Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:C.m.jones/Essjay


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete. This "work in progress" hadn't been edited since March 8 when it was nominated for MFD, and was edited only after the threat of deletion was present. Userspace is not a back door for creating articles without a neutral point of view. //PTO 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:C.m.jones/Essjay
Disputed early version of controversial article being maintained on user subpage. Propose deletion for the same reasons as the prior discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:QuackGuru Please note - similar user subpages will be nominated separately. Risker 02:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This is a userspace POV fork of the current Essjay controversy which was soundly rejected by consensus for numerous reasons. The normal "no harm" arguments do not apply here, since it does show up on Google. --tjstrf talk 03:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Strong consensus???" Since when is that defined by allowing an article in namespace for just minutes, and then five users -- tjstrf, Risker, Nescott, Gwen Gale, and Metamagician3000 (the Essjay pageguards) - versus two others?  &mdash; C.m.jones 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * C.m.jones, tjstrf wrote "soundly rejected by consensus." You quote him as saying "'Strong consensus???'" and your edit summary says "major consensus???" Incorrectly reporting the words of others is not appropriate, and to be honest it seems a bit silly to be incorrectly reporting words that appeared only two lines before. Risker 23:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Tomato, tomato. BTW, were you ever going to get specific as you have been asked to repeatedly? Also, what about your blatant POINT violation over this matter this post's edit summary: "is it time to create a distraction?" and here, here, here.  &mdash; C.m.jones 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per genuine concerns as expressed on the QuackGuru MfD regarding user space copies not being properly surveilled for WP:BLP vios. 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. Concur with both Netscott's and tjstrf's assessments.  Risker 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Netscott, and BLP concerns. - Denny 06:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - not a fork, but a place to draft a far better version of article ... for when a handful of editors including the nominating one and all but one who has have voted so far quit dominating the article simply because they are the ones who can spend hours and hours each day at their computers. C.m.jones 06:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and modify - I know we don't "own" our userspace, and perhaps this would be better maintained & tweaked offline somewhere, but this deletion smacks of an unneccesarily intrusive action. Suggest a clear, bold labelling at the top; "This is a suggested draft of my version of Essjay controversy, and is a work in progress" or some such. Also, POV fork suggests: One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy ...New drafts should be written in the "user:" or "talk:" namespace and not in the main namespace.... Isn't this what this article is?  And how can something be made to conform with WP:BLP if it's killed in the crib?  Jenolen    speak it!  08:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This version was indeed copied over to the actual article on March 8, 2007.  At that time, it was reverted but nonetheless several editors provided commentary and critique of it.  None of the recommendations for change have been included, and there was no modification of this document until the deletion notice was applied four weeks later.  Please see Major_problems_with_article_rewrite from the Essjay Controversy talk page archives. Risker 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as both a content fork and a spin at skirting WP:BLP. Gwen Gale 10:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP concerns. Metamagician3000 13:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:So, if the page was made to conform with BLP, you'd support keeping it? Jenolen    speak it!  17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and modify - Same reason as above. Yakuman (数え役満) 04:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am curious to know what you think should be done if the editor decides not to modify? He has not made any edits to the content in 4 weeks. Risker 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to comment - I have made expansions to it, and a clear, bold disclaimer at the top;. Keep in mind that some of us around here who are middle-aged professionals have very responsible and high-demand jobs, growing families, and competing volunteer endeavors in real life. Four weeks to those without them is more like four days to others.  