Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 3

Misinformation and misrepresentation
Some of the many media articles and blog entries are propagating misinformation and misleading info; I'm not sure if it should be mentioned in the article. Firstly, several outlets are mentioning that Essjay has had his 'editor privileges cancelled' - has he actually been blocked? I had thought not. And secondly, a recent article in the Telegraph has made Arbcom sound like an editorial board. Other news outlets have made the same implication. Anchoress 19:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there would have to be another reputable source that says something about "propagating misinformation and misleading info", with regards to the other sources... Smee 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure that I understand you. Are you saying that we have to wait for a publication to state that ArbCom isn't an editorial board before we can say that articles about EssJay have misrepresented ArbCom as an editorial board? Is that true? If an article stated that Wikipedia's servers were located at the bottom of the ocean, would we need to wait for another news site to refute it before we could identify the report as false? I admit that I'm not an expert on RS on WP, but wouldn't a link to the description of ArbCom suffice? And/or a link to EssJay's block log? Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding you, and if so, I apologise. Anchoress 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * These are the wonted journo errors which creep into any news item. Technically incorrect and sloppy, they're close enough but nettling to people familiar with the details. It happens all the time and to bring it up in this article IMHO would be non-standard and sound defensive and nitpicky. Gwen Gale 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that without satisfying WP:RS, to comment about what some may see as mistakes in news articles would be a violation of WP:NOR... Smee 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Ignore those little technical errors, they're part of the news business. Every news story has them. Gwen Gale 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me... Smee 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Yeah, that's fine. Anchoress 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between quoting a news article and making an assertion. If you quote a news article, you should quote it verbatim and should not correct the text of the quote. However, it is reasonable to correct the mistake by stating the truth without a citation as long as no one challenges your assertions.

For example, I think it is reasonable to say "Although some media reports indicated that Essjay had his editor privileges cancelled, a more accurate characterization would be that he gave up various administrative and oversight privileges and indicated that he was leaving Wikipedia. He requested that his user pages be delted but he did not, however, take any steps to have his account deleted."

Now, the problem is... what if someone DOES challenge this with a tag? What I wrote is true as of this writing but the only proof I have is Wikipedia links and one can argue that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Well, Wikipedia is kind of a reliable source about itself but I don't want to go chasing down that rabbit hole.

So, I can imagine that you could put the assertion about Essjay's actions into the article but you would have to be willing for it to be deleted if anybody challenged the truth of the assertion.

--Richard 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told it's not reasonable. If you want to say something, find a citation to support it or don't say it. One can paraphrase a source but one cannot correct it, that's original research (no, I'm not talking about spelling errors and so on, those should only be untouched in directly attributed quotations). With breaking news stories it can take time to assemble enough citations from sundry news articles to get a complete and accurate encyclopedic narrative. Be patient, it'll happen. Gwen Gale 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

