Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay/Straw Poll


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

GRBerry 21:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) Essjay needs to step down. --Aude (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Regarding my position on all Essjay's current positions: the carrying-out of the duties associated with all of these require personal integrity. Essjay's actions have called his personal integrity into question.  He should therefore step down from all positions, and be reinstated only if the community still trusts him enough to re-elect him despite recent events.  A strong signal also needs to be sent that Wikipedia will not brush off fraudulent claims as "just a pseudonym".  MartinMcCann 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) He misrepresented himself, therefore he is not trustworthy enough for this position - Skysmith 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) The lack of judgment that Essjay showed when he fabricated his credentials and used them to gain leverage in debates is antithetical to what the community expects of one entrusted with so much power. He must be held accountable. A Train take the 14:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC) how did he use them to gain advantage? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) In addition to the revelations here, it concerns me that the December election produced a number of viable candidates who could and should have been selected ahead of someone who did not run for ArbCom. ArbCom needs members who are in a position of trust, and I feel that is lacking here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) He (may have) benefited from his misrepresented academic credentials. Gwen Gale 14:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC) how did he use them to gain advantage? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) He may not have benefited from his credentials in being appointed to arbitrator, but the trust is widely questioned. SYSS Mouse 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) I cannot trust or respect the ArbCom's judgements as long as an admitted fabricator and liar is allowed to serve. FCYTravis 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Absolutely. I do not trust him to judge other users.  The sockpuppet concerns over Robbie are also very troubling.  -- Cyde Weys  15:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) I just don't trust Essjay anymore. Sorry. PTO 15:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes. Editors who get sitebanned by ArbCom routinely accuse Wikipedia and the Committee of malfeasance.  If he remains an arbitrator then his presence would legitimize those complaints and undermine the Committee's credibility.  Durova  Charge! 15:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) This incident is only a small part of why I think this; I didn't like the idea of direct appointments to Arbcom, and I'm not convinced he would have passed had he decided to run in the election. That's not quite enough to ask him to step down, but combined with this, it is. -Amarkov moo! 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC), unfortunately
 * 14) Partly because he didn't even run in the election, I think this is the worst time he could have been appointed.  Majorly  (o rly?) 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) While I personally continue to trust Essjay's judgment, it's clear that he has lost that of the community as a whole. &mdash;Cryptic 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Sorry Essjay but I agree with all of the above, there is just too much going on. And Majorly brought up a good point; and I find the "Robbie" thing worrisome. ~ Arjun  15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Yes. Essjay has betrayed the trust of the community, inside and out.  RFerreira 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) If no action is taken, it will be a blow to the credibility of the Wikipedia project as a whole.  He has advanced himself as a representative of the project on a number of occasions, actively using his false credentials to bolster his own credibility.  It also appears that he has invoked his false credentials to defend substantive edits to the Wikipedia itself.  If the public is to be expected to treat the Wikipedia itself as credible or reliable, this kind of behaviour cannot be condoned.  He should step down to the level of a regular user, and work his way back up if the community allows him to. - Borfo 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User only has 4 edits before today.SYSS Mouse 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that detracts from my point. Take it as the viewpoint of an outsider if you want, but that doesn't make my opinion any less valid.  Wikipedia isn't built just for people with five or more edits.  This is a public issue.  Weight my opinion however you like. - Borfo 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes: Lying to us is one thing, lying publicly about false qualifications to bolster wikipedia credence is another. Every wikipedia editor and their work is now suspect. Giano 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Essjay should step down from ArbCom.  He has demonstrated that he is ethically challenged by lying to the press and repeatedly averring to fake credentials as evidence of his expertise on theological matters. // Internet Esquire 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's not a court... and at least one other member has some ethical issue (which may or may not be true) that apparently does not affect his ability to arbitrate, why is it different for Essjay? Milto LOL pia 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cuz (to my knowledge) that other arbcomm member never claimed fake credentials (never mind to a reporter), but only picked his words very carefully in briefly describing his background. Gwen Gale 16:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that you are talking about Fred Bauder, who has a penchant for describing himself as a retired lawyer without noting that he was suspended from the practice of law before retiring and never reinstated. While I'm no fan of Fred Bauder, I have reviewed the court's opinion in the case that led to his being suspended from the practice of law in Colorado, and (while newsworthy) it has not affected my opinion of him one way or the other. // Internet Esquire 17:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree with the above. Trebor 16:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) ArbComm has to deal with evidence that is private from time to time.  We just had an entire case that was private, with only the outcome visible.  As we can't believe in Essjay's honesty, we can't trust him to handle evidence that is not visible.  That he didn't go through the usual election process is an aggravating factor here, but not the reason that he should resign.  GRBerry 16:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes: Per pretty much all above. All credibility and respect in this person is lost.  --Oakshade 16:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes... all his actions would be second guessed from here on out. - Denny 17:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. I take no issue with his use of a pseudonym, but it is extremely troubling that he has used it many times to gain the upper hand in context disputes, behavior which (I hope) the arbcom would ban someone for. Savidan 17:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree with above. If he wishes to serve on the ArbCom in the future, he should run for election. ChazBeckett 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. His judgement has been shown to be suspect.  The community has lost trust in him.  He should step down now to prevent further harm to Wikipedia. —Doug Bell talk 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. Rcade 17:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes. While I still do not question his ability to make appropriate judgments, his stunning lack of judgment in launching on and expanding his program of deception very much calls into question his moral character and his fitness to hold any position of responsibility, and definitely taints the credibility of both himself and (for as long as he remains on it) the entire ArbCom. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes. Unacceptable. ~ UBeR 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong support.  Falsely padding one's resume and using it as leverage is inappropriate for the position he holds that he was appointed to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Someone whose judgment has been shown to be suspect, who is known to have no problem with telling blatant, unnecessary lies (by unnecessary, I am referring to the two doctorates), who was prepared to jeopardise Wikipedia's reputation by continuing his lies while representing the Foundation to the public media, and who has lost the trust of a large proportion of the community should not be on ArbCom. ElinorD (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10)  ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Arbcom's formal power derives from Jimbo, but much of its efficacy and informal influence derives from the fact that it is a body composed of respected and trusted users.  I do not trust liars. --RobthTalk 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Sadly, I have to support this. It may not be very fair, but the fact is that Essjay has become a lightning rod for criticism of Wikipedia; his continued involvement as an arbitrator will simply make the ArbCom the subject of unfair "guilt by association" attacks and will undermine its own credibility. For everyone's sake, I think Essjay needs to keep a low profile for the next few months and being on the ArbCom definitely won't help that happen. -- ChrisO 19:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Yes, due to poor judgment. J. Spencer 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) I also support stepping down from ArbCom. While I hope Essjay continues his work with WP, it will be difficult for him to be trusted with ArbCom work after this.--Alabamaboy 20:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Qualified: I think at least offering to step down would be the right thing to do.  I am not, however, certain that there would be any actual benefit in forcibly removing him from the position, even assuming such a thing could happen. Shimeru 20:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) ARBCOM should be our best representatives and Essjay has proven himself to fall short of that mark now.  He played on the assumptions of more than just Wikipedia when he used his user page credentials as reason for other academics to give his opinion higher standing.  That is just one example of how he has abused more than just the community's trust and should not be sitting in judgement of others' actions when he can not be trusted to make best judgement of his own.  ju66l3r 20:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Yes please. --Fang Aili talk 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) YES - Due to his dishonesty; the sooner the better, IMO. Duke53 | Talk 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Does not sound unreasonable to me. — P ilotguy go around  21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Yes. I am particularly galled by User:Essjay/Letter wherein he explicitly crowed about his supposed academic credentials and used them to lend credence to his position. In no way does his "misinformation" defense excuse actively abusing his cover. Derex 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) For someone who once started an ArbCom case saying, "Rainbowwarrior1977 has engaged in ... RfA fraud,... repeated lies and disinformation about himself.... He claims to be a well-credentialed contributor (an attorney with a JD from NYU) with exhaustive contributions to Wikipedia..." (calling all of it "disruptive behavior"), I find it hard to trust him in a position like this and humbly request he step down. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Yes, per trust issues cited above. --Myles Long 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Absolutely. Softwarehistorian 01:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) No doubt. It is a disgrace for a person in his position to do what he has done. NeoFreak 01:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No