Several people in various places ahave expressed that the version I am working one is already a much superior version of the current article.  Given more time, clearer heads, and inline cites to the version (although this is NOT required inWP policy), it stands to gain momentum. In point of fact, those crying "Delete" above -- with one exception, perhaps -- are the Essjay pageguards who are using MfD as a tactic to remove a place (my user space) where competition can emerge.  That is a far cry from the WP way that specifically says, "One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy ...New drafts should be written in the "user:" or "talk:" namespace and not in the main namespace." Responding Admin: please don't give in to the sort of nonsense and abuse going on here.  C.m.jones 08:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * C.m.jones, exactly how were you planning to achieve consensus when you did not tell other editors who were clearly interested in editing the article, and who had already provided you with feedback on your version, that you were maintaining your version in user space? Risker 13:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: Temporary sub-pages are perfectly fine for in-progress work, but this content/POV fork of the article is not in-progress-- it is DOA version, authored solely by the user. Keeping it on Wikipedia is contrary to WP:BLP, which states, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." -- LeflymanTalk 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Question -- Which parts of this sub-page do you claim are poorly sourced or unsourced? If those sourcing issues were addressed, would you change your opinion?  (Also, it's not DOA; the editor (who has a real life) is working on it, though perhaps not at the speed you would prefer.  Important if there were any outright libellous claims in the article; again, I don't see any, but would welcome your pointing me toward the parts you feel need improvement.)   Jenolen    speak it!  05:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's DOA, because this single-authored forked version has been rejected by multiple editors of the actual article. See the discussions at:
 * Talk:Essjay_controversy/Archive_5
 * Talk:Essjay_controversy -- LeflymanTalk 00:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it looks the same as it does the last time I saw it, the only response I can give is "How am I supposed to know?". Because he didn't inline reference it, the slew of "sources" at the bottom are useless to me unless I can read his mind to find out which fact he thinks is from what article. His fork might as well be completely unsourced for all the good those references do, since in order for me to find out what is referenced and what isn't I must reverse-engineer its authorship. This bothered me enough when I read it that I think it would be good to clearly put into the BLP policy itself: Any article which makes negative claims about a living person and is of substantial length must use the inline referencing format for those claims. --tjstrf talk 06:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should look at it again? What "negative claims about a person" are being made?  There's nothing in there that isn't supported by the evidence...  I know this whole thing is a big embarassment for Wikipedia, but the only way to make it even MORE of an embarassment is a ham-handed attempt like this to stifle legitimate criticism.    Jenolen    speak it!
 * Jenolen, the problem is that what evidence is being used is not immediately apparent. The issue of ensuring that statements referring to living persons are properly and clearly sourced is not unique to this article, and is being discussed in several Wikipedia-related venues independent of this controversy. C.m.jones lists a large number of references, some of which do not meet the reliable source criteria expected for biographical details. Without the inline references, it is unclear which source is being used for which statement; that affects both content and tone.  It is hard work ensuring and demonstrating that what is said in an article can be attributed to a reliable source; failure to be rigorous has led C.m.jones to include some factual inaccuracies in his version.  Risker 14:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary page break
The "problems" with this article are actually fairly easy to solve. To start, let's see what we're dealing with.

