Jump to content

Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

SPA afd

A new user just AfD'd it. - Denny 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. The AfD will be dead from hypothermia within an hour. --tjstrf talk 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes and it's disrutpion. I ask that a disinterested admin have a look, thanks. Gwen Gale 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's also a vandal-only account. - Denny 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What fun. Gwen Gale 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for my own education, is this an uncommon practice that seems to relate to a narrow range of controversial articles or is this something that happens quite often? I don't spend a lot of time in AfD. Risker 20:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If an article is controversial, this is what happens. I've seen much worse. Welcome to Wikipedia! Mind though, a verifiable citation from a reliable source is truly so too handy at times like this. Gwen Gale 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean repetitive AfD attempts trying to wear down the community into giving the desired outcome? Those are pretty common on controversial/"offensive" articles, uncommon on everything else. --tjstrf talk 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is disappointing to see that this nomination was made by what is clearly a sockpuppet. It practically illustrates the problem that led to this whole controversy in the first place. prepares to be taken to the woodshed for stating the obvious Risker 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Fwap! :) Gwen Gale 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:FORTHEPEOPLE. - Denny 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEssjay_controversy&diff=114666596&oldid=114666344 Are we allowed to remove comments that are constructive criticism? The anon who is probably new here, is granted an AGF and welcome with open arms. Criticism is the best way to learn IMO. Learn from our mistakes. I welcome you, the newcomer, to contribute to our community. QuackGuru TALK 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by the given link you gave, and the link it leads to. Are you saying the anon IP that trolled this page is those three editors and a sock puppeteer...? - Denny 23:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No. I put the wrong link from another edit I did earlier. I can't and I won't point fingers at anyone. There is another case at the moment. Come to your own conclusions. Sometimes things get strange and confusing around here. No worries. QuackGuru TALK 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, please think long and hard about what you're doing here. Thanks. Gwen Gale 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Larry Sanger Was A Lot More Than Just A Former Manager."

Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium Larry Sanger, a former Wikipedia manager... Please correct this bias one-sided statement in the critics section. QuackGuru TALK 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not biased- he was indeed a former manager. He claims to have been more, but this article should avoid that controversy. People can find out more by visiting Larry Sanger. Discussing his claims to co-founder status will simply bog this article down an argument that is tangential. The present statement explains why his comment is more relevant than that of any other commentator. This seems sufficient. This is not an article about Sanger. WjBscribe 01:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think WjB has hit the nail on the head. What makes his comments relevant to this article is the fact that he is Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium - a wiki-based encyclopedia-in-development that has a different philosophy about credentials and anonymity. His career at Wikipedia, whatever role he played, ended years before Essjay started editing here; Larry is not writing as a former Wikipedia (whatever), he is writing in his current role. Risker 01:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As above there is no bias, Sanger's biographical claims are irrelevant to this article. The "former-manager" description is fully supported and neutral. Gwen Gale 01:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion. Larry Sanger believed he is the co-founder. So state it such as Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium Larry Sanger, who claims he is the co-founder of Wikipedia... Not giving him credit where credit is due is a POV article. It may be time to tag the article. {{pov}} When did Wales start saying he is the founder. Years later after Wikipedia was in full running. When? After he and Larry weren't communicating very well and begun to part ways. Please. Do not rewrite history. Or erase history. Or write a revision of history. If Wales left Wikipedia, then will you start saying he is not the co-founder anymore. Mr. Sanger has a significant role in Wikipedia. Just add a half a dozens words to properly represent him. who claims he is the co-founder of Wikipedia... Mr. Wales never ever said he was the founder in the very beginning. Never. Do we understand now. Uh. QuackGuru TALK 02:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is your reference from a reliable source he was just a former-manager. According to who, Jimmy. You are giving me your opinion. I have cited many sources which weren't disputed he is the co-founder. He is being introduced all over the world as the co-founder. We go by the real world. Not a group of a handle of editors. QuackGuru TALK 02:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Take it out if you like. However, "co-founder" is insufficiently supported, irrelevant and distracting to the article content never mind the pith of this article is to inform, not piss people off, 'k? Gwen Gale 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Given http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html I am placing POV tag in this article until Sanger is mentioned as "co-founder" something like this: "Sanger, who is widely reported as co-founder of Wikipedia which Wales denies". The reason for naming him as such is on its face obvious. We give more credibility to claims about WP by former important WP insiders, who per their experience have very unique perspective. C.m.jones 02:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a coordinated tactic of disruption and an explicit threat of continued disruption unrelated to Wikipedia policy, a misuse of the PoV tag. I would like a disinterested admin to have a look at this. Thanks. Gwen Gale 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
{{POV-section}} seems more appropriate so I have switched to it. I expressly do not endore the tagging of the article. Avoiding the whole co-founder debate seems to me to satisfy POV competely and I think the tags are simply being used as a protest by editors who have not gotten their own way, rather than reflecting a policy-based concern. WjBscribe 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The tag move was helpful, thanks. I'm still worried about the foregoing discussion and the original placement of the tag. Hey and cheers to all. Gwen Gale 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"The neutrality Of This Article Is Disputed."

  • Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium Larry Sanger, who is widely reported as the co-founder[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] of Wikipedia which Wales denies,[9]... This belongs in the body of the article. I have many references. These references are the wiki way. Please let the truth be told. Do not erase history. I have provided many many references that are fully supported for inline citations. I stick to the facts from the real world. I have a lot more problems with this article too. The organization of this article makes it hard to read and follow. Lets start the collaboration process if you will. Thank You. QuackGuru TALK 02:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    You still haven't addressed the crucial question, why is Sanger's assumed status as co-founder of Wikipedia relevant to this article? Which is about a controversy concerning a Wikipedia administrator long after Sanger left the project.... WjBscribe 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that NewYorkBrad has reviewed the POV tagging and has moved it to cover the single section involved. I would like to urge QuackGuru and C.m.jones to consider whether they are writing an article about Larry Sanger or an article about a specific situation, on which Sanger may have an opinion worthy of inclusion. There are two alternatives here that I could comfortably support:
  • Focus on Sanger's position with Citizendium. His comments can be reasonably considered notable in that role.
  • Just eliminate Sanger's comments altogether. The only thing that makes his comments worthy of inclusion now is the Citizendium role. The opinions of someone who left Wikipedia (regardless of the role he played) several years before Essjay ever edited here are not particularly relevant.Risker 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad make some edits to the page- I moved the tag. But agree that one of your two proposals should be the way forwards. WjBscribe 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, I misread the diffs. :) If I was to create an analogy for this situation, it would go something like this. An architect helps to design a school, but withdraws from the project early in its construction; one day several years later, some kid a teacher sets the Chemistry Department on fire. Nobody would care about what the architect had to say. Risker 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC) edited to reflect authority role, please note no motives ascribed to either party. Risker 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Critics Explained and the 101 of Writing a Real Encyclopedia:

The role of writing a piece about criticism is to paint where the criticism came from. When addressing critics it is important and normal to mention who the critic is to color the picture. Such as... Internet activist Seth Finkelstein said... which is in the article. If you read a real encyclopedia you will see detailed information and background. Mr. Larry Sanger is a noteworthy critic because he is one of the most vocal critics of Wikipedia and he will always be the co-founder of Wikipedia in the real world. Mentioning a little bit about his background as the co-founder of Wikipedia and his current position is necessary to show the reader who is doing the criticism. After all, he is the co-founder and its a normal concept of writing an encyclopedia. Leaving that bit of info out would make the article poorly written. Further, Larry's criticism has been reported in the media.[10] as well as his official status as the co-founder which is well noted regardless. Forget not, I supplies the fully sourced references that do in fact show that Larry is the co-foundr of this place. When you mention Mr. Sanger, especially when talking within the parameter of Wikipedia it is more than fair to mention his background and scope as connected with Wikipedia. What is more notable as far as critics go than a critic who is the widley repoted as the co-founder of Wikipedia. He is a very notable and prominent critic. A talkative critic about Wiki. It colors where and who the criticism is orginating from. Otherwise, it would be a revision of history. Otherwise, the factual accuracy of the article will remain disputed. The article is not neutral because some folks do not want to let people know where the criticism is coming from. I do not understand the reason people do not want reader to find out about Larry. The factual accuracy is disputed because the article does not accurately portray who Mr. Larry Sanger is as written in the history books about Wikipedia. Please do not write a revision of history and hide his co-foundedness of Wiki.

Read this sentence beneath about the description of the person. Notice the detail of the description.

As the controversy unfolded the Wikipedia community began a review of Essjay's previous edits and discovered evidence he had relied upon his fictional professorship to influence editorial consideration of edits he made. "People have gone through his edits and found places where he was basically cashing in on his fake credentials to bolster his arguments," said Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator and founder of the Wikipedia community newspaper, The Wikipedia Signpost. "Those will get looked at again."[10]

Here is an example of how sentences are written above. Note: These sentence above are in the article at this time.

It mentions: said Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator and founder of the Wikipedia community newspaper.

This is a very detailed description as you can see and read above.

Here is another detailed sentence (presently in the article) in which it demonstrates who the critic is. However, lecturer Nicola Pratt of the University of East Anglia stated...