 * 1) No. He was appointed on his merits as a contributor to Wikipedia. Sam Blacketer 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I think he'll do a good job, and if he owes the community an apology he can give it best by serving time on the arbcom. Tom Harrison Talk 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Frankly, I'm not sure he's got the stomach for it, but that's Jimbo's decisions, which he made after the Grand Revelation. Milto LOL pia 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) No. My considerations are explained in depth here, because I thought they're too long for this noticeboard. Happy Editing by  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI on  16:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No Essjay works with Jimbo, so I'm sure he was appointed with Jimbo as informed as possible. In all honesty, this has been blown out of all proportion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony cfc (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) No. I think it would be quite different if he lied under oath, or on something such as a journal publication or a resume.  As it stands, it's an unsworn interview with no legal, monetary, or other consequences of such nature.  --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) No. The appointment was made with full knowledge of Essjay's identity, so no change has occurred to strip him of the right to arbcom status. --tjstrf talk 17:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) I don't think so. We can't worry overly about people's off-Wiki activities. Whether he is and will be a good abitor is really what matters. Tempest in a teapot. Herostratus 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) No - And this poll is silly. pschemp | talk 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) No. Revelations about his identity don't change his ability to decide on the merits of a case. alphachimp  18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) No. We should not be able to force someone on arbcom to step down. Jimbo knew about this when he appointed Essjay. He can be removed (along with Jimbo ;)) at the next election, if it is so desired. Prodego  talk 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Essjay gives great advice on dispute resolution.  : )  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting Is Evil

 * 1) It's far, far to early to be yes/noing this discussion. This is not a poll about what the community things about things in principal, where getting it out on the table helps, but what the community thinks about facts on the ground, where discussion, not lining up, is a good thing. It's obvious there's no strong consensus one way or another, so all we do now is form into camps. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) What Hipocrite said.  I vote meh to all of these and delete to this poor excuse for a discussion. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Can we get an exact timeline here? He was appointed what, a week ago? This was a delayed scandal, really, I am pretty sure we knew he was "Ryan Jordan" before he was appointed to ArbCom. It just took a while before someone wrote the Wikipedia article and I guess everyone found out and this became a trainwreck. So I am currently thinking Essjay was appointed to ArbCom with Jimbo knowing about the identity thing. --W.marsh 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The situation was known on February 1, well before the ArbCom appointment, see here. In fact, it was slashdotted on Feb 7 as well.  It just didn't gain traction because Brandt has not yet mananged to browbeat the New Yorker into issuing a correction. It has been discussen on Essjay's talk page many times between then and now.  Dmcdevit resigned on the 14th. Thatcher131 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you lead me to the slashdot article? I missed that article. SYSS Mouse 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Let me look for it. Thatcher131 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears as a comment in this thread started on Feb 7. Commenter appears to be Daniel Brandt from all appearances. Thatcher131 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) This is a position of trust, I need time to regain trust in Essjay. --Aude (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) People need to be able to take you at your word on checkuser. I don't think we can reasonably ask the community to do that at this point. No opinion on oversight. Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) MartinMcCann 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) He misrepresented himself, therefore he is not trustworthy enough for this position - Skysmith 14:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Position of very high trust, and a position where there is little transparency. The trust now is missing. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) My comments can be found in the top section. A Train take the 14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, these positions deal with sensitive information and require the users to be trusted. – Chacor 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) One of the most sensitive roles at WP, not for someone whose trustworthiness and judgement have come into question. Gwen Gale 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Again, this is a community which relies on trust - and I no longer have trust in Essjay. FCYTravis 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely a position of trust, and I don't see that Essjay has this trust any longer. -- Cyde Weys  15:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. Especially Checkuser. Essjay violated the trust of the community by lying about his credentials. This blows my mind. PTO 15:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. Obviously someone who misrepresented his credentials (on theology no less, with its implication of moral undersstanding) should not be entrusted with powers whose details he may not reveal.  Checkuser and oversight are processes based on trust.  Durova  Charge! 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7)  Majorly  (o rly?) 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) You must regain trust again...that's all there is too it. Sorry. ~ Arjun  15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Per my reasoning above.  RFerreira 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) for the same reasons as above - Borfo 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) I don't trust him any longer. Giano 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) We can't trust his honesty.  For these positions, even higher levels of trust are necessary.  Given blatant, sustained dishonesty on his part, he both 1) does not have my trust and 2) is not worthy of the communities trust.  GRBerry 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Essjay should surrender his checkuser privileges. He has demonstrated that he is ethically challenged by lying to the press and repeatedly averring to fake credentials as evidence of his expertise on theological matters.  Netesq 16:28, 2 March 2007  (UTC)
 * 14) Trebor 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) O' irony, if somebody did a thorough "check user" on him... --Oakshade 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Yes. These positions requires complete trust. ChazBeckett 17:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Immediately.  These are the most concerning and highest trust privileges with little transparency or oversight on their use. —Doug Bell talk 17:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pun intended? :P – Chacor 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, although the language was not accidental. —Doug Bell talk 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. Rcade 17:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. His access to checkuser and especially oversight makes it that much easier to execute further frauds of this nature; I have no reason to believe that Essjay was Ryan's first account, or that it will be his last. The requirement that I would impose of disclosing his identity to the Foundation is a moot point, since his identity has finally been disclosed.  Kelly Martin (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. His actions have shown he is not trustworthy. ~ UBeR 17:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Same as above.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Absolutely. I cannot think of a position on Wikipedia that requires greater trust than that of checkuser. Like Tom Harrison, I'm less sure about oversight. ElinorD (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes, without question. J. Spencer 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree. Ties in with trust issues. As said, though, I hope he remains a vital part of WP.--Alabamaboy 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes to checkuser, at least. Checkuser is restricted because of privacy concerns. Essjay, apparently to ensure his privacy, manufactured credentials and lied (at least by omission, perhaps by commission) to the press. Much as I appreciate irony, there's something that strikes me as fundamentally wrong about giving this individual a tool that might be used to invade the privacy of others. And it's a shame, because he's done a great deal of good work in this area -- but I think this is where the trust issues most come into play. Shimeru 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Checkuser is a position of trust. --Fang Aili talk 20:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) YES - Due to his dishonesty; the sooner the better, IMO. Duke53 | Talk 21:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I understand his situation, but he has lost a lot of my trust in him. Prodego  talk 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per above, position of trust, one step was taken forward and two back here. — P ilotguy go around  21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No

