they made when they were much younger, more immature and naive concerning the possible consequences of actions such as outright lying. I think this would be an excellent moment to bite the bitter bullet and ban anonymous editing and sockpuppetry, period. Time after time, scandals erupt here because Wikipedia trusts absolutely anyone to edit almost any page here with little if any accountability.
2. I am particularly disturbed by Essjay's statement that "I was actually under the impression that the stalkers and psychopaths were the only people who actually believed the story", since it seems to imply that he believes, rightly or wrongly, that there is a culture of lying at Wikipedia which encourages admins seeking to avoid retaliation (there is no question that this is a legitimate concern, even for an ordinary user) to go beyond providing minimal "real life" information on their user page to providing an elaborately constructed and plausible but entirely ficticious "real life" persona. I hope you will urge admins and indeed all users to divulge any such deceptions immediately, and in future to offer only truthful information on their user pages.
3. In thinking over my own experience at Wikipedia last year, I realized that I now seem to have good reason to suspect that some of the admins, mediators, and other users I encountered, who seemed oddly terrified that I might accidently reveal their true identity, may have been sockpuppets for Essjay. I feel that Essjay himself bears a particularly heavy responsibilty to come clean about any sockpuppets he may have employed, since I feel that his statement quoted above shows him trampling on the spirit of WP:AGF.
4. I feel that you have no choice but to revoke any priviliges held by Essjay which give him access to private information, involve exercise of sound judgement, or require enormous trust within the community, specifically including arbitration and checkuser. Regretfully, after sleeping on this, I also feel that you have no choice but to declare him ineligible for holding such positions or possessing such privileges at Wikipedia any time in the future. But I encourage you, and indeed the community, to continue to offer support to the person, whoever he really is, behind the "Essjay" handle, and if possible to help him find some scope for his considerable "people skills" in some other organization where he can make a fresh start. My sense that the community is eager to offer him the chance to continue to contribute as an ordinary editor, and I concur, but I must demur from any intent to offer him the chance of reapplying for "powerful positions of trust" at WP.
5. I feel that an essential component of the response by the Wikipedia community to the Essjay scandal should involve moving beyond discussion of how he got himself into this mess to a discussion of the underlying issues raised by his personal tragedy. Please see my own statement for some suggestions about what wider lessons can perhaps be drawn.

It might be helpful to consider giving your support for my restoring the introduction to my self-deleted user space essay on "Digging" (no doubt some admin with sufficient powers can help you find and examine my last pre-deletion version--- IIRC, the internal link was "User:Hillman/Digging"), because that essay made the case for a point which I feel is highly relevant, namely that "anonymity" on the web is ultimately a chimera, and I'd like to refactor the first third of the essay to support this specific contention, for reference in discussion of the implications of the Essjay scandal. To repeat, I acknowledge that privacy concerns are a legitimate concern, and harrassment poses a real threat to legitimate activity by Wikipedians in good standing, particularly admins, but I feel that discussion of how to deal intelligently with that threat must begin with awareness of the technological limitations of putative "anonymity" in the age of Google.---CH 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

not a violoation of trust?!

Are you saying that making up a set of impressive credentials is not a violation of people's trust as long as you don't actively use them in content disputes?

I appreciate you are finally taking action, but I cannot understand why you didn't check the facts until after the New Yorker published their retraction with your "I don’t really have a problem with it" quote. --08-15 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No "sorry" from Wales

