Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5/User:Essjay/RFC

{| class="navbox" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
 * User:Essjay/RFC – Deletion overturned – trialsanderrors 02:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * ( restore &#124; MfD )
 * History currently at ( restore &#124; AfD )
 * ( restore &#124; MfD )
 * History currently at ( restore &#124; AfD )

David Gerard who had been strongly opinionated during the RFC, has deleted the RFC on Essjay on the grounds it was "uncertified". Such action was discussed at the now deleted talk page, and a majority opposed deleteing it. David knew of that conversation. I understand David's desire to protect Essjay, but I feel the record of these events is important for Wikipedia's public credibility, especially since many people are just now learning about the situation from the New York Times article, etc. The idea that a technicality, i.e. that no two users had "certified" trying to resolve the dispute, would be used as justification for this deletion is offensive to me. Many, many users had obviously attempted contacting Essjay about this matter and the RFC itself (which didn't even start out as an RFC) wasn't even formatted with a section to allow certification until 2 hours before being archived. While I respect David's apparent true motivation in these actions, I feel the transparency of the community as a whole in dealing with this fraud is far more important. Dragons flight 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (via edit conflict) This User RFC was commented on by over two hundred editors, several dozens of whom had previously attempted dispute resolution with the subject on his talk page. As it grew organically out of a previous discussion on a subpage of the Community Noticeboard, it was not created from Template:RFC and thus did not have an explicit space for people to say "Yes, and I previously attempted dispute resolution with the subject, too." A section specifically for certification was eventually added by Doc glasgow; some few hours later, however, the RFC was marked as archived, protected against editing, and moved off of WP:RFC/USER.  The question of deletion was raised on the talk page, where it received a handful of opinions in support and dozens vehemently against.  Despite this, David Gerard, who had from the start mocked and belittled those seeking dispute resolution with such colorful and counterproductive section headings as "Jimmy Wales found to have lied about credentials, asks self to resign", engaged in the sort of mindless, robotic process-wonkery that he normally decries and deleted it anyway.  Mr. Gerard's misguided rush to spare Essjay's feelings by trying to conceal the community's extreme displeasure with him is a day late and a sackful of banknotes short, given that the New York Times has specifically commented on it. &mdash;Cryptic 16:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedily undelete. Some people may wrongly see such action as a cover up, or an attempt to hide what has taken place. Giano 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Undelete. (my comment here largely paraphrased from the comment I left on David's talk page) This serves as the best record of this dispute and the efforts of the contributors here to deal with the situation. Deleting this page leaves only the other fractured, uglier discussions—such as User talk:Essjay—as the record for anyone or any journalists coming here in the wake of the news coverage.  Especially since the New York Times article, which gave favorable coverage to Wikipedia based on the community's efforts to address this issue, I think it is for the benefit of the project to leave this record in place.  By deleting this record of the discussion and the struggle of the community to come to terms with the deception of one of our best members, David has done the entire project a great disservice.  It is a rather weak justification in the face of the good that the orderly discussion at this page did to hang the deletion on the reason that it is uncertified RfC.  Not only did the page not even begin life as an RfC, but it could have been certified as a procedural issue without problem if this was simply a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's.  If ever there was a time to ignore all rules, then this was one of those moments—this article absolutely should not have been deleted on a technicality.  Undelete this important historical record so that everyone, both inside and outside the project, can see how we work and understand that this project has the resiliancy to face and overcome failings of even our most respected members. —Doug Bell talk 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment All that's up now is a soft redirect to the straw poll. Durova Charge! 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a lynch mob document phrased as an RFC; it failed to be a certifiable RFC so was killed. DRV can't vote personal attack pages back, and this was only an RFC to try to appear not to be a personal attack page - David Gerard 16:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And if you really feel it was not deleted 100% per process and per the spirit of that process, please demonstrate how and why. And consider bringing an RFC or arbitration case, i.e. put up or shut up - David Gerard 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually we can "vote" back what is claimed to be an attack page, or they can as I've never made an account. DRV can consider whether a page was deleted under a proper CSD criteria, G 10 in this case. Speedy deletion being a deletion that when through no process (AFD, Prod etc.)...thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.43.238.69 (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Speedy Undelete - While this situation is still developing, it is important to retain information that shows how wikipedia is dealing with this situation. Deletion of relivent material only adds weight to those that claim wikipedia does not take critisism. It is no good hiding behind process in these situations Munta 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * David Gerard has been quite disruptive on this issue. He should know better.  Undelete of course, it's absurd to delete such a page for lack of certification.  When did rigidly following the written rules replace common sense?  Friday (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Undelete - Our critics and the press would have every right to characterize this as a cover-up, for that is what it is. The foolish thing is that what's being covered up speaks (or spoke) well of us: the community's overwhelming disapproval of the disputed behavior.Proabivouac 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * David Gerard's strident, mocking commentary, carefully written parody and careless replies along with personal attacks, rather than helpful thoughts as to how the RfC might be brought into compliance (if it indeed was lacking), rather much speak for themselves. While I assume only good faith and sincere motives on his part, speedy undelete. Gwen Gale 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Undelete. As one who has been critical of Essjay's faking credentials, but who deplores kicking people who are down and who stopped endorsing critical views at the RfC when Giano pointed out that we had said enough and that Essjay was probably not feeling very happy, I am still concerned that this deletion does more harm than good. I believe that trollish attacks were and should have been removed from the page. But many of the critical remarks were not trollish, and were expressing legitimate concern. It was certainly time to stop the criticism, especially as Essjay has resigned his powers and left. But there was no cause to delete it, especially as such an action may be seen by the press as a coverup. Also, the fact that it was not certified is irrelevant. It did not start off as an RfC, and was just moved there for want of a better location. ElinorD (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedily overturn, the good and the bad of this situation are very important to our learning as a community how to handle (and how not to handle) such situations, and we do not need to sweep this under the rug. To delete this as "uncertified" is a gross violation of WP:NOT a bureaucracy-we do not ignore the obvious and myopically stare at one undotted i. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy undelete, deleted on a technicality when there were clearly dozens of editors certifying the basis for the dispute. Milto LOL pia 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy undelete Archiving in the middle of disputes is never a good idea, and deletion is even worse for the same reasons. We all want to draw a line under these events and move on but deletion of something this hot and recent will only lead to more acrimony. We are under the spotlight now from the press, how we deal with these problems is under scrutiny - do we want to show that we sweep stuff under the carpet, or should we show what an open process the wiki is? --Mcginnly | Natter 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy undelete. It is vital for Wikipedia's credibility that this discussion be visible.  Any bureaucratic concerns about the formatting of the RfC were made moot when the page was moved.  I have taken the liberty of restoring the page history and replacing the page with a pointer to this discussion, matching the current status of the mainspace article Essjay. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy undelete – this is essential as a record of a debate which included many sympathetic and sorrowful contributions, in contrast to the NYT's opening paragraph "In a blink, the wisdom of the crowd became the fury of the crowd. In the last few days, contributors to Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, have turned against one of their own who was found to have created an elaborate false identity." We have nothing to hide. .. dave souza, talk 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy lynch Process wonks who like to hurt our valuable content and dispute resolving users are killing the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to scale down the histrionics a bit, in the interest of civility. Philwelch 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to scale down the lynching a bit, in the interest of an encyclopedia. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:No personal attacks, thanks. Gwen Gale 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, thanks. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I had a look and do think it would be ok for you to abide by it :) Gwen Gale 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's time for you to stop. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not cool but I agree we should stop now. Gwen Gale 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy undelete – This looks like something to hide, when in reality there isn't. Agathoclea 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Deletion review is rarely speedy, unless an amicable agreement is reached or we've reviewed the matter previously. Could we all lose the word "speedy"?  