List of factual inaccuracies:
 * (first one here)

List of "negative claims" about a person:
 * (first one here)

Start 'em here, and they can be addressed as they're identified. Unless people are just making GENERAL "oh, it's innacurate" or "oh, it's negative!" comments, listing specific areas for improvement should be simple enough.

If you are uncomfortable pointing out those things on this page, go to User:C.m.jones/Essjay and throw in a few templates... BE SPECIFIC! Don't just say you don't like it... Clearly identify the parts you really think fail Wikipedia policy. Jenolen   speak it!  17:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, no, Jenolen. I am not about to spend my time copy editing a content fork on a user page when the user has quite pointedly rejected any suggestions for improvement in the past, and has made his opinion about the other contributors to this discussion very clear in his post with the external link to Wikipedia Watch. If C.m.jones was to transform this page to a personal essay detailing his opinions on the Essjay controversy, I wouldn't have a problem with that; I did not nominate for deletion any of the many personal essays on this subject that currently exist in user space. Otherwise, he has the same opportunity and responsibility that every other Wikipedia editor has when discussing changes to a controversial article - discuss it on the talk page of the article and be willing to accept consensus. Risker 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't see how it's helpful to accuse the author of a piece in his user-space of being factually inaccurate or "making negative claims" about a person... but not help in any way to provide clear information which backs up what you are talking about! Okay, so write your concerns out here -- don't do it on the article or the article's talk page - but let's see the SPECIFIC PROBLEMS people have with it.  I fear the reason people may be hesitant to deal with the content issues raised by this article is that there ARE NO big content issues; the piece DOES conform to BLP, and people are being petty and harrassing (for whatever reason) toward an editor who has already said the piece is both a work in progress and one to which he's willing to add inline cites.  (Although, I still haven't seen a clear citation REQUIRING inline cites... link anyone?)  But I think it's long past time for the would be deleters to make their case - what, specificially, do you object to in the piece?   Jenolen    speak it!  18:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jenolen, I have previously given my views to C.m.jones, as properly done on the talk page of the actual article. For the benefit of those reading here, I have summarized the comments made when he first proposed his version here. Other editors provided constructive feedback as well in the talk pages, now archived. As to the inline citations, the citation guideline is very clear:  follow the pattern already established in an article.  In the case of this article, the currently used inline citation method was started on the fifth edit to the article, several days before C.m.jones presented his alternative version. C.m.jones has declined to consider any of the suggestions already made, so it is futile to make more. As to factual inaccuracies, C.m.jones might want to explain exactly who "Joyce" is.  Risker 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems my perception that it read like a newspaper article may have been closer to the truth than I could have imagined. Although at least this is labeled an essay. Risker 21:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Joyce" has been explained. A simple mis-identification that was quickly cleared up.  And all it took was a simple note on the talk page to do it.  Now what?  Where are the rest of these major factual inaccuracies and "negative" comments people are concerned about?  Why don't you list them on the talk page?  That is, if you truly have WP:BLP concerns...   Jenolen    speak it!  23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me know when he has addressed the remainder of the issues I have already pointed out. Nice of you to tell him about the "Joyce" issue. Of course, the lack of inline citation meant that only someone very well read on the subject would have picked up that error. An average reader would have been left pondering who this Joyce person was. Risker 00:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep ofr now per C.M.Jones. Also, I don't see any serious BLP issues in the draft although if there were they should be removed immediately. JoshuaZ 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Teenaged Mutant Essjay Pageguards, tribally in action: here, here, here. C.m.jones 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh the horror! Somebody discussed an idea in a public and visible venue before acting on it! It's a conspiracy I tell you! Somebody call the Wikipolice!!! --tjstrf talk 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, C.m.jones, I haven't been called a teenager in years. I spotted the various versions on user pages a couple of weeks ago, and probably would have let them just sit there without comment until at least the Wikipedia issues about credentials were resolved; but you were the one who raised the issue on Talk:Essjay controversy.  I am quite sure you would have been terribly disturbed if anyone editing the main article had edited your version, as you decided not to include any of our recommendations for improvement when you moved it to your talk page; and to be fair to you, I did not want to give the appearance of trying to take over your user space by editing your version. You will notice that when I nominated this page for deletion, I also nominated other versions I had come across, and brought them to MfD rather than prodding them so that there could be wider community input; this is not a personal vendetta against you or this version.  Risker 16:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

With enough effort, the people who added new information might be stopped from doing so, or the people who wanted to get rid of all that nasty new information will be thwarted and Wikipedia will incrementally improve. You could hold wagers on it, with the occasional surprise in each direction making it interesting. "I got 4:1 odds that they're going to be able to leave the paragraph in! Place yer bets! Place yer bets!"  But this fun and enjoyable back and forth obscures a more dark side: people end up having enormous amounts of their time wasted. They make an effort to improve the Wikipedia, add paragraphs of information, do actual research, and then some yamnut comes along and declares it null and void because of their unique interpretation of the ever-shifting "law".  Some people quit. Some people go on destructive sprees and get banned.  But some decide to regroup, to get like-minded friends to join them in ensuring the information they wanted in stays in. These semi-organized information gangs then run through the place, making the other opinion into the minority and temporarily holding back the tide of preventing their work from getting in.
 * There's nothing quite so disappointing as learning from experience that what you once read and hoped could not be true really is true:

That is exactly what is going on here. Only, I will not play a tribal game of gang wars - teenage behavior regardless of one's age. So I am working on this version of the article, biding my time, till clearer heads emerge.