It seems that Jimmy has a pattern of reacting immediately to incidents, based on his impression of the facts of which he's (all too briefly) availed himself, rather than the facts that the community has painstakingly gathered. I won't cite the many examples -- maybe someone else could offer theirs below this comment. The biggest problem I see here is that nowhere in Jimbo's current response to the situation do we see the words "I am sorry" or "I apologize". I think this reflects Jimmy's attitude that even when he is wrong about something, he owes nobody an apology. He's assured that the "new facts" (which were there all along) will explain his rationale for having made a mistake, and that should be good enough for everyone to get back to work. In fact, on top of the absence of a personal apology, there is almost always a general admonishment of the people who "started all of this". If you can't see this pattern, I hope that others will take the time to point out some examples below this comment. This was a great start at reconciliation; but, given the inherent management and personality traits that I've pointed out above, Wikipedia is crazy if it thinks this will be the last (or largest) of these kinds of incidents down the road. --72.94.151.159 14:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a strange interpretation of my history, my ip number friend. To be clear: I made a mistake here, I am sorry, and I apologize for it. I should have looked into this in more detail, sooner. I offer as an explanation, not an excuse, that I was on a journey to India, visiting slum schools to learn how our work might or might not be helpful to people strugging to get an education in adversue conditions, as the facts were being discovered.--Jimbo Wales 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

given that finding the new facts would have involved digging through 10s of Ks of edits it is not unreasonable that he didn't know about them.Geni 15:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume good faith here on Wales' part. What's more, for all of Wikipedia's dreary flaws and mind-numbing, fingernails-on-the-chalkboard inefficiencies, take Wales out of the loop and one has likely lost the one thing, the knack, which has built this site into a mega traffic, social networking MUD which also happens to've thrown off several thousand more or less helpful, alphabetized articles with high rankings on Google. Editing here can be a big docking drag sometimes, don't know why I do it half the time and sure as sunshine I don't tell my co-workers about it but the outcome speaks for itself doesn't it. Give him time to respond further, as he said he would. Gwen Gale 15:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Wales reacted to the situation in the manner he did indicates to me that he is not properly letting his subordinates handle issues. At his level he should NOT be personally getting involved in a situation like this. At best he would endorse the recommendation(s) of those below him. The fact that he jumped to conclusions shows that there is poor communication between Wales and those immediately below him. SarcasticDwarf 00:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good God, if anyone deserves WP:AGF around here, it's Jimbo. He reacted appropriately once he knew the full situation, what else does anyone want? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that he has reacted appropriately now, which is good. However, the initial response of saying everything was fine instead of perhaps promising to look into it was inappropriate, given the nature of the problem. Just a thought really, since I work for a company which is astronomically bad at PR these days and it seems like that particular disease is catching! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.194.164.3 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Jimbo has been traveling the past week, he has had limited access to even post his comments above, let alone to dig through Essjay's history. Corvus cornix 01:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Geni, you refered to Jimbo as "the one thing, the knack, which has built this site into a mega traffic, social networking MUD". I've been away for some time, so I don't know whether I am overinterpreting what you wrote. Is it really true that, as your comment might seem to suggest, the WP community has now agreed that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia but a MUD? If so, does Jimbo agree with that? ---CH 01:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hush it now?

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 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the above 100%. Thanks Giano.--Doc^g 17:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. For my part I must say, I hope Essjay makes his way back into the fold fast. For me, it's all about the wider worries. Essjay has my best wishes. Gwen Gale 17:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Thank you for pointing that out, Giano. ElinorD (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed by me too and well stated, SqueakBox 17:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with this. Of course, things can't go back to the way they were. I fear now that, if Essjay gains the trust of the community (he has mine), the death threats would be more substantial, and probably much scarier. Wikipedians, by some sort of freaky coincidence, are humans, and I hope that Essjay as a Wikipedian will only improve from this incident, and that Essjay as a person will possibly do so also. Gracenotes^T § 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone desires to banish Essjay to the wilderness; even the straw poll that was taken yesterday showed a majority of respondents wishing for Essjay to retain his adminship. A Train ^{take the} 17:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