GRBerry 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anybody actually believe in good faith that this was a valid deletion? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. As the person who initiated the format of that page, and tried to keep it from being a lynch mob where users who "edit" the "encyclopedia," get to hack at the rotting corpse of Essjay, I strongly support it's speedy deletion as an attack page. People were too busy with the 5 minute hate to actually discuss the problem. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What attack page? I read through most of it and it all seemed fairly civil.  A lot of people had harsh opinions but I didn't see anything that was so harmful that it would need to be suppressed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy undelete It's important to be transparent over such important matters. Maybe sometime down the road, it can be deleted.  But not now.  The NY Times has reported about the situation in what I think is a fair, accurate manner based on them seeing the discussions that have occurred.  If any other news stories come out, they won't have the benefit of seeing the discussion and portraying the situation accurately and fairly.  It's essential to be transparent. It's also not fair for Stacy Schiff that all this is just gone so soon and swept under the rug. --Aude (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Undelete but keep closed. Sorry David, but it looks like your emotions got the better of you on this one. --tjstrf talk 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy undelete. Had this come from a neutral, uninvolved admin, I'd try to give the benefit of the doubt. Were this a regular uncertified RFC with one barking loon on a vendetta, I'd back the decision in a heartbeat. This, though, is neither of those. Our devotion to transparency will be judged by how we stick to it when it's hard, and this is one of those times. William Pietri 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy undelete. Whether it was explicitly stated or not, the RFC was certainly certified.  I'd have no problem with a page blanking, with history intact, but to delete all records of it is shameful.  Ral315 » 18:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It could not have been explicitly stated, for the page had been protected.Proabivouac 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Undelete. I agree with the statements that keeping this doc despite the unorthodox procedure would be a valid invocation of IAR, and also IIRC it was mentioned in one or more places where discussion sprang up that this (RFC) was a more appropriate venue for centralised discussion; therefore subsequent removal of the discussion could have the appearance of a coverup. I have no problem with keeping the discussion closed. Anchoress 18:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Undelete Remembering my comments on the talk page about whether or not this should have been deleted, I am too biased to close this. So I'm going to opine.  David Gerard believes that WP:CSD authorizes this deletion.  WP:CSD#G10 says (emphasis added) that "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity".  This page does not fit that criteria, because of the phrase that I emphasized.  It served to help improve Wikipedia by removing an individual not worthy of trust from a position of trust - but that purposes is now over.  It continues to help as damage control for the massive damage that Essjay caused to Wikipedia's reputation by showing that Essjay's behavior was neither tolerated nor tolerable for the community.  It continues to document the behavior that we deemed unacceptable, so that others can see what they should not do.  The page has, and continues to have, purposes other than attacking Essjay.  Indeed, like any RfC, it could have, and did, have sections supporting him.  So it is not eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD.  An additional minor factor for keeping it was that the MFD close explicitly said that the page should exist, and in my eyes this is more significant than an RfC's usual two certifier practice.  While that was a speedy, and debatable close of the MfD (I think the correct close was to keep the old page in place without moving it to be an RfC), the general rule that we don't speedy delete things that have survived an XfD applies.  What we should have done was courtesy blanked the page after the furor had settled down, leaving the history visible to any editor but not readily scraped by search engines.  GRBerry 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Undelete. And rename to something else, not referring to the RFC procedure, if that would satisfy the deleting admin. (For example, move to the original location.) As far as I can remember, the well thought out comments significantly outnumbered the attacks, contrary to the claims by David Gerard. Eugène van der Pijll 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Undelete but keep closed. The page had nothing to do with the RFC process, and we don't have Witch hunts, which is what we'd need to rename it. Well, not yet anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Undelete, and shame on David Gerard for, in his inimitable fashion, throwing kerosene on a fire where water is needed. Nandesuka 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Undelete. Another really really bad judgment call on the part of our administrators. I am disappointed. Did we not learn anything from the out-of-process early closure of the Essjay AfD? Now more than ever, in the midst of a huge controversy and under the observation of national media, we absolutely must avoid the appearance of a cover-up. Not to mention the censorship issues that crop up when you start deleting every Essjay-related discussion page mere days after the actual event. Wikipedians have stuff to say about this tumultuous incident, and deleting central discussion pages is not going to just make this issue go away. It needs to be talked out. – Lantoka  (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Break at point of restoration