Then, I ask the reason for the denial of the facts about the co-founder Mr. Larry Sanger. Thus, the factual accuracy will continue to remain disputed in any case as long as many editors do not face the music. This article can never be neutral when the revised history of the facts or revoking of the facts are presented. Nevertheless, a description of who the critic is especially when that person is the co-founder of Wikpedia as widely reported is relevent due to his notability as a vocal Wikipedia critic and connectiveness as a co-founder of this project. Any replies. QuackGuru TALK 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not important. We have a million ways to say that Larry was a very significant part of Wikipedia, and we have lots of words to describe him and Jimbo, without using "founder" at all. Why are you making this an issue when it doesn't need to be an issue? Who the hell cares what exact title someone holds when we can say the same thing, possibly better, with something else? This has nothing to do with factual accuracy or anything like that. This article is not an appropriate place to get involved in a petty dispute between two grown men and their titles. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
QuackGuru, I am going to talk about the elephant in the room here. What you have written above is completely different in form and style from everything else you have written on this page, with the exception of course of the last time you wrote in italics. I am all for Wikipedians helping each other. But please encourage whoever is assisting you to come and join us here on this page so that we can work things out. I see that another editor has commented out the ENTIRE paragraph in which Larry Sanger was mentioned, and I can entirely see his point. There are enough critics out there that Sanger's voice is just one in the crowd. Risker 05:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please strike at your negative comment towards me (personal attack) and stick to the facts. You have not demonstrated the facts as I presented them are incorrect. QuackGuru TALK 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
In what way have I attacked you, QuackGuru? I do not believe that I have. Please be very specific in your response, because accusing someone of making a personal attack is a serious matter. Risker 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You said, "QuackGuru, I am going to talk about the elephant in the room here. What you have written above is completely different in form and style from everything else you have written on this page, with the exception of course of the last time you wrote in italics. I am all for Wikipedians helping each other. But please encourage whoever is assisting you to come and join us here on this page so that we can work things out." You hurt my feelings. Please stop. QuackGuru TALK 06:08, 13 March 2007(UTC)
QuackGuru, I apologize that I have hurt your feelings. I have also removed your OR tag because the article quoted actually refers to Jimmy Wales as the Wikipedia founder. Please feel free to argue with Stacy Schiff about that point. If you would like to debate who the founders of Wikipedia are, you might want to head over to the Jimmy Wales article or the Larry Sanger one. This is really not the place for this discussion. Risker 06:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please strike out your comments immediatly as I demonstrated above. Please strike them out. I would appreciate it. QuackGuru TALK 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI: It could have been easier if you did it yourself. Demanding someone else do can be percieved as uncivil. --wL<speak·check> 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have apologized, QG. If you find that unsatisfactory, you are free to pursue the issue through other channels. Of course, most administrators will review the behaviour of both parties when determining if action is required. Frankly, I am of the opinion that your single-minded focus on this one issue has been unhelpful in further developing other aspects of the article as a whole. It is time to stop this, QuackGuru. Risker 06:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Page title issue: why no mention of "Wikipedia"?

I notice the title is "Essjay controversy." I might be stating the obvious, but isn't this really about the "Wikipedia-Essay controversy"? It's really about Wikipedia as it is about Essjay. I know the article is on Wikipedia and thus that may be slipping people's minds, but why no mention of "Wikipedia" in the title when it is so central to the article. Maybe "Essjay credentials controversy on Wikipedia" or something else similar? --64.230.121.147 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not just Wikipedia-specific. He lied to the media, he faked credentials which may have played a role in gaining employment for Wikia, etc., and is a bigger story than just Wikipedia. - Denny 05:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Check the sixth archive. Because the article's been changed numerous times in a short amount of time, there's an appearent Moratorium of pagemoves on this article --wL<speak·check> 08:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

orginal research is not acceptable

[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

Theses references above state Mr. Larry Sanger is the co-founder.

I have provided many references that show Mr. Larry Sanger is the co-founder. In turn, Wales could never be the sole founder of Wikipedia. The article has original research in the lead. The article proclaims Wales is the founder. This is too far overeaching. Articles must be written from a neutral point of view. QuackGuru TALK 06:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6102279.html

http://news.com.com/Wikipedias+Wales+touts+free+culture+movement/2100-1038_3-6102279.html

http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-article-a-80242-m-61-sc-101-tech_community_to_honor_wikipedia_cofounder-i

Here are some more references to color everything properly. Nonetheless, we must remove original research. QuackGuru TALK 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that "co-founder of Wikipedia" is a justified title for Larry. I disagree with you that this article is non-neutral if we don't include that title. Please try to work with others to find a wording that works for everyone and let us leave the word "founder" out of this article altogether. WAS 4.250 07:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The usage of the strong title "founder" does not meet the threshold for a WP:NPOV on Wikipedia. In this regard, we have a standard here for the Wikipedia community. QuackGuru TALK 07:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Original research is that which is unsupported by other non-primary sources. At least six of the references for this article refer to Jimmy Wales as the Wikipedia founder. That simply means that reliable sources disagree. I have no opinion one way or the other, although if you are going to remove "founder" as a description for Jimmy Wales, then you will need to think of another way to describe him. Risker 07:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be a conversation suitable for the articles for Sanger and/or Wales? Yes, they both founded Wikipedia back in 2001, so logically Wales should be called co-founder. But in informal speech, the term founder and co-founder are used interchagebly; it's all a matter of preference. But I'd use co-founder, unless proven otherwise by reliable sources. The point of original research is a claim is being used from a source that is not supported by any non-primary source. However, that claim is irrelevant to the subject of the article, and does not merit the level of dispute that it has. --wL<speak·check> 08:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, this is the wrong article to wage war over this on. Why aren't you pushing for it on Larry Sanger, Wikipedia, or Jimmy Wales? - Denny 12:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Please avoid the issue here and discuss it at the talk page of relevant articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Aye, this isn't the place for it. Gwen Gale 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've said that before and I'll support it here. --Dookama 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have supplied many references for the co-founder business. It time all of us face the music. Thanx. QuackGuru TALK 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Quack, one last time, you know both sides of that argument can be endlessly cited. Hence, given there's a widely documented dispute about it, along with the title being more or less irrelevant to the Essjay controversy, it's more fitting to leave it out altogether.
Can I ask why you aren't doing this on the other articles, and only here? Please explain. - Denny 19:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
OH, I see you have! Well, let's see how it turns out. - Denny 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The usage of the term "founder" does not meet the threshold for a WP:NPOV on Wikipedia.

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=4 Here is the reference.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=114860986&oldid=114860564 This is a unjustified to remove a reference.

The facts about co-founder is all over Wikipedia in a number of articles and is widely reported in the media that both are the co-founders. These are that documented facts for the Peer Review to evaluate. Thanx. QuackGuru TALK 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your verb conjugations are unhelpful, for starters. Gwen Gale 19:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Gwen. Please inform me in what fashion is adding a verifiable source (top of the line reference) being disruptive. This is a very serious matter. Please clarifiy. QuackGuru TALK 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Quack, the sources conflict, some say co-founder, some name only Wales, blah blah, which means in telling the tale both sides need to be cited and explained, blah blah, which has not much more than aught to do with the topic of this article. I see you've taken this to the history of Wikipedia article. While I think the whole thing's meaningless and transparent (Wales and Sanger snit-fitting over superficial vocabulary), the HoW article's at least a more fitting place for that sideshow to be talked about. Gwen Gale 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive; attempt to compromise

would anyone object for purposes of this article to use the following wording to refer to Wales in that one passage?

"Wales, a founder of Wikipedia"

The actual usage would be without the italics. We have RS that say Jimmy is the founder. We have RS that say co-founder. We have RS that say Larry is co-founder. We have Larry saying co-, we have Jimmy saying the. We have Jimmy saying/implying that Larry is co- in documented sources. In other words, a quagmire. Referring to each as a founder is a NPOV middle ground. We are not here to decide this detail on this article, and we can't anyway without a time machine. Any objections to using that wording going forward on this article? my goal is for us to spend time here building the Essjay article, not apparent rehash #453 of the Jimmy/Larry thing. - Denny 19:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not about compromise. This is very misleading to say a founder. The facts say co-founder. The reference speaks loud and clear. The term co-founder is correct. This is a very serious matter. Editors are allowed to add verifiable souces to articles and not have them removed without validity or justification. Any attempt to revoke policy is essential for the Peer Review to investigate. Thank You. QuackGuru TALK 19:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
We have RS saying he is co-founder, we have RS saying he is founder (which you are simply ignoring without any reason). This is an acceptable compromise on an issue that ISN'T A BIG DEAL. That's not what this article is supposed to be about. I have to say, this is one of the most frustrating talk pages I have ever read. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this has been going on for days now. Denny is right, the compromise proposed sounds fine to me. Since policy doesn't address the situation where there are equally reliable sources on both sides of the question, human beings have to find a middle ground. If this compromise doesn't do it for you QG, I think we should take out all references to Sanger entirely and leave out the "Wikipedia founder" part on Wales; he has enough other credentials related to this issue. That will resolve the issue too. Risker 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Being BOLD and putting this compromise version in. - Denny 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I say leave out the word founder altogether but I'm ok with Denny's way too. Gwen Gale 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree on leaving it out in general, but this is to appease everyone, and technically is probably most accurate: per policy we have multiple RS saying all of the above scenarios, so this wording is the most neutral/NPOV, since it implies that both are but leaves the decision up to readers without getting too into it... which is not this article's role... - Denny 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I can understand QuackGuru's passion for pushing NPOV, but at the same time, I agree with all that it becomes disruptive when other issues about an article are being discussed. That said, I think part of the reason it comes up so much, is that there hasn't been a consensus on how to deal with the founder/co-founder situation.
Might I suggest that a solution has been found?
Either leave out founder all together OR refer to either Wales or Sangster as a founder.
This 'a' also works well in recognizing that Wikipedia was also 'founded' by all the others helping in the beginning... a point that Wales has alluded to in the past (sorry, can't cite, but have read it cited in the founder/co-founder disagreement). I know it's already been decided here, but....is there anyway for this to become policy of some sort to deal with the issue in all other articles? I'm posting this here, as being new, I have no idea the right place to put it, and also am still familiarizing myself with all the different community/policy gathering spots. Could someone direct me where to propose it? or possibly propose it in the correct place themselves? *cough*...sorry for lack of brevity. -- Kavri 23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Auto archiving