While I would like to see Essjay rejoin the fold as a rank and file Wikipedian as soon as possible, the fact that Jimbo had to ask for Essjay's resignation from positions of trust on Wikipedia leaves this matter unresolved. To wit, many people who supported Essjay probably think that Jimbo has acted too harshly, just as there are no doubt many people who think that Essjay should retain his administrator privileges. Assuming that Essjay is truly contrite, a final statement from him on this matter wherein he voluntarily surrenders his administrator privileges would provide some much needed closure. // Internet Esquire 18:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jimbo is the boss and his actions should be judged in that light. Power is a difficult and lonely road, SqueakBox 19:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh please don't start again in this section - lets have some peace from it Giano 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If Essjay ought to be an administrator, it's a simple matter to set up an RfA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Giano at this point. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And as I said on Essjay's talk page, I think that Giano has shown a lot of wisdom and compassion in his comments. I endorse them and thank him for them. Metamagician3000 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Giano, 100%. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My impression that Giano is one of the most thoughtful Wikipedians has been affirmed by his actions recently. Endorse totally. Daniel Bryant 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal sniping is bad, but discussion of how to remedy and prevent future problems is good. Some instances people have gotten carried away, but this must be discussed. Lying about or misrepresenting qualifications is a very serious issue.

Out of this whole event, I asked myself why pay people who don't have credentials to edit material? Who not pay respected historians and scientists to work on articles (or at least review) that are fundamental to their fields.

Or have a section on wikipedia where experts (I mean credentialed people who's identies are known and thus accountable) could be summoned to ensure quality.

That would lessen the criticism and show critics wikipedia is serious about quality. Arbustoo 02:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Leadership

“ The harmony of our work depends on human understanding and forgiveness of errors ” — Jimbo Wales

True leadership in difficult moments are measured by statements like this. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is troubling

I agree with your statement, in that it prescribes the right course of action going forward. As an explanation of what transpired, I find it troubling. Are you saying that after Essjay admitted to the falsehoods in his bio, you found no reason to look into the issue any further? Or have somebody else look into it, at the very least? That you did not consider the possibility of him having abused those fake credentials? Not even before making your first statement, which seems to say, "It is okay by me, whatever happened, and that is what counts"? Taken at face-value, it demonstrates a very cavalier attitude towards a potentially very damaging issue. How you saw this as a matter of pseudonymous identity is beyond me.

Your statement reminds me of Essjay's much criticized take that he thought everyone knew about this and he did it all for the good of Wikipedia, anyways, and he is sorry if anyone in the community was hurt by his decision. Spin, to put it bluntly. He sounds like someone who is sorry not about the incident itself but about it having been exposed.

I hope when you get a chance to think about what happened in more detail, you find it appropriate to issue an apology yourself about how you chose to handle this situation before it became a news event outside of Wikipedia. --QuiTacetConsentiret 20:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, but I find Jimmy's statement troubling too. Essjay shows no sign of actually being contrite or genuinely apologetic, and Jimmy makes no attempt to explain several fundamental points that got people worked up in the first place. What did he mean in telling The New Yorker "I have no problem with it"? When did he learn of Essjay's duplicity? And why did he ignore the obvious moral implications of that duplicity--to the point of giving him a job and appointing him to ArbComm--until now? Jimmy needs to answer these questions convincingly, if he can. --Larry Sanger 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I told the New Yorker that I have no problem with people using pseudonyms, and I don't. I said in my statement when I learned of it. Why did I appoint him to ArbCom and give him a job? Because, as is universally acknowledged, he has been a fantastic editor and community member who had unanimous support from the rest of the Arbitration Committee. (As always, before appointing, I asked.) To answer QuiTacetConsentiret, I think it fairly obvious that I made a mistake here in not looking into things more closely. It is just a natural outcome of my trusting nature that this happens sometimes. I apologize for it, but I also strongly defend the idea that we should all begin with trust. --Jimbo Wales 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