 * Comment I've restored the page to the earlier version. I've already had 1 non-Wikipedian inquire about the page. This is a massive PR issue. JoshuaZ 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * on that basis - should the talk page also be restored? - Munta 19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely.Proabivouac 19:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The discussion on this page looks like a good thing.  But I don't see a reason given here so far that comes close to justifying either Undelete or KeepDeleted.  I see a lot of fury amongst us here.  But I see no effective use of this our chance here at this time to clarify how we should approach this our enormous task of assembling this Wikipedia storehouse of truth from all sides.  I draw to your attention just two pieces of our work here that are undone as yet.  First, someone might be using this moment to lay out the guidelines for Transparency in Wikipedia Processes which would suggest principles for deciding what Wikipedia process documentation should be preserved; unfortunately very valuable and important pieces of the Wikipedia deliberation process have been wrongfully deleted by various deceptions over the years.  Second, someone might be using this moment to lay out the guidelines for Handling scapegoating as it relates to what people find or don't find in the UserPages; unfortunately people repeatedly use what is or is not on pages like User:Essjay in an unconscious and furious frenzy to take down some important Wikipedia editor, such as Essjay in this case.  All of this complex of human reactions in this moment of building this vast NPOV encyclopedia we should untangle explicitly in various Gedanken or policy documents so that we have an idea of how to deal with these moments in the future, I say.  For we will go through these moments again and again, since we are only Huwoman, is that not true, dave?  --Rednblu 19:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Speaking as someone who has mostly refrained from taking a side in this (my only comments are off-Wiki on my blog and in this comment on Wikipedia Blog), this page contains some important information about this dust-up: links to diffs where Essjay is alleged to have abused his fictional persona. Without out these links, all that any non-Admin can find out about this case is the lesser charge (which I consider in itself was not worth penalizing Essjay) of misrepresenting himself -- which makes we Wikipedians look worse than countless pages full of "witchhunting". I am also concerned about this emphasis on speedily closing all conversation on this issue: I suspect many people either interested in -- or contributing Wikipedia -- are still just learning about this & trying to find out the details. Like it or not, this story has legs; limiting its run will only make the legs longer & stronger. (And a PS to Essjay, if you are reading this: turn off your computer right now, & stay away from the Internet for at least a few days. You'll soon discover that this is not the end of life as you know it; I spent the weekend at the beach, & I feel better for having done so.) -- llywrch 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If JoshuaZ has undeleted it, this discussion should be closed. Trebor 20:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears we have a unanimous undelete/speedy undelete here. Coupled with the PR issue, I would consider WP:SNOW appropriate here. – Lantoka  (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That is normal deletion review practice. If it sticks for a long while, I'll close this review.  But if it goes in the wheel war direction or is significantly objected to here, we'll be better off if the the DRV doesn't get closed.  Closing the Brandt deletion review just made that mess worse.  Anyone else who wants to close this despite that concern is pointed to Undeletion policy for how to use the standard templates.  GRBerry 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That was close to my logic for restoring without closing this discussion. JoshuaZ 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that's a good point (not having a venue to comment at seems to exacerbate matters). Trebor 20:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the sanctity of process? Without a full stay on deletion review, any process has been horibly, horribly tainted. Process is, according to most "speedy keep" voters here, sacrosanct, and any attempt of users to take action outside of the proscribed boundries is absolutly and utterly unnaceptable, regardless of how obvious such action is to the taker of the action..... GET THE PITCHFORKS, SOMEONE IS PROPOSING IGNORING RULES... Oh, wait - that only, apparently, applies when things are done that you don't agree with. Got it. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * IAR, SNOW, etc. ideally should work in tandem with consensus. In cases where an admin judges consensus correctly, IAR and SNOW work great, save time and drama, and there are minimal to no objections. When an admin makes a bad judgment call and acts uniaterally, however, that's when you get the crowd of protestors screaming "process!!! where's our process!!!" as in this case.