 * 1) No because checkuser has its own procedure for verifying that it is not misused. Sam Blacketer 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No This is largely a technical role. SYSS Mouse 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this is a Jimbo/foundation controlled thing for privacy/legal issues, it's their choice. Milto LOL pia 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) No. My considerations are explained in depth here, because I thought they're too long for this noticeboard. Happy Editing by  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI on  16:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No.  There is no evidence here of misuse of CheckUser information.  --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) No, his actions were unrelated to his qualifications for checkuser or oversight. --tjstrf talk 17:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, why should he? He hasn't abused them. Herostratus 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious: how do you know that? —Doug Bell talk 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) No - And this poll is silly. pschemp | talk 18:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC) No evidence he's abused checkuser. Checkuser logs are available to all checkusers, and another other checkuser would have spotted abuse. pschemp | talk 18:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I kind of figured at the checkuser level that trust would be assumed and that it was likely that nobody goes through the logs looking for abuse.  Now maybe there are questions about abuse, or at least an uncomfortable level of uncertainty, and that simple fact alone is enough reason for Essjay to step down. —Doug Bell talk 19:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Checkuser would probably be broken for awhile if Essjay resigned from this position.  Besides, I don't really see the connection.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Essjay's pseudonymous identity has no bearing on his ability to carry on these functions. alphachimp  21:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting Is Evil

 * 1) It's far, far to early to be yes/noing this discussion. This is not a poll about what the community things about things in principal, where getting it out on the table helps, but what the community thinks about facts on the ground, where discussion, not lining up, is a good thing. It's obvious there's no strong consensus one way or another, so all we do now is form into camps. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Abstain/Neutral/Other

 * I agree with Kelly Martin that editors with checkuser and oversight should fully disclose their identities to the Foundation. However, that can't be applied retroactively. Thatcher131 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes to checkuser, because you must have lots of trust to do that. No to oversight, though, because misuse of it is easily trackable by a steward and grounds for immediate removal. -Amarkov moo! 15:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Use of checkuser is also logged and monitored, plus the Foundation has a checkuser Ombudsperson to review and act on any complaints of abuse. Thatcher131 15:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the foundation's gig, really; these features exist for their benefit, and there are mechanisms in place to allow the users who use them to monitor each other. No community trust is necessary to wield these powers effectively. That said, if I were the foundation, I would want him to step down if only to defuse the media brouhaha. --RobthTalk 19:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Robth. For everyone's sake, not least his own, I think Essjay needs to keep a low profile for the next few months. -- ChrisO 19:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Essjay needs to take a decidely higher profile at the moment. His disappearance has gone on long enough. —Doug Bell talk 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) MartinMcCann 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) He misrepresented himself, therefore he is not trustworthy enough for this position - Skysmith 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) The RFB passed marginally, a bit lower than the normal 90% standard. Concerns over the Robbie account which supported and which may be a sockpuppet have undermined the trust of the candidate sadly, as well as the integrity of the RFB. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) My comments can be found in the top section. A Train take the 14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) This role involves granting access to software functionality. It's not for someone whose judgement has come into question. Gwen Gale 14:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Per the embarrassment he caused the project in the media. Durova  Charge! 15:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Possible sockpuppet (sorry, at this point, guilty until proven innocent) plus fabrication of qualifications... this goes too. FCYTravis 15:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) The Robbie voting for him on his RFB is really concerning to me. Who is Robbie?  Is Robbie just a sockpuppet of Essjay?  If bureaucrat status were achieved through underhanded means, it should be taken away.  -- Cyde Weys  15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) The robbie thing worries me greatly...I mean the fact that it was used in a RFB which I can't overlook at this time. ~ Arjun  15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Again, yes. Without the need for speculation, multiple fabrication issues are at stake. RFerreira 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) for the same reasons as above - Borfo 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User only has 4 edits before today. SYSS Mouse 17:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) He should just go, quietly. Giano 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Essjay should step down as a bureaucrat. There is no shortage of bureaucrats, and Essjay has demonstrated that he is ethically challenged by lying to the press and repeatedly averring to fake credentials as evidence of his expertise on theological matters. // Internet Esquire 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) There's too much embarrassment for Wikipedia and distrust in this person for him to have this position.  --Oakshade 16:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Tis is another position that requires a great deal of trust. Based on this incident, I don't think we can trust Essjay to use proper judgment. The "Robbie" thing also bugs me and I'd like to hear a straighforward explanation of this from Essjay. ChazBeckett 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm less concerned about abuse of this position, but at this point Essjay need to show some character and do the honorable thing by stepping down. —Doug Bell talk 17:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes. Rcade 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) He should be required to relinquish the position if for no other reason than vote fraud: his purported boyfriend (User:Robbie31), who is almost certainly either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, voted on his RfB. Such shenanigans by any other user would have earned a quick termination of the RFA/RFB and at least a short block if not a much longer one. For Ryan to get off with less in these circumstances would be outrageous. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes. The less corrupt, the better. ~ UBeR 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because he has shown poor judgment and lack of integrity, and has brought embarrassment to the Foundation. Less important than checkuser and ArbCom, though. The Robbie vote doesn't particularly bother me. If there's "no such person", and Robbie is just an Essjay sockpuppet, then it's just part of the whole tissue of lies. It's not at all clear that the Robbie vote was a particular problem. If he had been using it for votestacking, he wouldn't have acknowledged a link between the accounts. ElinorD (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, as we're reminded every time we see a flareup on WT:RFA over a controversial promotion, this is a position that requires community support and trust to allow its smooth operation.  Throw in that even the formal claim to the power is called into question by the sockpuppeting issue, and I can't see it being appropriate to keep this. --RobthTalk 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes.  With the judgment and integrity issues, what else is there to say? J. Spencer 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, please. Bureaucrats should be beyond reproach. --Fang Aili talk 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) YES - Due to his dishonesty; the sooner the better, IMO. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 21:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I understand his situation, but he has lost a lot of my trust in him. Prodego  talk 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Largely a technical position invloved with granting access rights. I don't see a problem. Tom Harrison Talk 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No. His actions as bureaucrat have not been questioned, and there is no reason to suspect that the vote on promoting him would have turned out differently based on beliefs about his 'real world' identity. Sam Blacketer 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --MONGO 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he has done good work as a crat. – Chacor 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) don't see a problemSYSS Mouse 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Bureaucratship doesn't have anything to do with trust. I don't see why this is needed. PTO 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I guarantee there are worse liars with the bit. All of his promotions did not suddenly become flopsMilto LOL pia 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) He's the best bureaucrat of the lot, worth two or three of the others imo.  Majorly  (o rly?) 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No. My considerations are explained in depth here, because I thought they're too long for this noticeboard. Happy Editing by  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI on  16:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) No. As per my position above with regard to ArbCom.  --Nlu (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) No, his actions were unrelated to his qualifications as a bureacrat so stepping down will not fix any part of the problem. It will, however, deprive us of an active bureaucrat. --tjstrf talk 17:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) No. As a bureaucrat he's done fine work as far as I know of. We can't blow off good bureaucrats for every little meatspace pecadillo they might have. Herostratus 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) No - And this poll is silly. pschemp | talk 18:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Definitelty not Essjay is probably the most active Bureaucrat of the lot, if you look at the User rights log and then User rename log, Essjay is nearly always appearing there, infact I've never seen him not there in the 50 search results which automatically display. Telly addict  18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) No. One of our best bureaucrats, loosing him in this position would truly affect the community negatively.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) No. He has done well in this role, and the recent shenanigans don't impact on his work in this area. -- ChrisO 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) No --Alabamaboy 20:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) If he chose to put forth an offer to be re-evaluated, it might be best from a theoretical-ethics standpoint, but practically, I don't see any benefit in his resigning the position. I think this might be going overboard. Shimeru 20:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Don't think that's necessary. No opinion here. — P ilotguy go around  21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting Is Evil

 * 1) It's far, far to early to be yes/noing this discussion. This is not a poll about what the community things about things in principal, where getting it out on the table helps, but what the community thinks about facts on the ground, where discussion, not lining up, is a good thing. It's obvious there's no strong consensus one way or another, so all we do now is form into camps. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Undecided/Abstain

 * 1) His role as a bureaucrat is really unaffected by this, but I'm also uncomfortable with him holding any positions of power at this time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Explicitly abstaining.  GRBerry 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) MartinMcCann 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, especially when he is now in position to remove evidence of his imposture and possibly create more fabrications - Skysmith 14:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I forgot about the rollback button. Gwen Gale 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-admins can have rollback too. There are automated tools around. This makes no difference. – Chacor 14:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) In situations where a prominent member of a well known organization causes the organization embarrassment in the mainstream media, this sort of resignation is routine. If he were to continue administrating, it ought to be via a new election in which a fully informed community decides.  The longer he delays his resignations, the more it damages Wikipedia in the eyes of the public at large and the more I doubt I would support him in a new vote.  Durova  Charge! 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Everything he has gained through misrepresentation and fraud, must be removed. FCYTravis 15:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) for the same reasons as above - Borfo 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) He has let us all down, and brought the project into disrepute, if he wanted to hide his identitiy, he should have just said nothing, and kept a low profile. Giano 16:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Essjay should step down as an administrator. He has demonstrated that he is ethically challenged by lying to the press and repeatedly averring to fake credentials as evidence of his expertise on theological matters.  If he is truly contrite, he should demonstrate this by becoming just another Wikipedian. // Internet Esquire 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) That he's been an excellent contributor is all more the reason of the distrust the public and editors have of him; He knew exactly what he was doing and still fails to properly apologize. As mentioned on his talk page, if a job applicant lied about an academic degree (or two or three), the company's human resources would run a check and the person would be exposed as a liar and not get the job.  That this person has this administrator position for a long time and used those false academic credentials to gain respect and stature to the public and colleagues makes it all worse. Again to paraphrase what I said on his talk page: Sometimes public figures are "outed" for false claims on their resumés or personal biographies and that causes deep embarrassment for their superiors and colleagues alike; take a glance at the former FEMA chief Michael D. Brown article and scroll to "Accusations of false claims in Brown's credentials" and you'll see what I mean. --Oakshade 16:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you gave a wrong example. Brown was widely criticized by his gross incompetence during Hurricane Katrina and that the false credentials only broke out when there was already a wide call for resignation already (and he was relieved his on-site duty by that time). SYSS Mouse 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. But the Brown resumé issue added to the embarassment at a sensitive time for the administration, kind of like the current atmosphere of academics attacking WP for its credibility or lack thereof. --Oakshade 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. Rcade 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) While I feel less strongly about this than I do about the other roles above, I believe he should relinquish his adminship for the betterment of Wikipedia. For Ryan to continue to hold any role of responsibility in Wikipedia, after what he has done, is a public embarrassment for Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, because he achieved adminship not as Ryan Jordan, but as the tenured PhD.  It was completely fraudlent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  ~ trialsanderrors 19:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. The damage has been done, and I just don't think he can be as effective as before. J. Spencer 20:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) More than most of the other positions listed here, RfA is the result of the community's trust in your judgement and actions.  He has abused that trust and should resign.  ju66l3r 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) <B>YES</B> - Due to his dishonesty; the sooner the better, IMO. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Essjay has been a valuable contributor, and I think this would be excessive. --Aude (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Tom Harrison Talk 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) No reason to call into question any administrative action he has taken. Sam Blacketer 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --MONGO 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No evidence of misuse of admin tools, and he gained adminship by doing a lot of good anti-vandal work. Nothing he has done has eroded my trust in his ability to handle the basic delete/protect/block tools in a responsible manner. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) A Train <small style="color:DarkBlue;">take the 14:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he has done good work as an admin. – Chacor 14:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Under a new username I'd have no worries about him remaining an admin. Gwen Gale 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, for the same reason I don't support his resignation of Bureaucrat status above. PTO 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, same as for b'crat - his judgement in sysop matters has not changed. Milto LOL pia 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he's a great admin.  Majorly  (o rly?) 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Very good administrator, the project won't benefit taking those tools away. ~ Arjun  16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No. My considerations are explained in depth here, because I thought they're too long for this noticeboard. Happy Editing by  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI on  16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I've supported his resignation/removal from the ther positions, but I don't see a problem with him remaining an admin. There's plenty of oversight here. ChazBeckett 17:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) No. As per my position above as to ArbCom.  --Nlu (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No, his actions did not involve any abuse of administrator status, so it need not be taken away from him. --tjstrf talk 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this would be way an overreaction. One's activities as an admin should be the standard by which one's adminship is judged, as a rule. If Essjay had done something really bad in meatspace, that might be different, but this all overblown. Herostratus 17:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) No - And this poll is silly. pschemp | talk 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No - Absolutely not, he's been a good administrator. But for everyone's sake, not least his own, I think Essjay needs to keep a low profile for the next few months. I'd suggest spending some time on technical issues (anti-vandal patrol etc) rather than editing. -- ChrisO 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) No --Alabamaboy 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Again, I think this is overboard, per my bureaucrat comments above. Shimeru 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Not necessary. Admin actions are basically transparent. It is a position of trust, yes, but easily looked-on by others. --Fang Aili talk 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Fang Aili. Prodego  talk 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Also not necessary, there are 1000 of us, no one can be certain if we are who we say we are. — P ilotguy go around  21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Completely silly. alphachimp  21:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting Is Evil

 * 1) It's far, far to early to be yes/noing this discussion. This is not a poll about what the community things about things in principal, where getting it out on the table helps, but what the community thinks about facts on the ground, where discussion, not lining up, is a good thing. It's obvious there's no strong consensus one way or another, so all we do now is form into camps. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Abstain/Neutral/Other