..but given that Jimmy is out of the loop at the moment, I think we should cut him some slack. It seems likely to me that essjay told jimmy of his 'persona' - and jimmy took him at face value and forgave him, hence the 'no big deal'. As soon as he became aware of the more serious truth of the matter, he responded properly and promptly (and is probably very pissed off and aware of how silly this has made him look..) - I feel sure that when he's had a chance to digest all the facts we'll be getting a fuller response. It's unfair to expect that immediately - Purples 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy, to call yourself a tenured professor, when you aren't one, is not a "pseudonym." It's identity fraud. And the full question is not why you appointed Essjay to ArbCom, but: why did you ignore the obvious moral implications of the fact that he had fraudulently pretended to be a professor--ignoring those implications even to the point of giving him a job and appointing him to ArbCom--until now? The problem isn't just that he won arguments on WP by citing his false credentials. It's that he got into positions of authority in WP that way, he was interviewed by The New Yorker that way, and played make believe that he was a professor for six hours straight to a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. And you had to know all of this before this morning. Your claim, "I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on," seems disingenuous. You fully knew that he was impersonating a professor and you had to know that he had gotten advantages as the reward of his duplicity; and, despite knowing this no doubt last January, you gave him a job and appointed him to ArbCom anyway. --Larry Sanger 01:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews article

Here is a Wikinews article, for your review. -- Zanimum 22:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Maybe it's time to introduce a new one: Assume Clue. If I may paraphrase Jimmy's statement: "Oh, hey, that's bad, we'll fix it". Sure. And that was always on the cards, but some people seem unwilling to assume that others have the slightest trace of Clue. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, Jimbo's earlier comments (in the New Yorker piece, and his first comment about the situation on this page) did not give any indication that his later decision was "on the cards". Furthermore, in his subsequent comment he stresses that he did not have all the facts about the situation. Given these two facts, earlier attempts to clue Jimbo in on the seriousness of the matter were appropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's nice.

Too bad you lack the cajones to flat out fire him. Let's be plain; Essjay, from the start, was using his false credentials to win Wikidebates and puff up his reputation. You became good ol' buddies with him, and so when the truth emerged about his real background, you felt bad about hurting a friend and disguised it with some "it's just a pseudonym" bullshit. Meanwhile, you swallowed Essjay's tall tales about "online protection from the big bad internet" hook, line, and sinker. You've been called out for being a dupe twice, and Essjay's been called out for a false persona and continued denial of wrongdoing. Even after Essjay's continued dishonesty, you're still reluctant to just fire him like any sane manager, because you shared a beer with him at some point. Why? These thinly-disguised "buddy privileges" are reminiscent of the Bush administration. Face it: you were fooled twice. Shame on you. 69.241.225.246 01:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "we should all begin with trust" comment

I do not mean to voice my opinion on this particular case, but I just needed to state that I believe trust is not a good thing to start with in general. My reason is being that in general, trust has always been the thing that the bad guy goes after; therefore with all due respect I fail to understand what Jimbo means here. Furthermore, I strongly believe that the the fundamental axiom of all rules, guidelines, and policies on Wikipedia is not trust, but WP:DICK. Whenever I see questionable user behavior on Wikipedia, I always have to ask myself if this axiom is being violated. Of course, this discussion has made it to the front page of Slashdot. Regards, Tuxide 01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

An award

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I, Steptrip, award you this barnstar for having to put up with a wide spectrum of issues and making sure that this encyclopedia runs smoothly.  ~Steptrip 02:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's Funny

When someone shows emotional distress like Yanksox, you immediately use your dictatorial powers in punitive actions; yet when someone calmly betrays the trust of everyone with no remorse like Essjay, you "ask" him to "give up" his privledges, since he has sucked up to you so often in the past.

Once again, the hypocrisy of the double standards is staggering. In my opinion, your role at the helm of Wikipedia is detrimental to the project and you should only focus on technical issues, you seem to show no ability for fair judgement. I hope you prove me wrong once you return from India and instead of this nepotism, treat Essjay no differently than Yanksox or the many others you trusted you in the past who you decided to throw away, but I doubt that you will.Just H^{editor review} 02:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)