 * In this particular case, I think the consensus is extremely clear to overturn, which is why I do not have a problem with using SNOW here, despite the fact that it again ignores process. Nice try hypocrite... I'm not being hypocritical after all. ;) – Lantoka  (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide an example of you proposing a SNOW close against your personal preference. I am prepared to demonstrate my having done this. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, comments like these and your earlier quoting of the Merchant of Venice just aren't helpful and seem to be some of the worst examples of assuming bad faith I have ever seen from a regular user. And note that in fact the RfC was restored while being left on deletion review which meets both process and pragmatic PR concerns. JoshuaZ 20:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You appear to believe that I consider there something to be "helpful" with, here. I think the action-intention of the participants (not you, in this case) is revolting - perhaps even more disgusting than the use of false authority by the subject. I do not oppose any restoration of the page or any close of the discussion. If *I* were able to close things, *I* would have speedied this against my preferred position (keep deleted, attack page). However, I've stated my preference to ignore process in favor of results time and time again. It's the disingenuous process wonkery by people who appear to have determined they can ignore process when it's helpful to their cause, but we must follow process when that's helpful to their cause that have me so particularly repulsed here - especially given that their cause is to ruin the life of a 24 year old kid. (full disclosure - I am under 30, but not substantially so, unless I'm lying). Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with discussion below) For the record, Hipocrite, many of the comments in this DRV had nothing to do with process wonkery, or with ruining anyone's life. My own !vote, like that of many others, was cast in order to maintain the credibility of Wikipedia's response to a scandal which has received major mainstream media attention. Please try not to attribute sinister motives to the actions and opinions of your fellow Wikipedians. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * People whose motives are pure in requesting that we keep this page should not be insulted by the fact that many people who agree with them lack such purity of soul. People who have previously demanded process wonkery, however, must oppose speedy anything this DRV, as they believe in process. However, such pure people should take comfort, swapping my quote source somewhat, that "the evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, haven't read above comments) Hipocrite, we also work on consensus. Taking an action without consensus (and, arguably, with consensus against) is a completely different use of IAR to taking an action with a large level of support. I believe process should be followed when there is reasonable disagreement over an issue, as it helps prevent bad feelings and provides a known timeline for events, but not in the face of overwhelming disagreement.
 * Let's take an example: say an admin deleted Oxygen because s/he believed it wasn't suitable for an online encyclopaedia (oxygen, of course, being a real world thing). It went to review and, within a couple of hours (and despite a couple of people agreeing with the admin), there was an overwhelming consensus that it should be undeleted. There would then be no need to go through a full 5-days; an admin would be justified in undeleting it, reasoning that there is a strong consensus to undelete, and that not having the article is confusing visitors. (This analogy is intentionally ridiculous, bearing vague resemblances to the situation but undermining the actual point with unnecessary hyperbole; in fact, it's much like comparing an RfC on an editor to a lynch mob.) Trebor 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree. I support taking action in line with consensus. I do not support hypocracy, as is transparent with my ironic pseudonym. If one is to believe that process is process and must be adhered to, it must be adhered to. If one believes process is a means to an end, and should be abused or ignored when appropriate, then one can do so. One cannot ignore process to get what they want and then demand process when they don't. "This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I don't see hypocrisy in anything I've said. I've never supported process against consensus (although I frequently support following it in the absence of consensus, because that's where controversy seems to arise), and I fully agree with ignoring it where appropriate. Trebor 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A more accurate parallel would be driving through the house to "save the day" while shouting If I'm doing the right thing I can ignore all rules! vs. taking the extra time to drive around the block, showing up a short while later, still doing the exact same right thing, but not smashing anyone's house.
 * Comment: Interesting thought:

- Denny 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You oppose speedy closing this DRV then, correct? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think my official position on everything barring the house literally being on fire for my tenure will by-the-book, between this mess and Brandt. So, yes. The outcome is already fixed due to the established consensus already on page barring a tidal shift... It will be back on AfD to be fairly judged and honestly, woe to the next person that decides to screw the community by rushing things on it. this is just stupid, and unneeded... for any non-Wikipedian, this page would have been never speedied like Essjay's was. - Denny 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also say... what's the rush? What does it matter if this page, or Essjay or whatever, is around another couple of days? It doesn't hurt anyone. how does the existence hurt Essjay? He's all the over the Internet with this--does he get special treatment for being a Wikipedian? Would John Smith get the same? The existence of his article is no more or less than any other article on anyone else... why does Essjay get special