Can whomever set that up change it to not be 48 hours? Things have calmed a fair bit, I'd say 5 or 7 days. - Denny 18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not auto-archiving. The "auto=long" means that until we have 20 Archives, each number is prefixed with the word "Archive". Currently, archiving is done manually. -- Avi 19:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't appear so. I haven't figured out how to edit MiszaBot's settings, though, since it uses a separate request system and not a template on the target page... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Changes require a request to Misza13. I suggest the timeframe be agreed here first to avoid repeated changes. WjBscribe 20:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Article moved

Article was just moved/renamed by a 'new' user: Goingplant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I reverted it for being out of the blue/no concensus. - Denny 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

New York Interview

  • Events

Jordan later bragged on his Wikipedia user page about having fooled Schiff by "doing a good job playing the part."[7] Essjay also claimed to have used his persona's credentials to vouch for Wikipedia's accuracy in a letter he sent to a college professor.[7] According to the Vancouver daily paper 24 Hours, activist and Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt had discovered the Essjay/Ryan Jordan connection and reported this to The New Yorker.[8]

  • Media

The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky, reported that Jordan had attended but never graduated from Centre College and Bluegrass Community and Technical College (formerly known as Lexington Community College). The paper also stated that despite his claim to have had a three-month special position with a United States bankruptcy trustee, the office had no record that Jordan ever worked there.[1]

This information above does not belong in the New York interview section. I suggest to move it in to its own and unique section. Any comments. QuackGuru TALK 20:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence about bragging and the sentence relating to the Vancouver paper are very clearly related to the New Yorker article. The Courier-Journal bit is actually the reference in the lead, so perhaps it need not be repeated. That leaves the letter to the professor - and it makes no sense to have a single sentence anywhere, should we just leave it out? Risker 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't support your continued attempt to chavel and disrupt the article by forcing it into pre-labeled sections with snippets of text so you can fill them up with unduly weighted material. Gwen Gale 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is poorly structured, hard to follow, and cluttered. The readers deserve better. We can do better. QuackGuru TALK 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Enough then. After all this, and all the input which has scrolled by here, if you truly believe the article is cluttered and hard to follow I humbly suggest you work on your reading skills. Gwen Gale 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

People who refuse to compromise wind up being banned from either Wikipedia or articles their refusal to compromize on has been disruptive on. If the community gets fed up it can and will impose a community ban on such disruptive editors. A variety of points of view and strong opinions can make an article better, but only if all sides are willing to compromise in the end rather than try to win through never giving up. WAS 4.250 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Quackguru's disruptive behaviour

I have mostly been a spectator to this page, but it seems to me that most of the "discussion" is being generated by the endless disruptive posts by Quackguru, whose opinions on the article as it stands are outspoken, strident, and in agreement with absolutely no-one else. Is this a fair summary of Quackguru's actions, or am I misjudging him? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

More or less. User:C.m.jones has settled down lately, never mind his tips to Quack about "article warfare". Gwen Gale 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted to WP:ANI by me. This is just disruption at this point... please weigh in there. - Denny 21:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. My post was just to make sure that I was reading it right before posting to AN/I, but you beat me to it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for posting it, I have been hesitant to do so, but this has gone on for too long. Risker 21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy/Archive_9&oldid=1136280982"