 * 1) Abstain. Essjay has done a lot of good work as an admin, and I rate him very highly. I do not wish to see him desysopped. But every admin relies upon credibility and authority among non-admins. I'm not sure he still has that credibility, just like I have no idea if he's lost it. The best way to gauge this might be to file a new request for adminship. A  ecis Brievenbus 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Aecis. Possibly losing arbcom, checkuser, and bureaucrat will be enough, possibly not. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) At the very least Essjay should anticipate that his administrative actions will be reviewed more closely than the typical admins will be.  An RfA today would fail, there is no doubt in my mind.  GRBerry 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Depends on what he does about the other positions.  The longer he stays silent on this issue and the longer until he steps down from the positions of higher trust, the less likely I am to support him remaining as an admin. —Doug Bell talk 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Abstain. ~ UBeR 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree with Doug Bell. ElinorD (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) A real apology would go along way in allowing me to regain trust in you. --Aude (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) MartinMcCann 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Skysmith 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) DefinitelySYSS Mouse 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * # He owes an apology to the New Yorker, the guy he wrote as a professor, and the half-dozen others he waved phony credentials at. We're secondary. Re Sjakkale: apologies can't be demanded, but they can certainly be owed. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Striking support as question changed to demanding apology. --16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Essjay should apologize for violating the trust of everyone who took him at his word when he repeatedly averred to professional credentials that he did not have.  His excuse of "using disinformation" to thwart online stalkers does not hold water. // Internet Esquire 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) If he's to gain any credibility back, he should say he was wrong with no qualifier.  It was a mistake.  It was wrong.  Period.  --Oakshade 16:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes.  He owes a greater apology here for misleading the interviewer and for reflecting badly on the Wikipedia community and the editors here.  --Nlu (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Nobody owes apologies, they are given, not demanded. Still… would be a smart move though. --Van helsing 14:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with Van helsing. Sincere apologies are good, but cannot be demanded or owed to someone. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  14:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Comment on owes->should) Whether he should give an apology is up to Essjay. If he wants to make a sincere and contrite apology about this, that's good. If not, an apology is not worth the wear on the keyboard, and should not be given. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) He has apologized, many thought it was insincere because he explained his motives. I say it was sincere as I believe those were his sincere motives, and a true apology requires an explanation. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) There are people he may need to apologize to. The community as a whole is not one of them. Nothing he has done hurt most of us, so why would he need to apologize? -Amarkov moo! 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) He is either sorry or he isn't. An apology is he isn't is worthless.  It's his call.  I'm not going to apologize for my lies here because I'm not sorry for them, so any apology I made would be fake, for example.  Milto LOL pia 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't see the purpose a further statement would serve other that further gratuitous humiliation. In response to Durova below, any resignations made primarily as an apology would be for entirely the wrong reasons; if Essjay resigns any positions, it should be solely because his loss of the community's trust makes him unqualified for them. &mdash;Cryptic 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Apologies are up to his conscience alone, anyhow it seems a little late in the day now for apologies - he should just resign all positions of power and keep a very low profile.Giano 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) The already provided apologies are his, and are what he belive, I think. I don't agree with what he written, I don't justify him, but apologies other that that would be manufactured. Happy Editing by  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI on  16:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)☺
 * 7) "It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them." -- P. G. Wodehouse, The Man Upstairs (1914). Ryan should only apologize if he feels that he needs to. A forced apology is worse than worthless. Furthermore, I, frankly, do not believe his claims that he created the false identity for protection, and at this juncture I am not inclined to "assume good faith".  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) No - And this poll is silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pschemp (talk • contribs).
 * 9) No. No point in a forced apology. Of course, a sincere one would be nice, but that is for Essjay to decide. ElinorD (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) No - he's already stated his reasons, and it's time to draw a line under this. -- ChrisO 19:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) It is entirely up to Essjay.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's statement is inadequate

 * 1) --Aude (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) A Train <small style="color:DarkBlue;">take the 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Upon careful reflection, I'll use this opportunity to disclose something about my own background that relates to Essjay's attempted apology: he implies that his lies were somehow due to personal security needs.  Eight years ago both I and my disabled and dying father were protected by a criminal restraining order.  At that time I had legitimate safety concerns I wouldn't wish on anybody, yet I never found it necessary to exaggerate my credentials online as a result.  I simply didn't reveal certain things.  Essjay's response to this situation has not only been inadequate, it cheapens the real dangers that some people actually face.  Durova  Charge! 16:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Hiding personal information for privacy and security reasons is okay, making up information about yourself is not, especially if and when it is used in a discussion. As AnonEMouse said on User talk:Jimbo Wales: "Anonymity is one thing, exaggeration is another." Basically there's a very real possibility that it was not Essjay who participated in discussions, but a fictitious persona created by Essjay. A  ecis Brievenbus 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And compounding the other misdeeds through a hollow excuse that exploits very real dangers other people actually face is a poor way to seek the community's forgiveness. Durova  Charge! 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think he owes an apology, but he must realize that the best move at this point is to be completely honest, sincere and forthcoming.ChazBeckett 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely inadequate.  Whether he chooses to provide a real apology is up to him, and the community will judge him on his actions. —Doug Bell talk 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Changed vote following the change of proposition - ordering someone to give an apology is not the way forward. Nonetheless, the excuses Essjay have given do not consitute an apology - as others have pointed out anonimity does not require one to claim qualifications which have not been awarded.  MartinMcCann 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Completely inadequate. No amount of self-protection (and it was long before he became an admin and a target for stalkers) required that he pretend to have two doctorates, use his alleged expertise to gain the upper hand in content disputes, write to a professor about his credentials (after he was made an admin), and accept to give an interview to the media with those fictitious credentials. ElinorD (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Quite possibly. — P ilotguy go around  21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting Is Evil

 * 1) It's far, far to early to be yes/noing this discussion. This is not a poll about what the community things about things in principal, where getting it out on the table helps, but what the community thinks about facts on the ground, where discussion, not lining up, is a good thing. It's obvious there's no strong consensus one way or another, so all we do now is form into camps. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * 1) An adequate apology requires action in the form of resignations and adequate explanation. Essjay's statement provided neither.  Yet I disagree with the suggestion that he owes us something or that his apology was not real.  Durova  Charge! 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This might have been a poor choice of words. I have tweaked the wording. --Aude (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I still can't agree with the current rewording. If changed to Essjay's statement is inadequate then count me in support.  Durova  Charge! 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, new option is added. --Aude (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) In disagreement with Kelly Martin, a sincere confession or apology can be very helpful in repairing damaged relationships. It is Essjay's own choice whether or not to make one.  I'm not convinced that he understood the magnitude of the damage he has caused.  The total amount of damage is still growing as more Wikipedians and outsiders learn of the situation.  GRBerry 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No further action against Essjay is needed
Without commenting on if his actions were okay or not, no further action is required.

Yes

 * 1) I see no benefit to the project by taking action against him.  High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia currently does not appear to have any policies that make it an offence to misrepresent oneself; technically, therefore, User:Essjay has done nothing wrong. While I am truly saddened by User:Essjay's actions, and may never trust his word again, I think the important next step for the community is to enact clear accountability policies instead of lynching User:Essjay. How can we prevent the next such breach of trust? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Why? He has added to Wikipedia's smooth operation forever, and continued to do so in the month that he was exposed, nor eason to do anything now if there wasn't in early January.  Milto LOL pia 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) My considerations are explained in depth here, because I thought they're too long for this noticeboard. Happy Editing by  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI on  16:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I take no pleasure in the ruin of a man, and I don't think any formal action against Essjay is warranted.  However, if Essjay is truly contrite, he will voluntarily surrender all of his special privileges and resign from his positions of trust on Wikipedia. // Internet Esquire 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Jimbo trusted him to make him an arbitrator (supposedly, after he knew of Essjay lying about his identity, I don't know), and I don't think turning this into a lynch mob is helping the project, neither would depowering him. Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 18:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Agreed. Plus, its not our decision to make. pschemp | talk 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Essjay has been extremely helpful.  The Mediation Committee fell apart when he took a wikibreak, and Checkuser might have a hard time recovering if he did not have Checkuser rights.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Even with the reword, I cannot support this (and indeed, from a technical point of view, no formal action has been taken against Essjay). There are too many issues here where trust has been breached or misplaced, and the issue has the potential of causing so much damage to Wikipedia's reputation, that sitting back and doing nothing is a position I cannot support. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) At the moment the external view of this will be something along the lines of Wikipedia doesn't care if one of its most senior members lies about his qualifications to highly regarded newspapers and university professors. Action must be taken to demonstrate that out-and-out dishonesty of this sort will not be tolerated.  MartinMcCann 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This question is pointless

 * 1) Wikipedia does not deal with punishment, all sanctions we impose are supposed to be preventative. Trying to suggest that calls for resignation from various duties is a call for "punishment" is a derailment. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) * Agreed. - Skysmith 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) * Ok I will reword the title, subtle distinction. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Even with the reword, I doubt the community has the power to act formally. I don't think anyone anticipated such an egregious violation of trust from someone who had been entrusted with so much.  Durova  Charge! 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) *FCYTravis is calling for "punishment". Corvus cornix 20:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) **I respectfully disagree: I, for one, have more concern for the repute of the project than for the particular interests of one user. Durova  Charge! 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) The community can bring an Arbcom case, which will have the power to act formally. (Can an arbcom decision remove someone from arbcom? On a little thinking about it, surely yes.) All these questions are is a gauge of the community's opinion, and therefore possibly preliminary steps, and possibly evidence for any Arbcom case or Jimbo action. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) A Train <small style="color:DarkBlue;">take the 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, anyone agreeing with a question above that calls for further action is disagreeing with this question. That makes this question pretty pointless. GRBerry 16:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are all very specific, without this question there are only specific actions as options, or accepting that he did nothing wrong. This is a valid position to hold. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was interpreting the question differently. The interpretation as "nothing beyond the above" is a question with a point.  Removing myself from the numbered list.  GRBerry 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Yeah, I don't much see the point of this question.  -- Cyde Weys  17:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, agree with Sjakkalle. ElinorD (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting Is Evil

 * 1) It's far, far to early to be yes/noing this discussion. This is not a poll about what the community things about things in principal, where getting it out on the table helps, but what the community thinks about facts on the ground, where discussion, not lining up, is a good thing. It's obvious there's no strong consensus one way or another, so all we do now is form into camps. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Other

 * 1) No action can be taken against Essjay by the community. His conduct should be brought before the arbcom. They should be asked if gross misrepresentation constitutes sanctionable misconduct. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) To be determined.  If he doesn't resign at least some of the positions, I think further action is necessary.  GRBerry 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) I've no issue with it. I do have a major issue with the way the community has handled this matter however. It really brings out the worst in some people at a time when we need people to think and act positively. I'm only talking to a select few, I know many people don't want to get involved in this matter or are nothing to do with User talk:Essjay (which frankly is a disgrace). Please continue as before Essjay - your work and dedication far outweighs any anonymity people disagree with. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) You people are making a huge deal out of nothing. Essjay's personal life shouldn't be any Wikipedians' business. I'd rather demand those people apologize to Essjay that say things like "Essjay sucks" etc. Some of us really should get a life. I have one myself, thus I have no need to point fingers to people. How about listen to Jimbo for once. Jimbo Wales himself said that he's got no problem with it, so why have you? --Roosa 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of us have a life, others just invent one... —Doug Bell talk 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the internet :-| --Sagaciousuk (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Out of all the terrible things in the world, to me a bit of lying doesn't seem to matter.  Besides, I can understand the need for protection given how often Essjay has been threatened.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No

 * 1) It's perfectly okay to maintain a pseudonym, but no reason to exaggerate credentials so much. --Aude (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) A pseudonym is fine. It looks like he used his fake credentials is editing disputes, and that is not. I also wonder if any real theology professors on the east coast were wrongly suspected of editing Wikipedia. Tom Harrison Talk 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Maintaining anonymity is one thing. Imposture, with or without media exposure, is a serious matter - Skysmith 14:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) MartinMcCann 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) A Train <small style="color:DarkBlue;">take the 14:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Pseudonym, perfectly OK and encouraged even. False leads, well maybe, but should not be necessary. Misrepresenting yourself as a qualified expert in discussions about the encyclopedia articles, and doing so as a professor when you step into the outside world to give interviews or right letters vouching for Wikipedia's reliability seriously undermines our credibility, and is absolutely 100% not OK. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) I don't think anyone can say what he did was okay, although some might think it was right. Not me though. – Chacor 14:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Pseudonym on wiki = okay. Blown up pseudonym on wiki = tolerated deception. Blown up pseudonym in the real world = fraud. Dragging wikipedia along with it = harmful. --Van helsing 14:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Screen ID/pseudonym on WP is ok. Misrepresenting academic credentials and employment background on WP chavels trust and could open up true security risks (for example, by making an editor feel more comfortable in sending a private email). Gwen Gale 14:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a really excellent point. ElinorD (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) As above. A pseudonym is one thing, fabricating an entire identity and lying about it to a reporter while representing Wikipedia is entirely another. FCYTravis 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Per FCYTravis, it was absolutely not okay. -- Cyde Weys  15:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) A pseudonym is perfectly acceptable to prevent people from finding you. Inventing credentials for your pseudonym is probably fine, as just a continuation of pseudonymity. Using your fake credentials in editing disputes is even worse than using your real credentials, which is bad anyway. Using your fake credentials in a newspaper article is fraud. -Amarkov moo! 15:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) It reveals a serious immaturity and lack of understanding. The New Yorker has a venerable reputation for fact checking and it was - above all - foolish to lie to them.  Durova  Charge! 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No. I'd be the last person ... err, mouse ... to criticise someone adopting another identity for anonymity, but that's not the same thing as adopting unearned credentials. Taking the point of view that it's the New Yorker's responsibility to check your veracity is ... irresponsible. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If that latter part is directed at my comment, the gist I meant to express is that one of the worst possible ways to fudge one's credentials is to a New Yorker reporter. Durova  Charge! 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Twasn't, was just responding to the question, and in fact had an edit conflict with your edit (I type slow). Won't comment on whether the morals of an action should be affected by the likelihood of it being found out. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion on the morals is no secret. The specifc comment spoke to the foolishness of fabricating credentials to the magazine that has the leading reputation for fact checking in the United States.  Durova  Charge!
 * 1) Hell no! What a liar and a fraud!  Very wrong.  But we're not here to act on moral judgements.  Milto LOL pia 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Not a chance. I find it disturbing he used his false credentials in debates to win his point through.  Majorly  (o rly?) 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm meticulous about my privacy here - to the point where I abandoned my previous ~10k-edit user account after letting something slip - so I find it easy to understand Essjay's assumption of a deliberately false identity to lessen the temptation to say something that could be traced back to him. Relying on that false identity's credentials to gain advantage in content disputes and in communication with outsiders, however, is unforgiveable. &mdash;Cryptic 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree completely with Cryptic above, I've done a similar thing with an early account - if you want privacy stay silent - One does not give interviews to the press or have one's photograph on a blog linked from one's userpage if one wants anonymity. Giano 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at my user page (and its history) for my own take on how to handle security concerns. Gwen Gale 16:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) No. My considerations are explained in depth here, because I thought they're too long for this noticeboard. Happy Editing by  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI on  16:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) What Essjay did was categorically wrong.  He violated the trust of everyone who took him for his word, repeatedly averred to fraudulent credentials that he did not have, and perpetuated a public relations nightmare by his recalictrant failure and refusal to admit any wrongdoing. His excuse of "using disinformation" to thwart online stalkers does not hold water. // Internet Esquire 16:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) No. Anonymity is fine (my given first name isn't "Chaz"), but making up formal qualifications and using them to support your positions is unforgiveable. There are no excuses or justifications for what Essjay did. None. ChazBeckett 17:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) No.  --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No. —Doug Bell talk 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he shouldn't have done that. I maintain my privacy diligently (I have a false name on my userpage, etc.) but I don't claim credentials I don't have, and one shouldn't. Herostratus 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Terrible decision. ~ UBeR 18:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely not acceptable.  But I've already written enough about why what Ryan did is so terribly wrong; no need to repeat it here. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely not okay. A pseudonym is one thing. Inventing hugely impressive credentials and using them in content disputes is another. Writing to a professor who thinks Wikipedia is not reliable, and quoting his credentials is even worse. And accepting to give an interview (as a trusted, senior Wikipedian) to the press when you're that caught up in a fake image with fake credentials, thereby jeopardising Wikipedia's reputation, showed a truly shocking lack of judgment. ElinorD (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) To quote Essjay's words on User:Essjay in the "Community" section "t is only via the community of dedicated users that choose to be associated with the project that the encyclopedia is improved. When the Wikipedia community is downplayed, degraded, or ignored, it is both an attack on the credibility of the encyclopedia and an attack on the value of its contributors. Were it not for the dedication of the community, the encyclopedia would not exist, and it is important to recognize and respect this truth. Any action that strengthens the community strengthens the encyclopedia, and anyone who does not acknowledge the importance of community building does not understand the essential nature of the community to the encyclopedia. To deprive the community is to destroy the encyclopedia."  Essjay's actions have degraded the reputation of the community and thus of the encyclopedia, and they have damaged the relationships among the community and thus damaged the future of the encyclopedia.  How much he chooses to try to repair that damage is up to him, this and prior discussion gives him guidance as to what might improve matters.  GRBerry 19:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree with Elinor and (gasp!) Kelly Martin. Creating minor falsehoods to protect one's identity is ok. This is well beyond that. JoshuaZ 19:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) It's quite clear that Essjay was using his persona to seek positions of respect and power, which is very different from just hiding his identity.  Moreover, he's still lying; his claims in his last statement simply do not gibe with the reality of the New Yorker article and the diffs people have provided. The second of these should give anyone who's saying already that it's time to let bygones be bygones serious pause. --RobthTalk 19:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) I agree with Kelly Martin, with the proviso that it's not so much Essjay's on-wiki activity that's been so damaging as his off-wiki misrepresentations. Telling porkies to the press simply is Not Done - as we've just seen, it tends to blow up in your face. -- ChrisO 19:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) This much is clear. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) No. J. Spencer 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) There is no way in any stretch of the imagination that this is "okay".  ju66l3r 20:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) <B>Absolutely NOT ! - </B>In a project where <B>100% factuality</B> is the king his complete fabrication of 'facts' is unthinkable; if he had any pride left he would have departed from Wikipedia already. (<I>Jimbo didn't have trouble editing his version of the 'truth' a while ago when it suited him, so it is no great surprise that this incident doesn't bother him</I>). This is simply a case of a 24 year old '<I>smartguy</i>' trying to fool everybody, not thinking about anything but himself. He should leave now, with his head bowed.<font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Considering the high level of Essjay, it sets a bad example for us. — P ilotguy go around  21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) I have no problem at all with anyone making up whatever identity and attributes they want on their user page, so long as they avoid further reference to it and avoid editing in related areas. I have a huge problem with someone actively exploiting the fake credentials of that cover to gain authority, as Essjay did. Derex 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting Is Evil

 * 1) It's far, far to early to be yes/noing this discussion. This is not a poll about what the community things about things in principal, where getting it out on the table helps, but what the community thinks about facts on the ground, where discussion, not lining up, is a good thing. It's obvious there's no strong consensus one way or another, so all we do now is form into camps. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments
This isn't about telling true life stories. It's about misrepresenting them in an unhelpful or misleading way. If an editor asserts academic or employment credentials, the assertion should have something to do with reality or shouldn't be made at all. I mean, why didn't Essjay falsley claim to be a prison inmate instead? Cuz words have sway (erm, falsely claiming to be a convicted criminal wouldn't be ok either IMHO). So far as policy goes, lots of stuff we do in life has aught to do with whether some "policy" has been written on it. Gwen Gale 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If an editor uses his/her background to underline his/her credibility in a certain area, we assume that he or she is truthful about this. That is what keeps this community going. We are wary of sources, but we trust each other. If Essjay has done anything to harm the assumption of good faith by others towards him, he has gone too far. I can't tell whether he has, but I wonder what would happen the next time he asserts something. Because he will now be scrutinized more than anyone else. A ecis Brievenbus 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) Really the only thing his "credentials" are relevant to IMO - vandalfighting etc. is unaffected. So let's just everyone say they don't trust him in content issues forever and leave it at that, since this is the only part of the encyclopedia affected by his GROSS AND VULGAR LIES (sarcasm) Milto LOL pia 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is silly, you should never give someone special credence because of their credentials, you should make them provide a reliable source. He has as much right to participate in content disputes as the next person. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about outlawing participation?? I'm just saying his word shouldn't be taken, it should be all based on verifiable stuff (in other words, just like for everyone else).  Milto LOL pia 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How exactly would you like to see this enforced? This question is superfluous. A Train <small style="color:DarkBlue;">take the 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just saying people shouldn't trust him, it's not an actionable item of any sort. I've failed to communicate this twice now, maybe if someone has a better idea for the wording they could fix it.  Milto LOL pia 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Essjay has given great advice to me regarding disputes.  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting Is Evil

 * 1) It's far, far to early to be yes/noing this discussion. This is not a poll about what the community things about things in principal, where getting it out on the table helps, but what the community thinks about facts on the ground, where discussion, not lining up, is a good thing. It's obvious there's no strong consensus one way or another, so all we do now is form into camps. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Abstain/other

 * 1) Speaking only for myself, Essjay's credibility has been completely destroyed by his claim that he "provided disinformation" in an attempt to thwart online stalkers.  That excuse does not hold water, and my experience has been that when someone demonstrates by his words and his actions that he cannot be trusted, that -- absent some truly bold gestures of remorse and contrition -- he should not be trusted.  On this note, Essjay lied about who he was, claiming credentials that he did not have and repeatedly averring to those credentials as proof of his expertise, and he succeeded in convincing quite a few people that he had those credentials and that expertise.  The only reason that he revealed his fraud was to gain a job at Wikia, and he has yet to own up to the fact that his original reason for lying was to garner respect that he did not earn, much less make any bold gestures of contrition. // Internet Esquire 17:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) As it stands, since Wikipedia does not give experts greater say than non-experts anyway (as a matter of systematic oversight, not as a matter of editor courtesy, that is), Essjay's words didn't necessarily carry greater weight before anyway.  --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, from the number of "A strawpoll does not make decisions, it only gauges consensus or opinion" replies below this is an exercise in venting, more than anything. I don't like what Essjay did either, by the way, but do wish people would think more carefully before recommending specific courses of action. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) True enough, but some means of organized commentary is better than a lynch mob. -- nae'blis 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And you're not seeing this as a lynchmob? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but everything else is worse. -Amarkov moo! 15:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) My considerations are explained in depth here, because I thought they're too long for this noticeboard. Happy Editing by  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI on  16:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) An RFC would be a much more valid way of doing this. Asking editors to vote yes or no is simply too stark either way. --Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) It's far, far to early to be yes/noing this discussion. This is not a poll about what the community things about things in principal, where getting it out on the table helps, but what the community thinks about facts on the ground, where discussion, not lining up, is a good thing. It's obvious there's no strong consensus one way or another, so all we do now is form into camps. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Very strongly agree.  Lynch mobs tend not to involve much thinking. --Carnildo 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No

 * 1) There are no decisions here.  The decisions are up to Essjay and Jimbo.  It's important that they see the community's opinion on the matter, and I think a petition format is the way to go. --Aude (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Aude.  Durova  Charge! 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) At present no one in authority here seems greatly concerned about the damage to the project which has been done.  If this brings the concerns of the rank and file editors to the "management's" attention then it is a good thing. Giano 16:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am acutely aware of that damage, yet I do not hold a decision making capacity here. Durova  Charge! 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not really, straw polls can be useful in many situations and this one is reasonably useful. Herostratus 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Aude. ElinorD (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A strawpoll does not make decisions, it only gauges consensus or opinion

 * 1) Sjakkalle  (Check!)  15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Skysmith 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Aude (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Gwen Gale 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since consensus is highly valued at WP, the implications of the poll are obvious. This only shows what we think when we're mad (in both senses of the term). With all due respect, I'm still failing to see the value of this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not mad. WP management recommended him to the New Yorker and he lied about his credentials. I'm expressing my opinion about it and my opinion on lying about academic backgrounds is unlikely to change. Gwen Gale 15:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Lying about academic backgrounds is atrocious behavior. However, this poll essentially presents a false choice: endorse what Essjay did or prematurely recommend a specific action against him be taken. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree that the call for resignation is premature: this is a current news story that damages the project's reputation and every hour of delay deepens the embarrassment to the project. Anyone with even a passing knowlege of public relations should understand that swift resignation is the only acceptable response.  Durova  Charge! 20:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside your insinuation that I am too stupid to even be participating in this conversation, I would prefer we took a longer term view of this. Even if resignation from all his positions is the ultimate outcome, it will hardly look good in a year if he is simply run out on the basis on a decision made on the basis of angry people making a snap judgement via a loaded opinion poll. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Duh. Milto LOL pia 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Durova  Charge! 15:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Seems pretty obvious to me ...  Cyde Weys  15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) – Chacor 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) A Train <small style="color:DarkBlue;">take the 16:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Or course. ~ Arjun  16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) This is of course true. Polls judge opinion, they do not establish authority. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) It does gauge opinions and I hope someone takes not of them Giano 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Obviously. Trebor 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) That's just my opinion. // Internet Esquire 17:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Exactly. ChazBeckett 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) —Doug Bell talk 17:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) There are only two people who need to make decisions at this time: Jimmy Wales, and Ryan Jordan.  The rest of us are merely expressing how we feel, so that those two people can make the right decisions.  Of course, if they make the wrong ones, or fail to make any decision at all, then the rest of us will be forced to decide whether Wikipedia is a project we still want to be associated with.  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) A straw poll is never the way to make a decision, especially in the heat of the moment. Veinor (talk to me) 18:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Totally agree --Sagaciousuk (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Agree. ElinorD (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) True. J. Spencer 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) — P ilotguy go around  21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Decisions, no. But, it can have great value in gauging opinion. Derex 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Why is there scattershot discussion about this in multiple fora and meaningless polls rather than an RfC? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why this page was set-up. Over the past few days, discussion started on Jimbo's talk page, then moved to Essjay's talk page, then more discussion on the mailing list and the community noticeboard.  One central place for people to list their opinion, without excessive badgering (not helpful) of Essjay is good. --Aude (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But you can't exactly call this page useful in calming things down. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, this structure just forces an arbitrary choice, rather than a more open discussion. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What Essjay did really sucks, because he has always been a great and well respected Wikipedian, Admin, Bureaucrat and Checkuser

 * 1) No one cared about this a month ago, right? What seriously sucks is that Mr. Brandt apparently has played a role in this, tho. --Conti|&#9993; 16:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Could someone explain to me on my talk page what specifically Brandt has done wrong? He's become the bogeyman under every Wikipedian's bed at night, and what I've seen is a guy whose offense is to provide tough scrutiny to Wikipedia's leading editors that's not much different than the tough scrutiny applied to thousands of biographical subjects in this encyclopedia. Like Brandt. Rcade 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) What Essjay did sucks because it has played right into Mr Brandts hands and given him the dirt he has been so desperatly seeking. Giano 16:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) What Essjay did really sucks because he could have "provided disinformation" without claiming credentials and expertise that he did not have. However, he's still young enough to learn from such a mistake, and it is my sincere hope that he does so. // Internet Esquire 17:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) It sucks because he would have been just as well-respected had he done all the good things he did while claiming to be a paralegal from Kentucky, or for that matter, a plumber from Detroit (as long as he refrained from editing articles about plumbing). Daniel Brandt's involvement in this is irrelevant; in this context he is only the messenger.  It's ironic that the Wikipedia community owes Brandt such a huge favor for unearthing and publicizing Ryan's hugely unforgiveable fraud. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unearthing? Are you on crack? Essjay posted his real information a month ago on Wikia and changed his stuff here, then he told a lot of people about it and personally apologized to them. Brandt didn't do crap. pschemp | talk 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Brandt's only contribution has been to hound Stacy Schiff and the New Yorker into posting the clarification by contacting Schiff's agent and book publisher; and doing things like writing snoopy letters to Essjay's priest asking to confirm his new story to make sure Essjay isn't still lying. Yeah, let's give Brandt a medal. Thatcher131 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont know the finer details Brandt saga beyond what can be found on the WP bio and the broad accusations that are made on talk, but I do know that typically when somebody pushes to expose academic fraud, their efforts are applauded. Wikipedia has known that Brandt was keeping a very close eye out for problems, so its appointments should have been more thoroughly reviewed.  Critical review is good; dishonesty is bad. John Vandenberg 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Yup. No question about it.  ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Yep. The major thing that bothers me is that he has used his claimed credentials to pose as an authority and weigh in (heavily) on some content issues.  Aside from those abuses – and abuses they are – of our trust, I have seen no evidence that he has done anything directly harmful to Wikipedia.  He has not (to my knowledge) misused any of his buttons (block, promotion, potection, etc.).  It might be best for the project if he stepped down as Arb, simply because trust and integrity play such a major part of the effectiveness of that role&mdash;and because, frankly, it is harmful to the project to have someone who has lied so thoroughly and for so long walk away scot-free. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Giano, Internet Esquire, Kelly Martin (first half), and TenOfAllTrades. ElinorD (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.