C.m.jones 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep OK. Lets review. This sandbox is a constantly changing workplace, a source of referencing (has more references than the current article), and has many details some editors do not want anyone to see in the Essjay controversy article. Generalizing statements of dislike is further evidence to keep. The editors who want to delete are unwilling to explain their problems with the sandbox. Nevertheless, the "concerns" with this sandbox is simple to solve.
 * Please list your "concerns" if you believe the sandbox should be deleted.


 * Make a list of factual innacuracies and negative BLP claims.


 * Please start your list of problems. Working together is part of the fellowship of improving articles.


 * Be very clear. Identify the specific parts of your concern. At the moment, editors who voted delete are showing no interest in identifying any problems.


 * Even if such a list were made, the sandbox can and will be modified to reassure compliance with all policies on Wikipedia, herein. Cordially, :) - Mr.Gurü</b> ( talk/contribs ) 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Reject entire nomination as a violation of WP:POINT. See this post's edit summary: "is it time to create a distraction?" and here, here, here. I have taken this to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. &mdash; C.m.jones 20:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete obviously. Why do we need this?  We have an article on the controversy which is monitored for neutrality in a way this fork is not.  Old versions are visible in the history, if it's a specific version you want to refer to.  I see absolutely no reason why we should keep this.  Guy (Help!) 21:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's in his userspace? Because he's still working on it?  Because the idea that just because some people don't like the facts, they feel they should be able to delete stuff from not only the main article, but on any alternative version of the article being worked on in other editor's moderately "private" workspace should make you throw up in your mouth a little?  Because if people started tweaking around in your user space, you'd probably want them to leave you alone?  Just a couple of things to consider...  Jenolen    speak it!  23:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But it isn't "private". It shows up on the first page of ghits for "ryan-jordan site:en.wikipedia.org". Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What kind of idiot uses that type of search when they want to find out if Wikipedia has an article on a subject. They go to Wikipedia and type "Essjay" and hit go. Or they type Ryan Jordan into Google and get Essjay controversy on the first page and no C.M. Jones. The only person who would use that type of search is someone trying to create a straw man argument for why something should be deleted.  If you see a real problem with the article content, list it above where the request to list such problems still remains blank. C.m.jones 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that this idiot uses exactly that sort of search quite often. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pr Netscott and JzG. It is simply not possible to turn this badly referenced stuff into a properly referenced article without a magic wand. It would need to be rewritten from scratch; perhaps some ands and thes can be reused, but that's about it. It can be rewritten from scratch on a blank page, or using the current article. So there's nothing at all here that can be used to create a better version of the existing article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Blank user subpages that have BLP concerns. The history can be accessed to do work on the content, and between active editing the live version can be kept blank when (as in this case) there are BLP concerns. WAS 4.250 05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which would be fine, if anyone on this page would be so kind as to identify even ONE BLP concern. Anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller??  There's a spot for 'em -- right below the arbitrary page break -- so go right ahead and list 'em!  Otherwise, this is a fallacious argument for deletion.   Jenolen    speak it!  10:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is Bueller? WAS 4.250 has a point. The entire article is borderline BLP because of the lack of proper citation.  It is nearly impossible to tell what is fact and what is hyperbole. Almost every fact about Essjay is negative.  Those facts need to be rigorously sourced, per WP:BLP.  They are not now. Risker 10:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. Bad fork.. will likely never contribute to the actual article. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Netscott. ElinorD (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork, WP:BLP. Terence 16:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.