meanwhile, down the memory hole
Essjay, with its redirect to this article, has been deleted, which will thwart many readers from ever finding it. Gwen Gale 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to think Ned Scott is a puppet of Essjay. He even called me an "asshole" here. Regards, --Jayzel 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good luck getting that one through RfCU. Ned edits manga articles, not theology. I'd suggest you at least do a modicum of research before accusing an editor in good standing of being a sock. --tjstrf talk 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An editor who calls other editors "assholes" has no good standing IMO. Good day, --Jayzel 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone can let their civility slip from time to time, and your abrasive sarcasm in that conversation was just as incivil as his cursing. "Good standing" refers to their overall behaviour and editing pattern. Regardless of your personal opinion of him, he is no sock. --tjstrf talk 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever, a*****e. ;) --Jayzel 21:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm nope, calling someone asshole is more uncivil than calling someone who has represented himself as a professor for two years professor. Gwen Gale 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He has now kindly agreed to preserve the re-direct. Gwen Gale 21:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In fairness, he wanted the redirect deleted so the article could be moved back to it. JoshuaZ 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think all in all Ned did the right thing. We now have a NPOV title, redirects from Essjay and Essjay Scandal and we can carry on editing the article to be a NPOV record of Essjays (the editor) actions rather than a contentious bio or POV witch hunt - Munta 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Gwen Gale 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't care much about the name of the article as much as I wanted to avoid possible confusing during the AfD. The article had twice been moved back to Essjay (once by me, and once by another) for that reason alone. That and this discussion made me think that moving it back would be a good idea. I was no fan of the word "scandal" being thrown in, but that was more of a secondary concern. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we ditch the photo?
There is a sad irony, with even his (probably) local paper gathering information on him and his name in the news around the globe, that right now Essjay really does have a legitimate concern about harassment and violation of privacy in Real Life. The picture doesn't serve any purpose; it doesn't add anything to the article. Please let's edit it out. Risker 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see discussion on subsection "Image", above. The photo is free to use under GFDL, is at the bottom of the article, and we have no idea in actuality who is really depicted in the photo... Smee 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Wikipedia is not censored. --Jayzel 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I feel bad for Essjay but for all anyone knows that pic is as MUDdy as his CV was. Gwen Gale 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm becoming more concerned about the photo as we go along. Initially, I though it fair use as it documented the person behind the article. However, as the article has changed, it has become much more of a record of Essjay and his persona rather than a record of Ryan himself. On the other hand, there is a risk that we are saying that a "virtual person" is an entity in their own right and that is clearly ridiculous. Weighing up the pros and the cons, I feel that the text in the article is right (Ryan being named in time context) and for the respect of Ryan (as a falable human being, not as a former wikipedian), the photo adds nothing to the article. This isn't censorship - its common sense. I would be happy if it was removed and replaced at a latter date if the situation changes. - Regards - Munta 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's GFDL, no licensing worries at all. The photo was uploaded by User:Essjay as his WP:MUD avatar, it's presented with screenshots of Essjay's userspace and the name of this article begins with Essjay. Gwen Gale 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. All very good reasons to Keep, as highly relevant and useful in this article. Smee 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I realise that there are no licencing issues. I just belive that the inclusion of the photo blurs the distinction between Essjay and Ryan. The article is not about Ryan - so why do we need the photo? I've thought long and hard on this and I was very strong in my views about Essjay resigning and these articles staying. Perhaps its just my humanist nature but I just feel uncomfortable about this one. - Munta 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't the Ryan Jordan article, or the Essjay article...it is the Essjay Controversy article. Nobody's whining abuot licensing. The screenshots make sense. But unless someone can show a reason that the article would be deficient without that photo, it should go. There are elements of WP:BLP here, even though it isn't strictly a biographical article. If ever there was an article that needs to meet the highest standards of ethics, this is the one. 216.95.209.50 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, computer logged out on me before submitting - this was by Risker)


 * Remove The photo doesn't reflect any of the newsworthy aspects of the story (other than that Essjay is young), and publicizing it intrudes on the privacy of a guy who is, frankly, only borderline notable. Keep the article, if there is concensus that it's newsworthy, but let's have a heart. TheronJ 21:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Get rid of it. Weighing up the serious harm we could be doing to someone in real life and the possible slight improvement the photo might bring to the article, I can't see how we can even hesitate over it. This is a human being, no matter what we might think of the scandal he caused. ElinorD (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm swayed :) Sorry if I seemed like I was being mean to Essjay. Gwen Gale 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gwen. ElinorD (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If more than a few people want to remove it, that's fine, but I think leaving it as "commented out" is a good idea, it might be re-added at a later point in time... Smee 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
 * On the other hand, please see Jimmy Wales asks Wikipedian to resign "his positions of trust" over nonexistent degrees, on Wikinews, where the photo is being used, along with the caption: Photo of Essjay, uploaded by himself. Smee 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Haha no worries! I've got a feeling we're gonna see a proposal to delete that image from the server anytime now. Gwen Gale 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries about Wikinews, they are a separate entity. And now that you mention it, Gwen Gale... Risker 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sooner the better. Those wikinewsfolks kept adding it back, though after a tactful suggestion it's been removed at the moment. .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm only tryin to save everyone some time here :) Gwen Gale 22:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The photo was shown tonight on ABC World News with Charles Gibson. C.m.jones 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A pity we didn't act sooner then. --tjstrf talk 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinion needed
There is currently some disagreement at Talk:Stacy Schiff about whether or not this controversy should be mentioned on her bio. Some additional opinions on the matter would be appreciated, to help determine consensus on the issue. --El on ka 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline
Very nice addition, to whoever added it. :-) C.m.jones 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was originally from Wikinews, but of course it can be expanded upon as things progress/are discovered in reputable secondary sources... Smee 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Nominated for DYK
See Template_talk:Did_you_know. Please feel free to improve my entry. Thanks.  &mdash; M (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you wearing asbestos coveralls or what. Gwen Gale 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They could have at least got the facts right in their summary - Munta 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please semi protect Essjay
The current name is protected but that isn't. Given Essjay is now all over global broadcast news... - Denny 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