treatment, implied or otherwise...? I don't want to sound like a WP:DICK but maybe if everyone just stepped back and treated this like any other matter and just did things by-the-book, we wouldn't be in this mess. His article is heavily sourced, and the sniping back and forth here in comments doesn't help anyone... no one needs to get the last word in, since unless 100+ wikipedians decend here to see "endorse" it doesn't matter now. Archive, link, and protect the page a week after the DRV is done, and be done with it. No one's lives are being ruined here; we aren't facilitating stuff. That was done on his own. I know it sounds callow but honestly... this whole mess and the Brandt one just keeps getting exacerbated every time one of us decides our will shall decide the fate of the community and just plows into something. Stop! - Denny 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Undelete. Speedy if it makes a difference. It was obvious that deletion wasn't supported and that acting against an overwhelming consensus would just lead us here. Truly mindboggling. ChazBeckett 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Overturn, undelete - obviously. We rather need this at the moment, both for ourselves and for those outside the Wikipedia community. Process and bureaucracy should not get in the way of consensus and common sense. Moreschi Request a recording? 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Undelete - sigh, this was not a normal, well-formed RfC, but it was referred to that process for good reason. It is very important that the material be kept, trying to delete it from the system on a technicality looks very bad, and there was much statement of opinion that nothing like this should be deleted at least until things had settled down (if at all). Metamagician3000 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong, unequivocal and immutable endorse deletion. People, if one might be so bold, what the fuck is the point of retaining a vicious RfC on an editor who has left the project and is highly unlikely ever to return? Not only was the deletion proper per process, as a formally uncertfied RfC (nobody tried to resolve the dispute), but it is also completely irrelevant, as well as being a cesspool and kicking a man when he's down.  With pointy steel-toed boots.  With spikes on them.  And crampons.  RfC is to resolve ongoign issues with an editor's conduct.  What ongogin issue is this designed to fix?  What sanctions will be applied if the RfC finds there is an issue? What will the community do, ban him?  He's already gone.  Go to ArbCom and ask for desysopping?  Well behind the curve on that one.  Pointless, pointless, pointless.  Guy (Help!) 22:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Among other concerns, having a record of what was discussed is useful, and having it hear for newssources and such is important. Please consider the broader goals and wellbeing of the project (and claiming that the RfC was not certified properly is simple appeal to process without regard to whether that is even optimal. When over 100 editors edit a page and express concern of some form, it is hard to see how one can claim that isn't sufficient certification. Furthermore, we have not in general deleted RfCs simply because the user in question has left. And yes, dispute resolution did occur- people asked Essjay what was going on and what had happened and he gave very little response. While there are unpleasant elements I see little in the way that I would call a "cesspool" or that violate the NPA policy). JoshuaZ 23:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am unable to see any discussion of any issue which has ongoing relevance. If we want to propose changes, that is not the place to do it. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for keeping the page protected, not an argument for deletion. JoshuaZ 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that this discussion occurred is of ongoing relevance.Proabivouac 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you explain? I don't follow what you are saying. JoshuaZ 23:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I think he means that the discussion has no future use, not that there was no ongoing discussion. To refute that, I point at today's New York Times article.  The fact that the community demonstrated it wouldn't accept the user's conduct is part of why that article came out the way it did, instead of damaging us more by creating the perception that this was acceptable conduct here.  The NYT having covered the incident means that more media are likely to cover the incident over the next few days.  The page can limit the damage from such coverage the same way (IMO) it did in this case.  Preventing damage to the reputation of Wikipedia and all other wikipedians is enough reason to keep it around and readily viewable for a while longer.  (I've argued before that it should be courtesy blanked after the furor died down.)  GRBerry 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bingo. —Doug Bell talk 00:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? What part of the user conduct request for comment process is addressed, then?  The user has left, the desired outcomes have all been met or exceeded already, the RfC was not certified, nobody had tried to resolve the dispute.  All excellent reasons for removing it.  And the reasons for keeping it?  To allow the chattering classes to keep chattering?  Sometimes I wonder about this place, I really do. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Vicious"? Did we read the same RfC? I've seen some vicious RFCs, but calmly stating our opinions of someone's actions isn't very vicious. The purpose of RFC is to request, and collect, comments—in this case about something someone done. It served that purpose, it's closed, and now anyone can go read what the community thinks about making up fake credentials for yourself. A small minority thinks it's no biggie, the vast majority thinks it's bad. What does deleting this page accomplish? Letting that minority pretend that the majority view doesn't exist? Philwelch 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is this open if the article has already been undeleted? As far as I know, you don't restore until the discussion is closed. I am guessing the same people who had questioned the speedy closure of the AFD are not complaining about the speedy restoration of this one. -- ReyBrujo 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment that's the usual rule, but this is not the usual situation. Metamagician3000 02:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Guessed so. WP:IAR is good to overturn but not to delete. -- ReyBrujo 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See prior discussion above, immediately below this section break. Speedy closing the Brandt DRV made the Brandt wheel war worse.  