screenshot published
The International Herald Tribune in Paris, an influential English language newspaper in Western Europe, has published a screenshot of an early version of this article. Gwen Gale 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't that the same article that was published earlier by the NYT? --tjstrf talk 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, or a version of it, with the added screenshot. Gwen Gale 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Gwen, what was the template that was for articles that themselves were cited in major news stories...? - Denny 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't find it here, Gwen Gale 00:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Header added to top of talk page. Smee 00:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

User:Kendrick7's lead is wrong
The current lead as edited into the article by reads false. The controversy stems from The New Yorker having to print an editor's note regarding a previous article they had published that had to explain that Essjay did not have credentials the original article said he did. 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Gwen Gale 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the controversy stems from Essjay being exposed as a liar.  &mdash; M (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just following what is in the ABC news article : "This latest scandal, at one of the Web's most viewed sites, involves a prominent editor who forged his credentials and faked having a doctorate." -- Kendrick7talk 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * which is a bit sensationalist and makes errors.Geni 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but are you now copyediting a cited source???  &mdash; M (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ABC Nightly News
ABC News broadcast a story on Wikipedia's accuracy tonight, and the Essjay incident featured prominently therein. Rklawton 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dammit! Now what am I going to do with this huge hole I just dug?! Edeans 01:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Wikipedia prevented a fake-charity from taking advantage of millions after the 2004 Tsunami, but did ABC Nightly News report on that? Nooooooo. How about any other major news source? Not last time I checked. Typical. --*Kat* 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (heh, again with the Justin Timberlake edit.. wtf?) I have to say, regardless of how you view Essjay now (like him or hate him) that report by ABC was pretty shitty. I'm still not convinced this makes the Essjay event notable. Remember, Wikipedia is a "hot topic" in many ways, and this seems less about this incident and more about using the incident to make some shocking statements (zomg, someone lied on the internet). They didn't even mention why Essjay was specifically significant, in that he held a position of community trust. This could have been anything, could have been anyone. They just treated it as if that was the first editor to ever lie. The news media can be very absurd at times, and the public's attention is short. I get the feeling that being on things like ABC Nightly News won't indicate notability, it will simply indicate how the ignorant public is entertained by stories of the mysterious "internet thing". -- Ned Scott 03:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essay originally confirmed his credentials to the New Yorker
OK, Netscott, here:


 * Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team because of his respected position within the Wikipedia community. He was willing to describe his work as a Wikipedia administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page.

From The New Yorker Article as cited. -- Kendrick7talk 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just posted to your talk page... I retract my statement. Kindly accept my apologies. 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No lo problemo. -- Kendrick7talk 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no basis for saying that he forged any credentials or faked anything. He lied about his credentials, but that is completely different. The opening sentence currently gives totally the wrong impression. What he actually did may be just as bad (repeatedly lying on his userpage and elsewhere, including to Ms Schiff), but it is not the same as forging or faking documents. Also, the source cited is totally unreliable, even though it is a large news company: nomnetheless, it is just someone who was not involved and has the wrong end of the stick. It is always dangerous relying on journalistic sources for anything even slightly complicated. If we are going to keep this article, it needs to be accurate and sourced properly. Metamagician3000 06:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of POV
I removed the following from the article

This has no place in this article as it is POV and OR. Theres much more POV, OR and primary (self) reference. Can editors please help with keeping this NPOV that other editors have spent so much time working on.

Thanks - [[User:Munta Munta] 01:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed it as well... essentially as original research whose removal is covered by WP:BLP. 01:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto that; and pointed out the inappropriateness to one of the authors of the nonsense. -- LeflymanTalk 01:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You guys are LYING, but the TRUTH speaks for itself. How can it be OR or libelous when it is cited to an edit that Essjay himself published, at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gay&diff=prev&oldid=14917790 ???Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Among other issues, Essjay has never said that he was straight, so those edits could be completely honest. JoshuaZ 01:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've commented out the cited material above due to very real BLP concerns. 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's completely inappropriate. "Gamed the system" is POV. "Posing as a homosexual" suggests that he isn't homosexual. He may or may not be. We don't know. The statement that Robbie's only contribution was to vote in Essjay's RfB is simply inaccurate. See Special:Contributions/Robbie31. Admittedly there are no actual contributions to articles, but the account was not created and used more than two months before the RfC. These edits are coming from a new account. I suggest that the user familiarise himself with policy, rather than revert warring. ElinorD (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'll tell you, the conclusion people are drawing everywhere is that wikipedia has been pretty much controlled by sexual minorities placed in positions of god-like power. Now would you like a source for that statement??


 * Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!)

User:Os Cangaceiros kindly familiarize yourself with What is a troll and know that this last commentary is sooner in line with that. In that light kindly refrain from further such commentary. 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * QED Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!)


 * Give me a break. The only edit outside of userspace was in the RfB. It was an obvious meatpuppet single purpose account. I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a sudden upswing in this user's contributions in the near future. The content and the evidence, sans the homosexual content, is highly relevant to expose Essjay's further duplicity.  &mdash; M (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no proof, it has not been cited and it is libelous. What you believe to be true, by definition is POV. What do you not understand about why it shouldn't be included - Regards - Munta 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt we will see any such upswring- if this is Essjay's actual partnet he will most likely not be in a mood to edit. Furthermore, Essjay easily had the technical skill to make a much more subtle sock, if he had wanted to sock he would have done that. JoshuaZ 01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"As a gay person" is pretty straightforward (pardon the pun) to me. To say this is libelous is really offensive by the way. As a gay person. Consider that. Wjhonson 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Missing the point. The issue is that we have no reason to think that Essjay is not gay. So claiming that Robbie didn't exist or that Essjay being gay was part of the persona does not meet WP:BLP or WP:OR. JoshuaZ 03:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RFOL Youre in it deep now, man! Wish I could throw in a paddle, but... 172.135.71.121

Timeline improvments
I don't believe the current timeline is correct. I drew up a timeline a few days ago (see my email to WikiEN-l), and Essjay posted the relevant details to his Wikia userpage 7 January, not 15 January (although the Wikia staff have made this difficult to confirm, as past revisions have been deleted...). The timeline also omits Brandt's discovery of the Wikia userpage circa 21 January and Essjay's first message on the subject 1 February. These seem to be fairly important details. --Gwern (contribs) 02:06 7 March 2007 (GMT)


 * Well, add 'em in! :-) C.m.jones 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. I hope no one dings my additions for OR or something equally silly - they were there when I was researching the email! --Gwern (contribs) 06:52 7 March 2007 (GMT)


 * On a side note, I'm unsure how much to include. Should we mention that Brandt did more than just be the first to notice and report it to the New Yorker? He flogged it pretty heavily on Slashdot and other places, and his website - note all the anonymous and other persons who seem to home in on Essjay rather quickly, from the Slashdot article itself, to the early anon edits to User talk:Essjay, and so on. --Gwern (contribs) 07:12 7 March 2007 (GMT)


 * Without a reliable source that would be original research. We need to be very careful with this article. JoshuaZ 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Excessive timeline
I reverted to the previous version of the timeline from one adding excessive, extraneous detail. Content such as this should be attributed to outside sources, within the body of the article: -- LeflymanTalk 07:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * January 21, 2007 &mdash; An SBC IP address self-identified as Daniel Brandt contacts Essjay on his talk page and asks him to "Please explain the tremendous disparity between the personal information you have volunteered on your user page on Wikipedia since you started in February 2005, and the new information you provide at wikia.com." He provides a screenshot dated 18 January 2007. Essjay never replies.
 * February 1, 2007&mdash;A Wikipedia user contacts Essjay on the same subject as Brandt did; Essjay confirms that the Wikia profile is accurate, and that to avoid "trolls, stalkers, and psychopaths who wander around Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects looking for people to harass, stalk, and otherwise ruin the lives of", Essjay's "approach was different: I decided to be myself, to never hide my personality, to always be who I am, but to utilize disinformation with regard to what I consider unimportant details: age, location, occupation, etc."


 * I don't know, after having read some of this, I appreciate seeing Essjay's side of the story in the article somewhere. It's a shame we don't have a secondary source for all this. -- Kendrick7talk 09:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Leflyman, I don't think the first entry is excessive or extraneous. The first item is about the first ever recorded mention of the discrepancy, and the second records Essjay's first ever comment and defense of his actions. I think those are important. It'd be like an article on the American Revolution not mentioning the battle of Lexington and Concord. These are important things, more important to what actually happened than some news articles or mentions on TV. --Gwern (contribs) 23:51 7 March 2007 (GMT)

Image
Essjay uploaded this picture of himself, I don't see any encyclopedic reason why it shouldn't be used. I suggest we put it up on the main article. The same thing was done with several fraudsters articles at Wikipedia, why should it be different for Essjay ?? Arcticdawg 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Essjay_controversy#Can_we_ditch_the_photo.3F 2 - It has not been confirmed to be Essjay 3 - Whats the point - it adds nothing to the article Munta 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say a picture of Essjay he himself loaded adds to the article, it is the same one he used when he came out of the closet at Wikia. Arcticdawg 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The image adds to the article. A picture is worth a thousand words. Readers want to know what the person of interest looks like. --QuackGuru 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have resored it to the article. It was shown on ABC World News tonight. It would not be right for us to leave it out of our own coverage. Johntex\talk 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As the title says "no evidence if it is Essjay or not". Does wikipedia now include information where we have no evidence of what it represents? It does not add anything to the article. We do not know if it proves it is Essjay and we do not know if it proves if Essjay was duplicitious. - Munta 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We know he uploaded it. We know he claimed it was him. We know reputable media outlets have run it as part of their story. We don't need to know whether it is him or not so long as we don't claim it is him. Our caption is correctly stating the known facts about the image. Johntex\talk 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The famous picture was used by the media. One of the most notable pictures on Wikipedia. --QuackGuru 02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Louisville Courier-Journal
No love expressed in Essjay's hometown newspaper. "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Edeans 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That article also casts doubt on the credentials Essjay presented to Wikia:
 * "On Wikia's site, Jordan said he lives outside Louisville and studied philosophy and religion at Centre, in Danville, as well as the University of Kentucky and University of Louisville."
 * "He said that before coming to Wikia, 'I was an account manager with a Fortune 20 company, where I worked on a ten person team that managed roughly $500,000,000 in annual sales. Prior to that, I was a paralegal for five years,' including 'nearly a year with a firm in Louisville that represented doctors in medical licensure matter and a three month special position with a United States Bankruptcy Trustee.'"


 * "A Centre spokesman confirmed Jordan attended from 2001 to 2003, and a UK spokesman said he was enrolled in the fall semester of 2003 at the former Lexington Community College, now Bluegrass Community and Technical College."


 * "A spokeswoman for U of L said nobody by that name has attended the university since 1920, and a spokeswoman for the U.S. bankruptcy trustee said the office had no record Jordan had worked there."


 * "J. Fox DeMoisey, a lawyer who represents doctors in licensure cases, said Jordan had worked in his office for about six months as a secretary and receptionist."
 * Looks like even his revised educational/employment history may contain inaccuracies. Johntex\talk 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No surprise there, it was already known (5 days ago) that his Wikia CV could not possibly be true. . Quatloo 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He has another first name. It is possible that he used this other name in these other areas. 03:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)