The usual practice would be to close this deletion review because the page has been undeleted, simply because the facts on the ground have changed.  I'm not going to be the one to close this, unless it becomes clear both that the consensus here is for overturn and that we aren't going to have another wheel war.  GRBerry 03:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please let it run its course. With the media interest in this thing, I think there are special circumstances justifying us in leaving page undeleted for now while the DRV takes place, but let's let the discussion occur over a reasonable time before anyone closes it. Every time a discussion is cut short, it potentially makes things worse in the current environment, however wise a decision might otherwise be. Metamagician3000 03:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * overturn. Parts of this RFC are the only thing in the whole debacle that makes us look good. Zocky | picture popups 02:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Those in search of overwrought drama should go their local video store and peruse their wares instead. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy undelete per DougBell. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Overturn, Undelete Wikipedia is best when it is transparent. The purely cosmetic benefits of deletion are vastly outweighed by the importance of staying aboveboard and avoiding a cover-up or the appearance of a cover-up. --Richard Daly 04:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Overturn, speedily pathetic, absolutely pathetic. Derex 05:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Overturn, undelete, transparency is important, especially in a controversial situation such as this. If RFC is not the appropriate place for it, it should be moved, not deleted. We don't delete articles because they are incorrectly named. --Stormie 06:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Overturn (appears to have already been done) and desysop David Gerard. Everyking 07:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Overturn. The two person certification is meant is a way of ensuring that user conduct RFCs really have the support of more than a single angry person, and that we don't start RFCs over non-issues. Lawyering over this requirement now is not in accordance with the spirit of that rule, because clearly, several people had concerns over the issue. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Overturn, denying editors an area to discuss controversial matters will always make things worse, as we have seen A LOT in the last few weeks. Let it run, let people have there say. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Undelete, manner of deletion was inappropriate (even without reference to whether the content should have been deleted or not). zoney &#09827; talk 12:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Undelete: Absolutely, 100%, without question, without hesitation bad, bad, bad call and high handed action by David Gerrard.  He should not have even thought of it, much less gone ahead in the teeth of consensus.  Consensus is power at Wikipedia.  Geogre 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Overturn, undelete. This was a clear violation of consensus. --Elonka 16:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Undelete. Wikipedia is large, it contains multitudes.  You can't expect every page to represent wikipedia as a whole, and it's usually better to err on the side of transparency. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Overturn, undelete, protect (talk page included). This page is part of the history of the making of Wikipedia.  "the medium has become the message" .  To delete these pages sends the wrong message!  It would be appropriate to place a header on the top indicating that this RFC did not run appropriately or something to that effect.  Even go as far as saying it was nothing more than a lynch mob if you like; if that is how it appears in a years time, so be it -- hiding it only says that wiki-lynch mobs wont be held accountable as the evidence can be tucked away out of sight with the wave of a magic wand. John Vandenberg 13:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good comments, I must say, these, all the way up. These bring tears to my eyes.  --Rednblu 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Overturn, undelete, speedily. My trust has been severely wounded by this incident. I'm not referring to my trust in Essjay, who is gone, but to my trust in those remaining "community elders" who have not only defended his deception but attempted to silence others' on-Wiki criticism of it, and even tried to purge the record -- in some cases succeeding, turning history into a palimpsest. We can no longer see even the history of Essjay's userpage from when he claimed those credentials: for example, this link died, so it lost any use as a citation . I'd held many of these people in the highest respect for their long and prominent work on this project, but now... after such behavior by such trusted leading members... how can the respect survive if the trust dies? How can those who openly reject even the importance of basic honesty expect to be believed in anything else they say? How can those who show such disrespect toward the community they lead hope to retain that community's respect? How can those who behave so untrustworthily hope to keep being trusted? How can a voluntary community continue to thrive if its fundamental basis of mutual trust is undercut by so many leading members all at once? Essjay's departure has by no means healed the rift; unfortunately, that is still being widened. &#32;&mdash; Ben&ensp; TALK/HIST 21:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }