Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive3

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.

This section was moved. See this diff for the move, and revisions from before that for previous history.

Clerks of all types need to be deprecated

I recently had an interaction regarding clerking which started a thought process which resolved last night. In January of 2006, the Arbitration Committee established the office of RFAR clerks. People were appointed into the positions. This effectively created a new class of users. That's possibly ok. We've got lots of different types of users here; admins, arbcom members, bureaucrats, etc. What I think now is problematic about this is that this new class of users gets a privilege to edit a particular area of the project, and (this is the really bad part) other users are banned from editing that area. This is inherently anti-wiki.

At first, this didn't seem to be much of a problem. Hey, it's arbcom, they need help, and they create it. Seems to make sense. Problem is, the idea of clerking is spreading around the project. We've now got clerks for a number of things. People have to apply to get permission to edit certain things. Only certain people are allowed to appoint people to be clerks, and there's no oversight of these actions. In essence, it's a great big whopping sign that says "YOU ARE NOT TRUSTED TO EDIT HERE". The most valuable aspect of this project is the encyclopedic content of it, and we trust anyone...even anonymous IPs...to edit there. Yet, we don't trust people to edit productively in certain other areas of the project.

This all might seem expedient; after all, we don't want to have to deal with people messing up certain "important" pages, right? But, imagine a Wikipedia that had clerking over far more areas of the project. Let's scale it up.

• RfA clerks; only RfA clerks can de-list obviously failing nominations, improperly formatted nominations, etc.
• AfD clerks. Only AfD clerks can close AfDs that are obvious keeps or no consensus.
• Stub clerks. Only stub clerks are permitted to create new stub categories following discussion on their creation.

Where does it stop? Where do we say "this is not right"? If it's a bad idea when it covers many areas of the project, it's very likely a bad idea when it covers only a few areas. These type of clerk roles are also only a step or two away from things like image clerks, who are the only ones who can upload images, and article clerks, who are the only ones who can create new articles.

In my own case (which has been amicably resolved), I was effectively banned from editing an area of Wikipedia. I now (still) have to get permission, via becoming a clerk, in order to edit there. Except, the clerk waiting list is very long. I made good faith edits in these areas, trying my best to help out. I didn't even know there was a clerk status. I found myself on the receiving end of some not so nice comments, and essentially told to get lost.

Now, I've been here a long time and I'm fairly impervious to negative turns of events; it won't make me leave. But, other users may not be so. The more we scale the role of "clerking", the more editors we are going to annoy and cause to leave because editors find out there is an 'elite' class, and in order to join it you have to sit interminably on a waiting list and get a nod of approval from somebody whom you do not know.

At Wikipedia, we have a basic set of instructions designed to be relatively easy to follow. We have codes of conduct. We have means of dealing with users who continue to step out beyond those borders. Why is it in those clerk areas we can not have a simple set of instructions and use our tools to handle those users who consistently step outside of those instructions? Why do we need a special class of user who is permitted to edit certain areas, and anyone else must get special permission? If our means of managing the most important and valuable aspect of Wikipedia (the encyclopedia content) is sufficient then it is more than sufficient for handling meta tasks currently being assigned to clerks , and clerks only.

We need volunteers. Without them, we are nothing. Putting up barriers to volunteer contributions is antithetical to our goals. Clerk roles need to be deprecated in favor of appropriate instructions and willingness to use current management techniques to handle users who consistently step out beyond those borders. --Durin 15:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You nailed it. Whatever useful work is done by clerks can be done without the concept of clerks, as you described. Just say no to instruction creep. Friday (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem yet. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting essay, but desperately needs wikilinks to back it up. For example:

• What other areas, besides arbcom, have clerks now? In other words, what, besides the slippery slope, is actually wrong now?
• What are the areas that non-clerks for those can't edit?
• Why did you personally get in trouble? I have a vague memory that someone screwed up a few closings, but that might not have been you - without a specific link or three, that could be wrong. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have links to the various clerks pages at the bottom of User:NoSeptember/Functionaries. NoSeptember 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think clerks are a good idea, so long as others aren't banned from helping out. As long as they help out right, I don't see a problem with it. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If anybody may help out, anybody can act as a de facto clerk. Why is there a need for designated clerks in such a case? Either they have the same rights as other editors (in which case their "extra status" is not necessary) or they have more rights (in which case others are de facto banned from helping out in certain ways). So I do not understand your position. Kusma (討論) 16:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We can have clerks and "de facto" clerks, but at the moment only clerks are allowed to edit the pages. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why I got in trouble is unimportant (had nothing to do with closings). I am intentionally speaking in the abstract; should we have areas of Wikipedia that are off limits to people editing except for specific designated clerks? If clerks are a good idea, where do we draw a line and say that a clerk role is inappropriate for X? I have long held, and wikiphilosophy upholds, that there is no stratification of users at Wikipedia. All editors are equal, whether they be the first time editor or a bureaucrat, admin, arbcom member etc. The only types of editors we have here are those that contribute positively and those that do not. We trust those that do. Clerks create an exceptional class of users who are trusted in certain areas, effectively making non-clerks untrusted. This is anti-wiki. --Durin 16:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. Let me confine my remarks to Arbitration clerks. As you say, this office was established by ArbCom, and the clerks are the designated representatives of the Arbitration Committee. It is true that most editors can perform the technical aspects of being a clerk (opening and closing cases, mostly). However, I believe there are good reasons for having designated clerks. Arbitration tends to be contentious. Often, comments have to be removed or refactored, and participants tend to react badly if that is done by another partisan in the case, or even by an outsider they aren't familiar with. The clerks are editors who are trusted to do this, both by the parties and by the Committee. Clerks tend to stay associated with the cases they open, and are people to whom the parties can complain if they feel there is a problem with another participant's behavior on the case. The clerks are trusted by the Committee to give authoritative answers to the parties' questions.

That said, I have considerably deprecated the Clerks' office already. There is no head clerk; we coordinate activities through a noticeboard. I also rewrote the Clerks' page to specifically state that informal help is appreciated. Thatcher131 16:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Allow me to modify the above, to highlight my point:

"It is true that all editors can perform the technical aspects of being an editor (creating articles, uploading images). However, I believe there are good reasons for having designated creation clerks. Creation tends to be contentious. Often, articles have to be removed or refactored, and editors tend to react badly if that is done by another editor they aren't familiar with. The creation clerks would be editors who are trusted to do this, both by the parties and by the Wikipedia. Clerks would tend to stay associated with the articles they create, and would be people to whom the parties can complain if they feel there is a problem with another editor's behavior on the article. The clerks are trusted by Wikipedia to give authoritative answers to editor's questions."

• I know you didn't say the above, but such a stance is utterly repulsive. If it's repulsive for the mainspace, our most important and valuable area, it's equally repulsive elsewhere. Either we are open to all good faith volunteers or we are not. --Durin 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw man argument... Viridae^Talk 05:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, parties involved in arbitration cases are frequently not open to good faith edits to their cases. On numerous occasions, parties or non-clerks have made technically correct edits (such as removing threaded dialog from evidence pages) that is reverted by one of the parties. The clerks often acts as buffers or moderators between parties. Thatcher131 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Then have an instruction that parties to an arbitration case should not make deleting edits or reverts of another non-involved party to that case. Editors can act as buffers. We trust editors to act as buffers to problems in the mainspace. --Durin 16:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Arbitration cases are typically where the open trust of the mainspace failed. —Centrx→talk • 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Right. Allowing any user not involved in the arbitration case to edit does not undermine that. Unless we assume that nobody among the editors is trustworthy enough to edit arbitration cases other than ArbCom and the RfAr clerks. --Durin 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Durin that designated clerks are inherently anti-wiki. Any editor who knows how to fix an issue on a project page that implements a Wikipedia process should be encouraged to be bold and do it, no matter on which page. Any editor who does that several times becomes a de facto clerk. Why do we need any formal confirmation process for this? Kusma (討論) 16:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See also this discussion and this other discussion where similar bureaucracy was declared as bad. Kusma (討論) 16:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A question for any clerk: All of the currently active ArbCom clerks spent months before becoming clerks doing a lot of "helper" work. Were your edits then significantly less respected than they are now as clerks? (Especially after the regulars recognized that you were frequently involved in many cases in a housekeeping capacity?) NoSeptember 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In ArbCom's case, appointed clerks have the advantage that they're reliable, so that ArbCom doesn't get too much of a backlog. I'm not sure whether that should give them exclusive entitlement to edit the pages. If there are strong indications that doing otherwise would be harmful, maybe yes.

But in any case, those are rather specific circumstances. I'm not sure I see any other "area" of Wikipedia where we would need clerks. If we do, we should probably stop. Zocky | picture popups 16:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole 'clerks' thing is the only time I have seen restrictions imposed on who (in good faith) can edit a page. I specify in good faith, as restrictions are placed all the time on vandals and edit warriors. I can understand why the clerks are there. They are there to handle the essential maintenance kind of stuff to ensure complex ArbCom cases proceed smoothly.

But are these people only doing so because it allows them the label of "Clerk"? Or is the label just a convenience for "people the arbitrators trust not to fuck up the 'paperwork' of ArbCom proceedings?" Clerks are not appointed through any kind of open community process. There is no RfClerk. They are a special case. Arbitrators, bureaucrats, admins, and any other strata of user are given their extra tools through an open and defined community process. But there's nothing stopping anyone posting to an Arbcom decision workshop, or WP:AN, or WP:BN. However, if helping with the arbcom processes is free to all, then it becomes open to people without the best of intentions, or even people with good intentions but an incomplete awareness of how things should be done, which from the outside can often (unfairly) appear as one and the same.

I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this. I can see the point of formal Clerks (big C) in ArbCom proceedings, but not anywhere else on the Wiki. I would suggest that other areas that are starting to "appoint" them should not be permitted to do so, as they are not the necessary evil that ArbCom Clerks are. I would suggest that any ArbCom Clerk who remonstrates with someone who helping in good faith has let their new "title" go to their head, and ought not to be assisting the ArbCom in such a manner. Proto ► 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• To requote you as I did with Thatcher's comments above, "if helping with the editing the mainspace is free to all, then it becomes open to people without the best of intentions, or even people with good intentions but an incomplete awareness of how things should be done, which from the outside can often (unfairly) appear as one and the same." In a word, OUCH! Again, I know you didn't say this, but the principle is the same in my opinion. --Durin 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Durin's conflict was not over arbitration clerking. I don't believe an AC clerk has ever treated good faith help with anything less than total respect, and in fact there is a certain user who makes minor corrections and other helpful edits from an IP address, whom I have told is welcome to do so openly. Thatcher131 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw man argument again. Viridae^Talk 05:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat surprising number of people don't seem to realise that WP:RFCU and WP:CHU now have their own clerks and clerking systems. So I'm filling you in. The former I can get my head around, the second seems wrongheaded. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. As noted above, I was trying to remain in the abstract about this. The three areas where there are clerks are WP:RFAR, WP:RFCU, and WP:CHU. I'd prefer to remain in abstract; is there really any good reason to have clerks at all? If the reason can't translate to the mainspace, I think that reason is suspect. --Durin 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Durin's concerns originated in a conflict with Essjay over comments Durin was making to applicants at WP:CHU that Essjay did not agree with. Thatcher131 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I'm about to be direct here. The conflict I had with Essjay resolved amicably and has NOTHING to do with the abstract point of whether or not clerk roles are a good idea. My discussions with Essjay served to get me thinking about clerk roles in general. Thus, it was a catalyst. But, it is not the reason I am bringing this up. I am most emphatically not attempting an end-around on Essjay to get the clerk role remove from WP:CHU so I can edit there again. Let's stay focused on the abstract point here. I believe it is fundamentally important. --Durin 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• In matters like these, it is simply incorrect to think that Wikipedia is run by the community. Hence I am not sure why this is brought up on the community noticeboard. >Radiant< 17:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless Jimbo personally established the RFCU and CHU clerkship offices, it definitely is the community that decides. Zocky | picture popups 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It is interesting that you should think so, but it is incorrect. Suggested reading material are the earliest archives of the clerk pages. >Radiant< 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oh my, they're really doing it. Perhaps we should split this debate so that we don't get side-tracked - i.e. fill the whole page with discussion about ArbCom clerks, whom we are obviously not going to abolish just like that. Maybe it would help if we all agreed to keep ArbCom clerks out of this discussion (on the basis that they're at least appointed by a legitimate decision-making body), so that we can concentrate on these other types of clerks. Zocky | picture popups 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Umm, checkuser clerks were established by a legitimate decision-making body (checkusers). Change username clerks were established by a legitimate decision making body (bureaucrats). --Durin 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, neither checkusers nor bureaucrats are not a legitimate decision making body, just like admins aren't. They're individuals that are authorized to use certain additional tools, nothing else. They can't hold a formal collective vote or discussion which excludes other participants. They're neither as a body nor as individuals authorized to decide who gets to edit what. Zocky | picture popups 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• To Radiant; I'm open to suggestions on a better forum for this discussion. WP:AN isn't it (which is where I first thought to go). This is a community issue. This is the community noticeboard. ? --Durin 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue is not in where it is discussed, the issue is that the people that make the decision are not involved in the discussion. >Radiant< 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if we assume that clerks are necessary for areas other than ArbCom, pages such as Wikipedia:Changing username/Clerks, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Guide seem to introduce needless complexity and hierarchy. It's especially odd to see the sentence "Due to the low nature of actions required by CHU clerks, currently Essjay has appointed..." Essjay has appointed? How did one person, however involved with Wikipedia, become in charge of username changes? I'd support the elimination of clerks with the exception of ArbCom and possibly an informal system at RfCU. The current system seems to be far too unwieldy. ChazBeckett 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well other checkusers and other bureaucrats do interact with the various clerks, so this is a case of Essjay taking the lead (being Bold) and the others accepting the helpful assistance that that boldness has created. NoSeptember 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I guess what's irking me is the hierarchy that seems to exist, namely: Essjay > Head Clerk > Dual Clerks > Other Clerks > Editors. All this organizational overhead seems especially silly on the CHU page, which currently has one clerk note. ChazBeckett 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To cut to the heart of the matter, this post is inevitably brought on by the fact that Durin was acting in ways that Essjay and the clerk body in general thought were dismissive and hurtful to people requesting name changes on WP:CHU. The clerk body has never chased away volunteers acting in good faith with stick, in fact they have this nasty habit of mugging you to join their group - it's how I became a clerk :-) However, when users are getting scared away from the page by one user that is acting in a manner suggesting officiousness, it become damaging to the reputation of the project as a whole. This whole thing to me looks like trying to backroad Essjay's telling Durin to get off the page for this reason, despite Durin's call to the contrary. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh. The heart of the matter has nothing to do with my recent conflict with Essjay. I've stated this three times now. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing to do with this. This has to do with what I feel is the inherently anti-wiki role that Clerks have, and its effect on the community. Can I be any clearer? What must I do to prove to you that my intentions here are in good faith? What must I do to not have you toss this legitimate question into the dirt because you think it is hate based because of a recent conflict? Tell me, and I'll do it. Please. --Durin 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter what Durin's intentions are. We're discussing this now in an open forum and several people have raised concerns with the concept of clerks. Doubting Durin's motives at this point is likely to generate much more heat than light. Zocky | picture popups 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Amen. The abstract point is where I have attempted to keep the focus of this. My intentions are absolutely altruistic. I believe the abstract point is fundamentally important. The concept of a "clerk" or other similar title has been spreading on Wikipedia. I found myself doing it on a new project page that I recently created [1] because I wanted to protect the work that had been done from well meaning editors who would quite possibly screw it up due to the detail effort required to update the page. My recent conflict with Essjay brought to light just how wrong-headed this thinking was, and I removed the concept of "clerks" from the page [2]. Subsequent to that, I thought it important to bring up the entire abstract topic for discussion. The fact that it has generated so much discussion shows there is interest in this topic. It deserves discussion. I'm glad I raised it. --Durin 17:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Clerking was an issue in this discussion based on my refusal more than a week before the latest controversy came to a head. And bureaucracy has been an issue here since before the Esperanza MfDs. NoSeptember 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Zocky. And both Essjay and Durin were working for the best interests of that area of the project. Their quick and pleasant resolution to a slight disagreement is exactly what you'd expect from users who are putting the project first over their own egos or being "right". NoSeptember 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Durin's points are what is relevant; his motives for making them are not. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More generally, I do think it important that clerk-creep be avoided. Clerks can be useful to avoid abuse of a highly specific process, but we are not a bureaucracy and should avoid superfluous hierarchies. The RFAR clerks are useful and do a good job, but the notion of clerks for WP:CHU seems...redundant. Maybe WP:RFCU I can get my head round, though for some the whole clerk notion clearly appeals as a power trip, which can have unpleasant consequences. Certainly any further clerking procedures should be avoided at all costs unless completely necessary. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you to ask a checkuser what he thought about clerking? I'm sorry if you can't wrap your head around the idea, but from my standpoint the checkuser clerks are absolutely vital. If they went away I think we'd shut the place down. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but it does possess bureaucracies, and we shouldn't lose sight of the distinction. Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

This abstract discussion is fascinating but I'm left wondering what, exactly, it's intended to accomplish. The administration of the encyclopedia and the encyclopedia itself are fundamentally different concepts and require different approaches. Here, we're talking about bureaucracy–paper-pushing. A bureaucracy has to serve two different groups: the end-users, who have a right to expect a consistent approach, and the functionaries (arbitrators, checkusers, and bureaucrats), who need to work with people whose judgement they trust. In effect, clerks are designated by functionaries to make their lives easier; by carrying out routine yet important jobs, leaving functionaries to work with the actual problems and not push paper.

The objection has been raised that this is un-wiki. Of course it is. Anyone who has spent significant time on this project is well aware of the tendency of users to balkanize, create personal fiefdoms, impose particular styles on articles and so forth. Wikis resist centralization and comformity. It would be a disaster, however, to treat our bureaucracy in the same fashion. People engaging the system should encounter a consistent approach, not a mess where every user decides they're going to handle a request this way or that.

It should be reiterated that clerks are carrying out tasks at the behest of functionaries. It is generally recognized that arbitrators are free to refactor the RFAR page as they see fit, and checkusers routinely do the same with RFCU. However, functionaries don't have the time to do this and do the jobs the community selected them for. This is where clerks are so incredibly vital. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just trust the general community do to that? Why create a hierarchy? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've indicated some serious problems with that approach above. I would add that the nature of the task requires "regulars"–people who are going to stick to it for months at a time. In that way a body of knowledge develops that requires a cathedral, not a bazaar. Furthermore, selection permits the weeding out of those "power trippers" that you're concerned about. I'm not aware of any such problems myself. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's true for ArbCom: seems unlikely to me that the same is true for RFCU or CHU. A constant supply of rotating people doing the same job would work as well, no? My point was that the very nature of the current procedure, where you put yourself forward, is likely to attract power trippers. You can hardly avoid that. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be great if the community could take care of everything by itself, but it cannot, so we do have hierarchies. If the community could handle everything itself we would not need admins, or crats, or clerks. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a strawman, that. Adminship and cratship involve technical features we clearly cannot trust to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who strolls along. Clerk responsibilities are surely entirely within the capabilities of the people who will know about these pages in the first place, with the probable exception of ArbCom. I still don't see the need for a hierarchy. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not the one who asked for it, either. Mackensen (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to believe that. The question isnt whether YOU trust the general editor population, it's whether the BUREAUCRATS do. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The community owns these pages, not the crats. If not, it's time we started getting worried. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've not read all of the commentary here in depth, so I'll restrict my comments only to the original posting. Frankly, I find the argument that we may someday have RfA, AfD, and stub clerks to be an argumentum ad absurdum--such positions would never be allowed by the community, nor has anyone but yourself suggested such implementations. RfA is an open-end process, moderated by Bureaucrats, though other users may, when acting in good faith, close snowball RfA's. Similarly, AfD is an open-ended process moderated primarily by admins, although other users are invited in limited respects to assist in this moderation. Stub-creating ... well, now you're just getting silly.

Clerks are really in no way bestowed with extra powers or freedoms, technical or political--they are simply a method of organizing administrative activities so as to ensure that all needed tasks of tedium are completed and so that effort is not duplicated. Yes, it is a title, but as we all know, titles are meaningless. In cases of clerks such as those of the ArbCom, CheckUser, rename requests, or open-proxy verified (which could itself be considered a "clerk" title), restrictions are placed upon who can serve as a clerk with regard to their observed ability to do a good job. If you're unable to verify open proxies, I don't want you to be making decisions regarding blocking my ip address as an OP. Similarly, if you don't know how the CheckUser or account rename process works, you probably shouldn't have the power to close requests, such that no CU or crat will ever see them, as they may well be valid requests. With the ArbCom, the clerks there are appointed as almost honorary members of the arbitration committee; I believe this to be well within their juristiction to do, and I would rather not have people with the power to decide what goes before the ArbCom and what doesn't (a power which AC clerks sort of have) if they don't have a clue. Ultimately, I see no problem with the social division of the "clerk"--I'm afraid that with the current size of the pedia, such distinctions will have to be made from time to time to prevent the incompetent from obtaining degrees of power which they shouldn't have, and to allow those with power to delegate duties onto others. You can't seriously expect Essjay and the few members of the ArbCom to do everything alone. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• If the offices of checkuser clerk and change username clerk had not yet been created and I had suggested that we could go on to create those, I would equally be told I am making a silly argument because we'd never do those things. Removal of RfAs from RfA for snowball reasons has been a contentious issue for quite some time. I could easily see a strata of users whose job it is to perform the menial tasks of closing out desperately failing RfAs; it is routinely the case that people who are doing it now get it wrong. I know; I've corrected a rather large number of these closings. So, it's not much a stretch. Same goes for AfDs; it is routine that AfDs are closed as no consensus and are hotly debated. Same goes for stubs; there's been discussion about renegade non-discussion created stubs for years. It's hardly absurd.
• The main problem here is creating barriers to contributing. Why are there 19 people waiting on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Standby to help out in an area they are interested in? Why is it we must assume bad faith with those users that they are not capable of acquitting themselves appropriately there? Why must we create a special class of users who are allowed to edit there? THAT is what is absurd. I have to seek special permission to contribute? Why? That's senseless. If I appropriately follow the instructions given on a particular page, there should be no reason why I can not contribute there. Yet, there are such places where people are not permitted to edit unless they are in this special class of user. In doing this we create a special class of users who are above regular editors, who are trusted more, who are the few that have the privilege of contributing. This is fundamentally wrong. --Durin 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom was established by the community and Jimbo and given the powers to make collective decisions. Individual ArbCom members have no additional powers because they're on ArbCom, and they can't appoint clerks. We have no collective decision making mechanism for bureaucrats or checkusers and no policy that gives them the power to decide who can do what, neither accepted by community or created by Jimbo. This weakens the position of anybody trying to enforce it and inevitably causes conflicts. Zocky | picture popups 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume that what you say is true. The arbitration committee isn't required to use RFAR as a mechanism either, and may not in fact have the power to manage such a page. Does that prevent the page from being used? Of course not. In the same manner, checkusers created RFCU as a conduit for requests, but that wasn't ordained by the community and they're free to suspend/abolish it any time they feel it has outlived its usefulness. Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Both ArbCom and checkusers are required by policy to receive and handle requests. How they do it is largely their business, as long as it's within normal community standards. We're trying to discuss whether this is within normal community standards or not. The whole concept of clerks is clearly a violation of (or shall we say, exception to) of the wiki process, which is in itself a major cause of concern. Most of us agree that its advantages outweigh the drawbacks in RFAR. Many of us are disputing pr at least having doubts about the idea that the same is true for RFCU and CHU. The issue is usefulness to the project, not who gets to sit on which rung. Zocky | picture popups 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(This doesn't apply to ArbCom, but it does apply to everywhere else where clerks are used or may in the future be used) What a lot of people aren't understanding is that sysops, bureaucrats, checkusers, and so on, are just editors with more buttons, and they do NOT have the right to, without community consensus, forbid the general editing population from (in good faith and non-disruptively) editing a particular class of pages. A permission flag does not come with WP:OWNership of anything, nor does it confer the ability to ignore the policy I just linked. --Random832 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Everyone is acting as if clerks are the only ones that can edit these pages. This is not the case. If this were the case I would have been chased off RFCU with torches and pitchforks sometime back in August instead of made a clerk myself. I, as Durin, was just some random Joe Shmoe that tried to help out in good faith, and they thought I did a good job of it and made me a clerk. You don't have to be a clerk to edit any of these pages. However, if ANYONE's edits are thought to be unhelpful by the community, be they normal editor or bureucrat, then they WILL be asked to cease editing that page. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• If that is the case, then clerks are not needed. If anyone can edit it, then all we need is instructions. We do not need special-class clerks assigned. Either it's open, or it isn't. --Durin 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Er no, not at all. The only person making a "special class" of clerk is you. The only person that invests them with any special rank, seems to be you. As AmiDaniel said, clerks have no special privelages. There is not a +clerk permission. Anyone can edit those pages. People who are disruptive will be removed from editing these pages. This status quo on Wikipedia for ages in _ANY_ area and the only time RFCU and CHU would be a special case is if you made it otherwise. Tangentially, what about SPROT then? Seems to me that's not very open. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• • (editconflict) Incidentally, everyone here should read WP:OWN. Note in particular, the red flag "Are you qualified to edit this article?" - Creating clerks in order to certify who is or is not "qualified" to edit something (and that is the most credible argument that has been made for their existence) flies directly in the face of it. We might as well get rid of WP:OWN entirely. "Everyone is acting as if clerks are the only ones that can edit these pages. This is not the case." Then what is a clerk? If everyone's allowed to do these things, why do we have a class of users such that, and I quote, "Only clerks should perform these actions."? And, even going beyond clerks, I think it is ridiculous that only Checkusers are allowed to say  CheckUser is not for fishing Even if it does make sense to require their judgement for borderline cases, why can't _I_ say {{fishing}} when there's a ridiculously obvious fishing expedition? --Random832 18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Because you aren't the responsible party. RFCU exists for checkusers to accept requests. Hell, you'll be asking to reject stupid arbitration requests next. Mackensen (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Checkusers have access to privileged information required to do the job. They also have the required experience. This is simply not comparable. Zocky | picture popups 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It doesn't take access to privileged information to see what is a fixing expedition, as evidenced by the fact that the Checkusers do not consult any privileged information in making that ruling. --Random832 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we clear something up here, please? Is it true that (a) anyone can edit those pages, as Peter says, or (b) that "Only clerks can perform these actions", as Random cites? Zocky | picture popups 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit those pages. Clerks are ordinary users who have volunteered to help out, nothing more. In theory at least, if someone was completely useless, either because of bias or carelessness, then it could be suggested they help out somewhere else, although this doesn't happen very often, if at all. Addhoc 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would venture to guess that any non-clerk who uses these templates at WP:CHU/U or these templates at WP:RFCU will be asked to stop. In regards to WP:CHU, there are no instructions on what clerks are supposed to do. I contributed there for five months, and recently attempted to introduce some similar notations there [3]. I was asked to "find some other task to focus on". --Durin 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can volunteer to help out, then why are some people being told that they should not refrain from helping out solely because they have not been appointed a "clerk"? (At least this discussion suggests that some people are being told that they cannot help out because they miss the magic clerk tag.) –Henning Makholm 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, that should have been "anyone can edit those pages in the capacity of a defacto clerk". Regarding your question, I'm not sure... Addhoc 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case then why does the page say that only clerks can perform those actions, and what's the purpose of having designated clerks, apart from badge wearing? Zocky | picture popups 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But if anyone can be a defacto clerk, then why should there be any formal distinction between defacto and non-defacto clerks? It is fine for there to be a page somewhere saying that "these fine people do most of the grunt work for the WP:XXX process", and I wouldn't care if such a page used the word "clerk", but that is something different... –Henning Makholm 19:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly don't see the problem. If a defacto clerk is good enough they can be given the role. Not everyone is looking for more jobs. Addhoc 19:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• And just how does a person prove they are good enough if they are not permitted to edit the page? If a person is good enough to conduct the edits, then their edits remain unremoved. That's how it is in mainspace. We don't permit people to edit the mainspace after ascertaining if they are good enough. Neither should we prevent people from contributing in other areas until they prove they are good enough to have the role. And if permitting/not permitting isn't the point, then there's no point to the clerk roles; anyone can do it. I fail to see any reason why anyone who watches WP:RFCU for a while, then follows the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Guide in conducting themselves at WP:RFCU should need a special label of "clerk". --Durin 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So anyway - those saying that anyone can make these edits and they will stand if they're ok... What is the meaning of "Only clerks may perform these actions" if it's ok for anyone who hasn't been formally made a clerk to perform them? Shall I go in and boldly remove that statement, since you're saying it's patently false? --Random832 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of clerk

I'd like to see people's definition of "clerk". If it varies by clerk area, feel free to expand or define separately. --Durin 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'll go for the only one I've had any real experience with: a checkuser clerk is someone appointed by the checkusers to help the checkusers keep WP:RFCU from becoming a mess. They need to be appointed to reduce confusion (the kind of confusion that sometimes happens on WP:AN when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about tries to answer a question) and because checkuser is such a very sensitive area. If there were no clerks and RFCU were run in typical wiki fashion, the result would be more flaming, more trolling, more confusion, and less getting done. Chick Bowen 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok. Why can not regular editors who follow instructions appropriately perform the same tasks? --Durin 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Because the checkusers own the page and they said so. --Random832 20:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Essentially, I'm inclined to agree with Random832 here, though I suspect he's being sarcastic. Checkuser is not a community process; what matters is that the checkusers themselves know that the page is being watched and processed by people they trust. I would never edit anything there that wasn't a case I was posting myself, because it's none of my business. I'm suggesting that RFCU is different from other processes (and that WP:OWN doesn't apply). The minute we started having checkusers we gave up some openness and wikiness in the name of security. I'm OK with that, ultimately. Chick Bowen 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  The biggest fault I find with your take on the matter is indeed your definition of clerk. Saying clerkship means "we don't trust people to edit productively in certain other areas of the project" misses the point. Arbitrators are selected with a careful review, but clerk duties are those tasks, mostly janitorial in nature, that didn't need the same approval from the community and Jimbo. Not only that, it was the tasks that substantially slowed the Arbitration Committee down, speed being one if it's biggest flaws, that any reasonable person could do. You would have the handful of busy arbitrators go back to maintaining the pages, opening and closing cases, notifying parties, and other mechanical procedures? Note the fallacy here: clerks don't exist to restrict access to editing certain pages, you've left out the part where before AC, RFCU, and CHU clerks, the only people who could make those edits were th arbitrators, checkusers, and bureaucrats themselves; it was more restrictive.

  I can assure you, as the arbitrator that previously had the most dealing with our clerks, if you're seeing it as a user class, or especially as a barrier to volunteering, you're misunderstanding. Non-clerks, or informal clerks, were always more than welcome to help, but I had very little success getting anyone at all interested in taking up the task as an informal, self-assigned volunteer like we have at AFD. People avoid arbitration like the plague; even I am aware of that. What does work is creating a corps of volunteers who we can make comfortable with the idea by working with them, and developing a standard procedure. An arbcom clerk will only ever correct (or tell "to get lost") an informal volunteer for doing something wrong, not just for doing something, and I suspect that may have been your mistake. There is no user class here, and interpreting clerks, administrators, or even arbitrators as constituting a kind of "class," except in the solely technical sense, is a major error. There are no editorial distinctions between users except for those based on the soundness of judgment. Dmcdevit·t 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is I am still unaware of what it is that I did wrong at WP:CHU, yet I was told to get lost. I've been accused of tagging some requests as {{not done}} based on edit counts when that is not the case. I've been accused of being officious, but my remarks at WP:CHU have been very much in line with what anyone else there has said. I've been following WP:CHU for the better part of a year, and contributing for five months. Only now did someone approach me and say "you're out of line". Ok fine, but how am I out of line? Nobody is telling me. Instead I'm being told to get lost. I crossed over some imaginary line and my contributions are no longer welcome there. I had been helping there for five months performing what I thought were productive edits. To this date, I still don't know what I did wrong (other than the edit count dispute which I agreed with Essjay on and corrected myself on, and I note there is still apparently disagreement among bureaucrats about this). Had I known I was doing something wrong, I would have corrected it. Instead, I was told to "find some other task to focus on". This just doesn't make any sense.
• The point still remains that I fail to see why an editor acting in good faith and following instructions should be prevent from editing any area of Wikipedia (with the very tightly described restrictions of RfAr proposed and final decision page). There just isn't anything sacrosanct about pages that should stop someone from editing them if they act in good faith and follow directions. --Durin 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So? If you were treated poorly or things were explained poorly, then you should address that problem, but it doesn't have anything to do with the merit of clerkship in general, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. It is clear to me from your own comments that you did, certainly inadvertently, do something wrong.

• I'd really rather not respond further on this facet of the conversation. This abstract discussion is not and I never intended it to be about my actions or actions anyone else took relative to my actions. It's about the abstract concept of clerks. If it helps to foster the discussion along, let's all just assume I'm the meanest jerk out there who is out to derail everybody's good intention. Further, I'm power hungry, officious, demeaning of users, and can't think of a kind word to say to anyone. If that's not sufficient for me to accept and claim guilt in all of my actions so we can get past what I did and focus on the abstract concept of clerks, then I simply don't know what to do. Let's drop it. Focus on the abstract, please. Please. --Durin 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Should there be absolute editing restrictions on editors not named as clerks for certain pages? Not ideally, no. There shouldn't be certain people who are allowed block/delete/protect buttons either (that's anti-wiki as well), the ability to protect pages (anti-wiki), and certainly not a Jimbo or ArbCom. But it isn't an ideal world, and we made those tings specifically because the idea of the wiki is subordinate to the idea of the encyclopedia, and when the wiki gets in the way of the encyclopedia, the encyclopedia wins. So I sympathize with the concerns of anti-wiki-ness, but it is clear to me that without named clerks given latitude to do their job, the work would simply not get done or not in a timely manner. The principles are fine in the abstract, but I don't see any good coming of pursuing it when there is no better alternative, or we'd have done it already. And so the encyclopedia wins. We have clerks. Dmcdevit·t 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, let me try that again. You're saying that "without [restricting the number of people who may do the work] the work would simply not get done or not in a timely manner". How does that follow? This claim seems to fly in the face of common sense. Having less people to do the job gets more of it done? Explain, please. –Henning Makholm 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a handful of competent appointed people to do a mundane task it will get done a lot faster and more efficiently because a sense of responsibility comes into play. Viridae^Talk 05:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Section break

• CheckUser clerks are trusted members of the community chosen by the checkusers because they trust these users with sensitive private information that sometimes is neccesary to discuss in a checkuser investigation. These clerks were "created" by Essjay, who for a long while was the only checkuser actively participating in RFCU, as a way to lessen the burden on himself, and have since been invaluable to the smooth running of the place. There are also users who are not clerks that have been invaluable in running the place as well, such as JzG who has placed a fair bit of sockblocks, and Ryulong who (sometimes to our frustration) seems to find a bunch of socks.
• The clerks were later brought to Changing Usernames for the same reason - Essjay was one of the only active 'crats there (WarOfDreams being the other), and to lessen the burden on himself, he asked the clerks to help out. The problem with Durin helping out was that he was tagging requests with Done or Not Done over things that he and the 'crats disagreed with, and this effectively usurped the role of 'crats, because these requests would be archived without a bureaucrat ever seeing them. This is a problem for many reasons. First of all the bureaucrat is the one that should make the final descision, and secondly if a crat doesn't see a case, how are they supposed to know about the surrounding issue if that user complains? The other deal that came up is one that Essjay had talked to the clerk corps before about but in hindsight should have mentioned more publicly so that Durin would be aware - the issue of edit counts. Durin was tagging requests as not done or invalid over small edit counts which was agreed to be demeaning to these users. This was a cause of a lot of hurt feelings and several angry emails and thusly we stopped the practice. When Essjay told Durin about the issue it turned into a confrontation and while Durin eventually stopped doing this it has lead to hurt feelings on both sides that eventually exploded when Durin made a second error in tagging requests done or not done, and the clerk corps were not comfortable having him around. I personally did not want to be around amidst conflict - I'm just here to wikignome and hopefully be helpful doing so. I'm not here to judge editors, and I'm not here to assert authority. The main concern with Durin as I gather it is that he is trying to be officious and appear to have more authority than he does by supplanting the judgement of the bureaucrats. I make no representations to the truth of that statement, frankly I can see both why this conception is held and yet can also assume good faith on Durin's part. I personally would LIKE to see him contribute positively there, as one does not become an adminstrator without having one's head screwed on right, at least not back when Durin was promoted. However, the confrontational nature he has had with Essjay (and sometimes myself - the comment he made about my bipolar disorder was COMPLETELY uncalled for and I would appreciate an apology) makes me wonder if he would. He HAS helped but he has ALSO hindered, and at one point threatened the resignation of the entire RFCU(/CHU) Clerk corps, or at least significant portions thereof. His problem, if I may be so bold, is that he has been completely unreceptive to criticism. If he can simply take guidance with more than abrasive inflammatory answers, I think he'll be welcome there, for sure, but that's my opinion. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Why is a Bureaucrat needed to close a CHU as not done, when an Admin isn't needed to close an AfD as keep? --Random832 20:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Because requests marked as Not Done or as Done are automatically archived. If an AfD is improperly closed, and administrator has recourse. If a CHU request is improperly closed, it's a big headache for the bureaucrat to reopen it, and that's assuming they would even know about it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a technical problem which has a technical solution - wait longer before archiving. It should not be solved by forbidding people to close them unless they're "authorized" by a group which doesn't really, as far as I can tell, have the authority to permit/forbid people from making good faith edits. --Random832 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you have an argument other than OWN, because that rhetoric is getting old. That is a page for asking bureaucrats to do something for you. They have a right to ask certain things to be done in certain ways. You can disagree with WHAT they ask, and if you bring a good reason other than being a policy wank, they may change it, but just going on and on and on about policy just makes people wish you'd get a clue. Ignore all rules exists for this purpose. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • What I don't get is that some people comment that (paraphrased) "it is in and of itself a disruptive act to edit a clerked page without being a clerk, even if the only thing wrong about the edit is who did it" and others say that "the way to become a clerk is to IAR and edit the page anyway, such as to demonstrate that one can do it responsibly". Am I the only one who sees a glaring incompatibility between those two principles? Demonstrating responsibility while breaking the very rule in question? How can this lead to anything but an erosion of respect for process in general, if the process is that Helleresque? –Henning Makholm 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Putting aside any issues of page ownership, wouldn't more people editing and watching CHU lead to fewer mistakes? Combined with a slightly longer archival waiting time, this would likely reduce errors by having a greater number of people reviewing closures. I'm all for making life easier for bureaucrats, but surely this can be accomplished in other ways than appointing specific people. For example, the bcrats could state that they would like requests handled in a certain manner. Any editor would then be allowed to prepare requests, provided they followed the instructions. Does that sound reasonable? ChazBeckett 21:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a techincal issue. Only a bureaucrat can decide whether or not to perform a user name change. Tagging is merely a technical means of automating the process. It would be one thing for a non-bureaucrat to comment, "recommend this change not be done;" actual decisions should only be made by the people whom the community has entrusted to make them. I'm amazed at this line of questioning actually. I recall a number of threads on AN/I about "user so-in-so who is not an admin is disrupting the 3RR board by commenting", or "user so-in-so who is not an admin has been declining unblock requests." The fact is that certain people have been authorized to perform certain functions (checkuser, name change) and only those people can give an official answer (done/not done/declined/fishing/whatever). Checkuser and CHU clerks do not perform these roles either, but are merely involved in housekeeping. If a CHU or RFCU clerk started posted "declined" templates on requests he/she would get de-clerked, as Essjay has warned several times. Thatcher131 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• And the only ones I tagged were ones where a later request by the same user was made [4][5][6] and one where the user withdrew the request [7]. I still fail to see the problem. It doesn't take a bureaucrat to decide that a later request was made and therefore the earlier ones were invalid, or to decide that a user withdrew the request and therefore the request is invalid. I was attempting to help not to disrupt. Why should I have to have a "clerk" label in order to perform such an obviously menial task that does not require a bureaucrat's intervention? People routinely remove RfAs from WP:RFA before bureaucrats have a chance to look at them under WP:SNOW. In this case, there's even more substantiation that what I did was the right course of action because the requests were obviously null; they'd been overridden by later requests or cancelled outright. Yet, I'm not permitted to make these edits and apparently even if I was a clerk I'd be de-clerked for making them? --Durin 21:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• The only case that I tagged with {{not done}} were those where a duplicate entry existed later in the listing at WP:CHU and one where a cancellation was made[8][9][10][11]. I do not and still do not see the problem with this. I have not and would not attempt to usurp the role of bureaucrats. I never tagged a request as not done over small edit counts. This is flatly and provably false. Yes, Essjay and I had a discussion regarding edit count basis for name changes. I proved to Essjay through a variety of diffs (and even a statement by him supporting it some time before) that edit counts were in fact a basis for denying username changes. Essjay provided a rationale why that no longer needed to be the case, and from that point forward I made no mention of edit counts at all. I note that it still says on WP:CHU "Please do not request a rename unless it is necessary. If you have only a few edits, see the alternatives below."
• I made NO comment about you having a bipolar disorder. I did not even know until now that you apparently have one. I did comment about your OWN statement on your OWN userpage that you suffer from clinical depression. To me, that explained your outburst against me [12] where you accused me of all manner of things which were all baseless. I responded with [13] then later retracted my request of an apology [14] because I had seen where you stated you suffer from clinical depression. Outbursts are certainly to be expected of someone in that state. I forgave you the outburst and hoped to move on. Essjay shortly thereafter removed the entire section from his talk page [15] and I then posted again on his talk page because there were two points still extant, and I noted that the removal was for the best [16]. I'm sorry you feel offended by my remarks. I did not intend them to be inflammatory, nor did I intend them to insult you in any manner; only to recognize the situation as it was and forgive you the outburst. If you remain offended, which apparently seems to be the case, them I equally apologize. It was never my intention to do so. --Durin 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It is never acceptable to attack a person based on the clinical problems they face. This is a personal attack and furthermore it is an irrelevant ad hominem argument. Wikipedia has a Code of Conduct. Please follow it. To assume that someone is only disagreeing with you because they have "something wrong with them" is acting in extremely bad faith. Please remember to assume good faith in the future. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I made it very plain and clear above that I had no intention of attacking you. Despite this and my clear apology to you, you want to continue to construe this as a personal affront to you. I will restate my apology; I meant no offense or any attack in any way. I was attempting to calm a situation, not inflame it. My actions had the opposite effect. I am sorry for the effect, I am sorry for the insult you perceived from it. I can do no more than apologize for it. If there's something more that I can do to make up for this error on my part, by all means please let me know. Failing that, I'd appreciate it if you stopped assaulting me for the error when I have made every attempt to make amends for it. Thank you. --Durin 03:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• I had absolutely no knowledge of any intention of any clerks anywhere to resign from their positions as clerks as a result of my actions. In fact, there is no comments anywhere on Wiki about this. Had I known this was the case, I most emphatically would have taken a different course. I can not correct a behavior perceived by others as wrong if I am unaware of it. --Durin 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I specifically stated this. I do, as I believe was stated above, think that more of this could have been discussed beforehand. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• I have always been open to criticism. However, I can not possibly be open to criticism if I am not aware of it. Had anyone....anyone....approached me with these concerns before Essjay told me the clerk corps was resigning over this, I gladly would have been absolutely receptive to it. I will say this; I am not open to criticism that is provably false, such as the above accusations that I tagged requests as {{not done}} over low edit counts or that I made a comment about your bipolar disorder. You want to accuse me of something, then at least have it be factually based, and I will gladly listen. I always have, and I always will. --Durin 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You were made aware people weren't okay with your activities whe you were approached by Essjay regarding the edit counts issue. If that doesn't say "something I'm doing here isn't right" to you then I am unsure what would. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There is zero evidence that following that discussion regarding Essjay regarding edit counts that I ever raised the topic of edit counts again at WP:CHU. That was the concern that was raised to me. That was the concern on which I modified my behavior after discussion with Essjay. Please stop accusing me of continuing actions I was asked to stop doing. I did nothing of the kind. Thank you. --Durin 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's try to limit the scope here. Durin has asked a useful question (even though I happen to disagree with him about it), and it's valuable to have a community discussion about it. But this is not a good forum for debating Durin's and Essjay's actions at WP:CHU; I really thought (and really hoped) that that matter had been closed. Chick Bowen 22:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph is still relevant:

“ CheckUser clerks are trusted members of the community chosen by the checkusers because they trust these users with sensitive private information that sometimes is neccesary to discuss in a checkuser investigation. These clerks were "created" by Essjay, who for a long while was the only checkuser actively participating in RFCU, as a way to lessen the burden on himself, and have since been invaluable to the smooth running of the place. There are also users who are not clerks that have been invaluable in running the place as well, such as JzG who has placed a fair bit of sockblocks, and Ryulong who (sometimes to our frustration) seems to find a bunch of socks. ”

✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Section break two

"The fact is that certain people have been authorized to perform certain functions (checkuser, name change) and only those people can give an official answer (done/not done/declined/fishing/whatever)." --Quoted from: Thatcher131 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that certain people have been authorized to perform certain functions (page deletion) and only those people can give an official answer (keep/whatever). --Random832 21:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Shall we start having AfD clerks?

I'm not talking about clerks, I'm talking about editors with checkuser access and editors with bureaucrat access. Thatcher131 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think (correct me if I'm wrong Random) that what he was saying is that we have admins to make decisions about deleting articles, but we permit lots and lots of people to decide AfDs as no consensus or keep...without having a clerk corps at AfD. --Durin 21:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Thatcher131) Yeah, but the main point of contention is whether the people with such access have the inherent right to restrict (whether to themselves or to some "clerk corps") who is allowed to perform actions (closing as keep, closing as not done) that do not inherently require that access. --Random832 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

---

• I've been thinking more on this. We do permit non-admins to close AfDs as keep or no consensus. If we get a case where there's one nominator for deletion, and after five days there are 10 people saying "keep" and nobody saying "delete", nobody ever objects to the AfD being closed as keep. It's blatantly obvious what needs to be done. It's a blatant keep. It doesn't take an admin to do that. If a non-admin were to close an obvious delete as a keep, then there would be actions against that person, appropriate to our current policies against disruption, etc.
• Now, on WP:CHU let's say someone rejected a request because the username was already taken. No username changes are ever performed by bureaucrats when the requested username is already taken. None. It's blatantly obvious that such a username change can not and will not be done. Yet, if someone comes along and marks it as {{not done}} they are banished to the 7th plane of hell. This doesn't make sense.
• Why the difference? Why do we need only bureaucrats to reject username change requests in blatant cases where it can not be done when not a single request has been made when the username already exists? Apparently, not even *clerks* are permitted to add {{not done}} and if this is any measure, they'd be de-clerked for doing so.
• I go back to my original point. I fail to see why an editor acting in good faith who adheres to instructions for assisting on page must have the label of "clerk" in order to edit that page. Further, I fail to see why blatantly obvious cases that require no action by a bureaucrat other than to say {{not done}} requires a bureaucrat to do it. This is overly bureaucratic and antithetical to our mission here.
• Accept volunteers. If they prove themselves to be making mistakes, politely correct them. If they continue making mistakes, be more forceful in requesting they correct their behavior. If that fails, temporarily block them. We do that everywhere. I don't see why WP:RFCU or WP:CHU should be any different. --Durin 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

---

"This is overly bureaucratic and antithetical to our mission here." - Let's face it; Wikipedia became a bureaucracy the minute the title "bureaucrat" was created. --Random832 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious the title was selected for its self-deprecating irony. Newyorkbrad 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

clerk corps - who is in this clerk corps? how are they selected? where are they listed? --Fredrick day 22:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess he means the checkuser clerks, since he's not a arbitration clerk. --Conti|✉ 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I hereby withdraw any objections to the concept of clerks

• I am hereby withdrawing from this discussion as a result of actions taken by User:Essjay and User:Daniel.Bryant. I informed both of them via their talk pages today that they might be interested in seeing/commenting on this discussion. I was hoping they would comment because they are two people who are very familiar with this subject and their inputs would be highly valuable. Instead, the exact opposite has happened. Essjay has now decided to stop editing at WP:CHU and WP:RFCU until this discussion is resolved ([17]). Daniel.Bryant has decided to take a wikibreak because was "one straw too many" ([18]). Further, Daniel.Bryant deleted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Guide under CSD G7.

• Daniel and Essjay are two very important people to the WP:RFCU and WP:CHU processes. Their departure leaves a massive, gaping hole there. The net effect here is that WP:CHU and WP:RFCU are being held hostage until those of us in disagreement with the policy on clerks accept it and stop questioning it. In short, I have raised my hand in class and attempted to ask a question and be solidly blasted for it.

• Discussion is not wrong. To raise a question about a process is not wrong. I fully recognize people have contributed massive amounts of time to these areas. My highest hope was that these central people would be involved in the discussion to evolve to a better situation for all of Wikipedia. Instead, they refuse to even contribute to the discussion. Thus, instead of their being an opportunity for a discussion, the discussion is being quashed. What could have resulted in an evolution to a new way of handling things instead leaves a gaping hole of service until either the old way is restored or a new way is worked on to replace it. This hole is completely unacceptable.

• I'm tired of trying to defend myself. I have been roundly attacked in this discussion and found myself on repeated occasions attempting to defend my motives in even raising this question. Even so, I stuck with it in the hopes that maybe something good would come of it, that a discussion would help foster us in the direction we needed to go. Heck, we were able to delete Esperanza without a massive hiccough to the project and to my knowledge nobody departed Wikipedia over it. Apparently, this area is just too sensitive to question.

• I also refuse to be party to any causation that results in a massive gap to the project. I refuse to defend my motives here anymore. Presume anything you want about me, make any accusations you like. I'll make no further attempt to keep this discussion on topic or any attempts to defend myself.

• I sincerely hope that by my removing myself from this that Essjay and Daniel will return to doing what they were doing. I also sincerely hope there comes a day when someone outside of those processes can question the process without their being a eruption over it. Unfortunately, that time is not now. You have effectively silenced me on this issue. Thank you for saving me the continued effort. I will, as was suggested to me before, focus my efforts elsewhere. --Durin 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this ended like this, your concerns were presented thoughtfully and rationally. The gusto in which some reacted probably legitimizes your concerns, I'm disappointed that you couldn't speak your mind here without your motivations being questioned. RxS 05:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, you should've done so long ago. This isn't a community thing, it's not really any of your business to muck with checkuser and arbitrator process. The clerks manage things so they don't have to, and if they do something wrong, the arbitrators are not going to be afraid to revert them. I'm all for "rule by community" even if I don't participate much, but clerking is supposed to be a convenience for distinct users, so let them decide the way they want it done. Looks that's two users now driven off by completely pointless envy... besides, there are plenty of people who take it upon themselves to refactor discussion comments at they're will, deciding who can and who can't comment on talk pages, AfDs, etc. and they're total assholes about it. Do you really want them with the full right to modify evidence as they wish, blank sections of arbitration workshops etc.? Arbitration is supposed to succeed where other WP:DR fails, right? Well, sometimes-to-often it fails at least in part because of idiots fighting over comment deletion, so let's not drag that into arbitration as well. Milto LOL pia 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, this is way over the line. Durin is an established editor. It is absolutely his business to discuss how processes, including checkuser and arbitration work. It is not your business to tell people to shut up. Zocky | picture popups 05:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it though? Did you sign up to vote on who gets checkuser? Was Essjay, who has had CU for who knows how long before he was an arbitrator, as I understand it, selected by you or the community? I certainly didn't choose any of them, nor the arbitrators. I didn't see any votes for Mackensen or Essjay, and Jimbo could've easily ignored the latest amusing election. I'm not so sure these things are community business, unless Jimbo specifically makes them so. And I'm not telling anyone to "shut up" - I'm not telling anyone to stop expressing jealousy, I'm opining that they should stop having it. Milto LOL pia 06:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. All these people, however they are appointed, and whatever powers they're given, run a website which is created by the work of many editors, including Durin. Without them, there would be nothing to run, nothing to rule, no jobs at Wikimedia foundaton. Most of the people "in power" understand this and do not behave obnoxiously to "lowly" editors, but rather listen to what they have to say about how results of their work are being governed. Zocky | picture popups 06:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Making this about priveleged vs. lowly is exactly the wrong thing it will do - it's the heart of the disagreement, in fact, this objection to priveleges. Instead of trying to compare those "in power" to users not in their priveleged position (priveleged not meaning exalted, but they do have priveleges you and I don't), it would be better to accept that these users do have special priveleges, accept that they like things a certain way, and start thinking about encyclopedia stuff instead of worrying that some editors have the privelege to edit/clerk these pages and some don't. Of course, I would withdraw my criticism if Durin's line of thought were "I can't improve the encyclopedia because I can't make clerk notes and remove rejected requests for arbitration!" Milto LOL pia 06:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly his line of argument. The only reason that we're talking about this is that some people think this is bad for the encyclopedia. Nobody here is shouting "HUMAN RIGHTS!" or "CENSORSHIP". Zocky | picture popups 06:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, reactions like this make Durin's comments/concerns very relevant. And to see people pulling out of a process because someone questions it isn't a very good example, discussion should be encouraged not discouraged. RxS 05:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(to Miltopia:) Don't be a m:Dick. This is what discussion is all about--in order for Wikipedia to continue to function, we all have to learn to be tolerant of others' opinions. Although I disagree with Durin in this case, I thank him for sharing his opinion on the matter and letting us discuss this fully. I hope only that Durin's withdrawl will not stunt the discussion altogether, as I feel it is a quite worthy discussion to have. I only find it unfortunate that Wikipedians lately (myself at times also included) seem completely incapable of discussing things in a mature, professional fashion, but rather must resort to antics and silly name calling. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the benefit of explaining to someone how paradoxical it is to tell someone not to make personal attacks while calling them a name (specifically, calling them a penis) is worth the breach in topic? And I for one will be quicker to thank Esjay and Daniel for returning to Checkuser business than I will to thank Durin for causing their absence, but I'll agree to disagree on that. Milto LOL pia 06:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you'll read m:Dick, you'll see that this paradox is explicitly stated--it's meant to be ironic. Please also see GoodBye. I encourage you not to applaud people for misguided antics, though I do applaud Daniel.Bryant for his appology for taking the low road earlier today. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, "meant to be ironic", but the fact remains that when you call people a dick they don't take it well, whether or not that misguided page was "meant to be ironic" or not - people just don't see it that way. When will people realize that? The page was deleted on Wikipedia, or so the logs tell me, but even that apparently has not worn away it's use. I wonder if people on Wikipedia will ever realize that that page's irony has apparently died out long ago, and that namecalling, ironic or not, is simply not the way to go... people do the same with "troll". Of course, now I'm way off-topic, unless the topic can be broadened to just include general depressing things about Wikipedia interaction. Milto LOL pia 07:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

m:dick tries to encapsulate a valid sentiment, but apart from not being a good page, citing it virtually never has a positive effect. It's best not to. Zocky | picture popups 07:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dropping my $0.02 in about the issue of citing "dick", and I have learnt from experience that it doesn't work terribly well, and tends to backfire. That's why I avoid it at all costs - not to say it was or wasn't applicable in this case, but just a note of experience.

To clarify where my current situation sits, I will write up an extended response that encapsulates everything in this whole thread, including my actions. I hope for it to be completed in 24 hours, as I want to make it all-encompassing. I apologise to Durin and others who were expecting my input for such a delay.

Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Always seems to backfire for me too--unfortunately sarcasm does not carry well in type. To surmise what I meant to say without a crude remark is that Miltopia's remarks were inappropriate, unconstructive, ignorant, and rude. But that's so many more letters to type... AmiDaniel (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

An apology, and a clarification

Firstly, the apology. My actions were extremely dickish this morning, done in haste and not well thought-out. The only thing I'm glad of is that my actions didn't harm anyone else. Wikipedians in general have my total apology. My actions were not intended as a POINTy action, although I understand if they are construed that way.

The second thing, the clarification. I love discussion about improving Wikipedia. I really do love it. What I took offence to was the concept that "anybody knows how to do this, screw the people who have developed, fine-tuned and then enacted this concept to improve RFCU from a pit of doom to a lovely little organised space". The disregard, whether intentional or not, of my work was what caused me to snap. Although I regret this "snap", and apologised for it above, I hope you can all put it down to human pride.

I hope to be discussing some things with not only the clerks but also Durin, via email, as to some suitable suggestions to help remedy a couple of the issues raised here. Although I strongly object to most of the issues, there are a number of suggestions to improve this which have merit. I hope you can all excuse any time it takes in enacting these, and I am welcome to any review or input of the changes on my talk page.

I will extend this statement further later if I feel it is required or I feel I missed anything. Cheers, and sorry again, Daniel Bryant 05:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I never really put much thought into this. I just clerked, and was done with it. Now that I've had some time to digest all this and think about it, I will say that I can understand some of why people are concerned. On the other hand, anybody who thinks of RfCU clerk as a "powerful" position probably doesn't understand what we do. If you find proofreading to make sure people don't futz up the parameters on {{rfcu box}}, or if they're using {{checkuser}} and {{checkip}} correctly is glamorous and powerful, uh, that's cool. The archiving/case naming/page moving work is mind-numbingly habitual enough that I'm gradually writing up programs and scripts to take care of some of it for me.

As I understand it, the clerk's job is to arrange RfCU so that the checkusers themselves can just run into /Pending, run a few checks, and run out. Saves everyone time. Saves everyone effort. Helps people format requests. Keeps things consistent. Maximizes the productivity of the very small group of active checkusers. If not for clerks, history indicates that most of these busy-work maintenance jobs will fall to the checkusers themselves, backlogging the process. It never particularly occurred to me that this cleanup work might be controversial, because it just made sense.

The purpose of RfCU is to expedite communication between checkusers and Wikipedia at large; the checkusers have indicated that they feel the current arrangement, with clerks, is most helpful to this task. I'm not currently aware of any problems. I don't recall any instance where I've yelled at anybody for helping out. Everything I can see indicates that RfCU is working fine. If it ain't broke, why "fix" it? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents-when I filed for a checkuser, Luna helped to correct some minor errors I made in the request. It's not something I do every day, and I was glad to have someone experienced with the process there to help. At the same time, I doubt the checkusers want to deal with correcting those errors themselves, or working around them, so I don't see the harm in the arrangement unless good-faith editors start getting beat over the head with "You're not a clerk, no touching!" Really, how many people are interested in editing the Arbcom or Checkuser page to do anything but file an Arbcom or Checkuser case anyway? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We have to think about long-term consequences, not just immediate results. It doesn't matter how many people want to do it at this moment. What matters is that these things work on trust. Checkuser deals with sensitive information, and the consequences of RFCU are often drastic. If RFCU process is abused, it can do all sorts of very damaging stuff, from character assassination to serious influence on the balance of POVs and to real-life problems. Open and transparent process which can be carried out by anybody willing to follow instructions is more likely to be trusted than a closed process with arbitrarily appointed clerks, especially in a community where such things are not the normal way of doing things. And let's not forget, by the time RFCU is needed, people are already pissed off and ready to distrust. Zocky | picture popups 09:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a clerkish thought

Situations like this are bound to come up again sooner or later, and since we're all basically volunteers here it would be nice to handle this without hurt feelings on one side or the other. If I understand correctly, in this case it was handled by saying "You can't edit here, you're not a clerk" or something like that. In the future, it may be worth considering to instead say "This process is more complex than it first seems so we have a bunch of trained regulars for it. If you're interested in helping out, talk to That user". The net effect is the same except that it sounds less harsh. Just my $.2 >Radiant< 08:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Durin is the only person to actually have been asked to not edit in a certain area. (It was actually more like, "I'm only asking, not telling, but if you don't stop, I will.") I don't fully understand the reason for this conflict, but it appears to be between Durin and Essjay. I know that Durin has stated that the conflict sparked his thought process on clerks in general but is not responsible for his philosophical objections, but I find it hard to divorce the two in my mind. I don't know of any other case where a checkuser clerk was rude to someone who tried to lend a hand. I think the formulation This process is more complex than it first seems so we have a bunch of trained regulars for it. If you're interested in helping out, talk to That user is excellent, and any clerk who thinks the role is more than that probably shouldn't be one.

Specifically related to checkuser clerk, the tasks are largely housekeeping; assisting with formatting to make it easier for the checkusers to run the check, and maintaining the archives. As far as I am concerned, anyone can do that, and that is in fact how several editors became clerks.

The situation becomes more complicated at Change username and Usurpation. There, the bureaucrats deal with 150+ requests a week, that all need to be verified by checking the page history to make sure the person who appears to have signed the request really made it, and making sure the destination name is available. Usurpation, or forced renaming of a vacant account, is even more complicated because of the verification and notfication requirements. These verifications must be performed to make sure someone else's account isn't stolen, accidentally or deliberately. That amounts to 5 or 6 actions per request, and anyone who thinks this verification process can be left to any random user has never held a position of responsibility in a large organization. The bureaucrats have decided to delegate this task to a group of trusted users, and since Essjay had a group of clerks already on hand, the checkuser clerks took on this new role. If the bureaucrats have decided that only the clerks are trusted to perform these verifications, I believe that is their perogative, since any requests they screw up are their responsibility. The example cited above of the open proxy project is a good example of a similar situation; 1200 admins have the block button, and any idiot can run a WHOIS, but only a few verified users, who have demonstrated competence and trustworthiness, are permitted to verify open proxies.

I don't believe this creates a new class of editors; if it does, where are the torches and pitchforks over verified users? In principle, there is no reason that there couldn't be 100 clerks instead of 10 if they were all competent and trustworthy. In practice, it would difficult for the bureaucrats to become comfortable with so many, coordination would be a problem, and most of the clerks would have nothing to do; hence, a waiting list. I also don't know why Durin could not be considered a verified user/clerk for username changes; as I said, this appears to be between Durin and Essjay. But it should be noted that there are several other bureaucrats working on name changes and usurpations, and while Essjay may coordinate the clerks, the clerks serve all the bureaucrats.

There is certainly room in the clerks' documentation to demystify the title, and the reason for having only clerks verify requests at CHU and CHU/Usurp could be better explained in the front matter there. Other than that, the system has worked well for nearly a year, and this is the first pothole I am aware of. Thatcher131 13:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On trusting trust

"That amounts to 5 or 6 actions per request, and anyone who thinks this verification process can be left to any random user..." - why not? Making the edits and doing the verification doesn't take any special qualifications. If you're worried about whether the person verifying it can be trusted - well, there's no reason each verification shouldn't be accompanied by a diff. We cite sources in articles, why should this be different, especially since they're looking at the diff anyway. --Random832 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC) - Basically what I'm saying is, this shouldn't be a matter of trust when proof is so trivially available.

If a trusted user posts a note or an icon that says "I checked this and its ok" then the bureaucrat can directly fulfill the request with no extra work. If a random user posts a note saying "I checked and this user has no contributions [link], no logged actions [link], e-mail not enabled, and required message left on the talk page [diff]" then the bureaucrat still has to click on those 4 links to verify that they are accurate, basically performing the exact same tasks the user just did. If you think the bureaucrat does not have to verify the diffs in that case, then I can only hope you never get elected to bureaucrat, and oh by the way, you've won a million dollars in a foreign lottery [19] and all you have to do to collect is send me the $5000 foreign currency transaction fee--don't bother checking the link, you can trust me, right? You might not think it's much work either, but when you have 150 rename requests per week, another 100 usurpations pending, it adds up, and every bureaucrat is an active editor in other areas and has other bureaucrat functions to perform as well. With your logic you might just as well ask the admins on all the Wikimedia projects, and the stewards, why have trusted users verify open proxies when all you have to do is run a port scanner and check some blacklists? The question here should not be, "why are only some users trusted to verify CHU requests," but rather, "how does one become a trusted user and is the process overly restrictive." That can be addressed with some clarifying wording on various pages, I think. Thatcher131 14:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clicking a link that's right there is a lot simpler than searching through the history to _find_ the link. I don't think it's too much of a burden. And if the clerks are so trusted that there's no need to verify their claims, why not give them account renaming power? --Random832 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC) And even if that's a bit much, if their claim that the account _is_ taken is to be accepted on faith alone, why not allow them to close a request as not done? --Random832 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

---

And by the same token, I think that open proxy verification should be done _via the proxy_. If it's really an open proxy, then I can connect to wikipedia through the proxy, post a comment verifying this is the case, and there you go. Analogous to how other sites do automated open-proxy checking - by attempting to send a connection through the proxy, and blocking if successful --Random832 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're just not getting it. Suppose I was a high school kid who thought that other kids who edited Wikipedia in the library on study hall were dorks. I could post as an IP user, "Hey, I just connected through this open proxy, it should be blocked" and you would block the IP because I said it was a proxy without any independent verification, and all the dorks would get banned from editing. Or perhaps you mean you would connect through a proxy and log in as yourself and say, "block the IP I just used because it's a proxy." Well, only a checkuser can identify your IP address, so you've now escalated the amount of expertise needed from an admin on the verified user list to one of the 14 checkusers, most of whom are also very busy arbitrators. Or perhaps you mean that you personally would connect through the proxy and then list it for blocking, because you know how to identify open proxies. In that case I suggest you head straight over to WP:OPP and find out how to get recognized as a verified user and actually start verifying some suspected proxies..there's always a backlog over there. Thatcher131 23:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My two cents

One key conflict in this discussion that i've noticed has been that there is a significant dispute of fact - that is, of what the situation is now with what edits ordinary users are allowed to make, and what is reserved to clerks. What everyone who seems to be in a position to actually know how things are done are saying contradicts what's actually on the RFCU page. If normal users are allowed to make these edits (as some have asserted), then the page should be changed to reflect that. period. --Random832 14:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There are 3 different types of clerks with 3 different levels of authority and responsibility. Durin ran into a conflict in one area and tried to deprecate all three, which was unfortunate, and has led, I think, to considerable confusion. I don't believe it says anywhere in the RFCU/clerks pages that non-clerks can't help out with formatting and archiving of cases. The CHU clerks are new and there may be some rewording or clarification needed along the lines I discussed above. Arbitration clerking is fully disccused at WP:AC/C and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Thatcher131 14:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I just still don't see how there's any justification of the existence of clerks that doesn't also justify AfD clerks (which none of us seem to want). ArbCom can do what they want - but Bureaucrats and Checkusers are just editors with extra buttons, these processes are still, as far as I know, subject to community consensus. --Random832 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are selected by community consensus. Does that mean the community may also micromanage the manner in which the bureaucrats perform their tasks? Checkuser is not subject to consensus. Checkuser permission is granted by the Arbitration Committee and its use is under direct governance of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Privacy Policy. In fact, the Foundations's Checkuser Ombudsman can remove checkuser access on any wikipedia for misuse no matter what the local consensus is. Thatcher131 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As already stated by at least one of the checkusers/'crats the clerks are there to make their life easier. AfDs are staffed by potentially over a thousand admins whereas checkuser /rename is a very limited function that is only held by a few. Consequently, to act in an efficient manner and get requests completed quickly they have called for some users who are dedicated to keeping that area running, are trustworthy and are trusted by the 'crats/checkusers to not eff it up and make life harder for them. I don't see why people can't approach a clerk and ask what they can do to help out, but jumping in head first has the potential to (pardon the pun) cause headaches all round. Viridae^Talk 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"I don't believe it says anywhere in the RFCU/clerks pages that non-clerks can't help out with formatting and archiving of cases." - It doesn't say anywhere that they can, and in they eyes of many the fact that clerks exist implies that 'by default' they can't. I wasn't aware that checkusers were not part of the community. --Random832 20:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you need a huge flashing sign saying "edit me please!"? Viridae^Talk 22:46, 28 February 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.

Vandalism at Costa Rica

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but the Costa Rica article has been suffering a spat of vandalism lately from numerous anonymous users. I'm suggesting a temporary limited protection on the page to prevent anonymous and new users from editing the page. croll 02:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Requests for page protection should go to Wikipedia:Requests for Page Protection. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and semi-protected the page. N Shar is correct about where this sort of request normally goes. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 02:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice

I figured I better direct people to Talk:Daniel Brandt myself. Zocky | picture popups 11:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay-The New Yorker community discussion

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please note: Unlike User talk:Essjay this thread will not be left as a platform for any form of trollery. Commentary here is to be directed toward what measures Wikipedia should be taking in order to maintain its overall credibility relative to these developments.

Update: User:Essjay has left wikpedia. Purples 03:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's retirement statement. (→Netscott) 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:Jimbo Wales has requested Essjay's resignation from the Wikipedia positions of trust he holds. (→Netscott) 11:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage contents change over time. Specific page revision for the above citation, timestamp 06:42, 3 March 2007. -- Ben 19:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been a very acitve discussion on User talk:Essjay but given the increasing prominence of this story it is time that a more community wide forum of discussion be engaged. Wikipedia is going to be taking a beating for this and frankly the community needs to be expressing itself about how Wikipedia should be proceeding relative to these revelations of possible misconduct. (→Netscott) 04:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My feeling exactly. However, I was a little too bold and moved the whole section of his talk page to a subpage of this noticeboard. Anyway, please note that this is not the place to talk about your personal disapproval of Essjay's actions; those comments should be reserved for his talk page. Instead, I feel that discussion here should be about what we do next to help "contain" this, for lack of a better word, or for whatever other issues that need to be addressed. Cheers, PTO 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

STRONG WHATEVER - two years of service, dispute resolution and cleaning up after other people's crap pretty much say all that I would like to say but don't have the time. 99.9% of the voluminous contributions (and I don't mean edit count, I mean every thing he's ever done) he has put forth have 0% to do with a PhD. Some Wikipedians are POV-pushers, edit warriors, jerks, abusive this way or that - Essjay's biggest fault is that he made up an identity for himself. This is the internet and it's not a big deal, stop pretending to be Wikipedia's PR committee and start thinking about benefit/detriment to the encyclopedia. I can't believe I'm having to tell people this. Milto LOL pia 04:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not when his RFA and RFB both mention his contributions to theology. – Chacor 04:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Does being a "scholar" mean you are a professional, or someone with deep knowledge about a topic? I am a Dragonlance scholar, does that mean I hold a degree at Fantasy? He does know about the topic, studied it, and that is enough for the "scholar" nomination, as far as I know. Finally, our verifiability guidelines do not apply to user pages. -- ReyBrujo 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose it was inevitable... Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia). --W.marsh 04:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And the equally inevitable AfD. How predictable. --W.marsh 04:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Essjay has been using fake credentials to justify edits for as long as his account's been on Wikipedia. Here's one from April 2005, referring to a book he cited as authoritative: "This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's credibility." If Wikipedia's willing to excuse this, what won't it excuse? The notion Essjay will sit in judgment of anybody on the Arbitration Committee is hilarious. Rcade 04:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  If I count correctly, that was his fourth or fifth edit in Wikipedia. Can you find a more recent one? I am sure if you dig the first thousand of my 25k or so edits, you will find stuff that would question my position as administrator. However, since my first edits almost two years have passed, I have matured, and have learned from my mistakes. Unless you can find he was using his credentials recently as you state, I am open to consider that a "misstep", a bullish statement from someone new in Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Someone else cited others. Rcade 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone who once dealt with a person who was a member of an organisation with terrorist links, I'm glad that I can edit wikipedia anonymously. If Essjay were a bad person, I'm sure that people would be able to find something more serious than inflating his academic credentials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andjam (talk • contribs) 04:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

• In my initial commentary about this I was taking a forgiving view of these revelations but with what appears to be more and more evidence of impropiety (ie: Kelly Martin's diffs of credential citations while editing) my view is shifting from one of forgiveness to one of severe disappointment leading me to believe that some serious measures need to happen here in order for Wikipedia as a whole to have some hope of staving off further heavy project creditiability hemmoraging. (→Netscott) 04:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia Essjay is respected for his years of service. Unfortunately - if the reports about his actual background are true - this casts a shadow not only upon himself but on the project. It's inappropriate to brush off this revelation as insignificant: it is significant. I sincerely hope that no other administrator has misled the community about credentials. Even more sincerely, I hope anyone who has will step forward promptly to admit the truth and apologize. Durova^Charge! 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Can you expand on the point of "casts a shadow not only upon himself but on the project"? In my view it does more to cast doubts on other projects such as Citizendium whos models depend on the work of experts than it does to cast doubt on this project. I've never seen any study which showed any significant dependence on disclosed experts on Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 04:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  I think he means it casts a shadow on Wikipedia if it looks like we put up with credential fabrication here. --Cyde Weys 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  To elaborate, I consider it appropriate for Essjay to resign all special privileges he holds. Administrators (to say nothing of arbitrators, bureaucrats, and checkusers) bear a responsibility to uphold the site's highest standards. We set the example for others. Although I fully support the right of any user to participate anonymously, the creation of fictitious credentials is abhorrent - especially when the user abuses the fiction to get the upper hand in debates. The site has no shortage of trusted sysops who can replace his services. It would deepen the shadow upon the project to countenance this fabrication. Durova^Charge! 04:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  BTW Cyde, I prefer she. Last time I checked I was female. Honestly. ;) Durova^Charge! 05:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  With regret, I must endorse Durova's position above as the clearest and closest phrasing of my own. Essjay's done yeoman work, and there's no denying it. But other people have done yeoman work in responsible professions, and still have been required to resign (or else fired if they refused) when it came out that they had falsely claimed credentials. That Essjay did so particularly to support his arguments here only makes things worse. What other falsehoods have we accepted from him? We may never know, and after this breach of trust we can never safely assume there weren't any others. Anonymity and pseudonymity have nothing to do with it, and (pace Jimbo) offer no excuse. One can refuse to divulge one's identity, while never claiming false authority or skills or experience or degrees. We've blocked usernames that so much as implied false authority or affiliations. Will those now all be so warmly accepted back again, as "no problem"? -- Ben 06:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Essjay's userpage (as of 2 January 2006) listing his false credentials. Notice also: "For various reasons, I prefer to remain anonymous on Wikipedia, but I also believe it is important for me to offer information about myself that is relevant to my work on Wikipedia." and "My motto on Wikipedia (and in life) is Lux et Veritas (Light and Truth)." Essjay stressed the "importance" and "relevance" of this information, and (with his motto) of truth. It is no less important and relevant to his work on Wikipedia that he lied about it. He holds "boardvote, Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator" powers; could we trust even his checkuser reports now? or that he would not abuse these powers? or that he has not already done so? Tell me that any ordinary editor who so abused our trust, who trolled Wikipedia with false claims for so long, would not already have received an indefblock or even a community ban. Yet Essjay should retain these offices of trust? -- Ben 16:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a PhD and a professor (no, you have no way of confirming that with me any more than you did with Essjay, but you'll have to take my word for it), I wish to say that, though the New Yorker part of it is unfortunate, in general I have no problem with what Essjay did. As I can assure you, having an academic credential gets you nothing around here, so it's not like his current exalted status owes anything to the deception. Given some of the harrassment problems people have had, I've sometimes wished I had dropped in some misleading info here and there (and, if you're a troll, maybe I have. . .). Chick Bowen 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• As of 06:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC), Jimbo Wales does have a problem with it; in fact has now found the situation grave enough to blank out the rest of his talk page and devote it to this issue, having asked Essjay "to resign his positions of trust within the community"... "because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now." (Those positions include "boardvote, Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator", and ArbCom.) Jimbo also says, "From the moment this whole thing became known, EssJay has been contrite and apologetic." That leading clause is significant: the contrition and apology followed not the commission of the sin but its revelation by others. Any "Catholic scholar", indeed most ordinary people whether Christian or not, would understand the difference between being sorry for having done something wrong and being sorry for having been caught at it. -- Ben 19:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's a serious ethical issue, but it has nothing to do with the credibility of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is edited by many users who have no PhDs -- if Essjay is one more of those, so? --N Shar (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Kindly don't lump all the "many users who have no PhDs" in with those who have none but falsely claimed them. Lack of a degree isn't comparable to proven dishonesty. The former needn't impair credibility; the latter must. -- Ben 16:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've started Wikipedia:Honesty with the goal of getting community consensus behind our expectations of each other moving forward regarding the clear delineation between anonymity and fabrication. I wouldn't have thought the project would need something like this, but perhaps the time has come. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• I've long suspected that Essjay was not a tenured professor or any other such, a suspicion I have brought up off-wiki in IRC in an off-handed way several times over the past six months. I was poking around to see if there was any other similar thought, but nothing came about. I stopped believing he was what his page claimed six months ago and I moved on. This lie trapped him into a biographical corner, but it in no way hampered his judgements or actions that I have ever seen. He has not caused skewed content or an improper resolution because of false professions. A lie does not a liar make. Teke ^(talk) 05:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "A lie does not a liar make". What?! Isn't that the very definition of the word? --Cyde Weys 05:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Everyone's told at least one lie. It's a pattern of lying that makes one a liar. On the other hand, accusing Essjay of a pattern of lying would not be far off the mark. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia, an anonymous global endeavour of enthusiasts, operates by consensus. This requires some measure of trust, especially in the few functionaries that we have that wield some measure of authority. As far as I'm concerned, the trust I had in Essjay (disclaimer: I've not had substantial interactions with him previously) has evaporated as a result of his deceptive behaviour, which is not sanctioned by any ethical code that I know of. Any arbitral decisions he participates in, especially those sanctioning sockpuppetry and other deceit-related misconduct, will have a serious moral taint. In my opinion, the only way for him to show that he remains trusted by the community would be to resign all positions of authority and to re-apply for them. I'd support him in this, given his record of service to the project, if he'd clearly and incontrovertibly apologise for his misconduct. That has yet to happen, as far as I can see. Sandstein 06:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • See essjay's statement. You may not consider it to be adequate, but it's a kind of apology. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I've read it, and I'm extremely unimpressed. The only thing that comes close to an apology is "I *am* sorry if anyone in the Wikipedia community has been hurt by my decision to use disinformation to protect myself." This is disingenuous. Protecting oneself does not require granting oneself fictitious credentials and referring to these in one's RfA and RfB. Also, he does not apologise for the ethical lapse itself, but merely for people feeling bad about it, which is no apolopgy at all. That's what troubles me also: he has given no indication that he knows that he has actually done anything wrong, and that regrets his actions. Sandstein 06:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I agree. I would like a full explanation from Essjay. Why did he choose that particular method of protecting his identity? I would really like to know. I'm sure he has some reason, but unfortunately he seems unwilling to reveal it. I'm not going to speculate further here; Essjay made a poor decision, and I believe he's going to lose more sleep over it than the rest of us combined. I hope that he will now try even harder to be open and trustworthy as a member of the ArbCom, Oversight, and Checkuser groups, because it's clear that there is not consensus for removing him from these offices. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

        I think it's a bit early to guess at what community consensus will be. I for one have transistioned from shock to outrage to utter disappointment. It may be a day or two before everyone sorts out their feelings and thoughts on what happened and what needs to happen. I think the longer Essjay remains mum, the more sentiment is going to move away from forgiveness. I really wish he'd step up to the plate and deal with this with a little more character than he's shown so far. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

        • • His statement falls much too short as either apology or explanation. If he were truly contrite he would resign his positions of trust. That is the routine course of events when a leading member of any prominent organization causes that organization embarrassment in the mainstream press. The longer he delays those resignations the more he damages the public's perception of Wikipedia. He also fails to explain why he crossed the line from anonymity to fabrication, why his fictitious persona happened to have so many credentials he lacked, or why he exploited the community's assumption of good faith by leveraging those false credentials on his user page and in debates. If he merely wanted to disguise his identity he could have claimed to be a female paralegal from Georgia and avoided supporting his ideas with as a woman or as a Georgian. He doesn't appear to understand how damaging his actions really are, which is leading me to doubt I could support him for reinstatement if he did resign and ask to be resysopped. Durova^Charge! 15:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some things to think about

(I posted these earlier at Jimbo's talk page, but this is obviously a better place) There are really 3 separate issues here, and they should be discussed separately:

1. AFAIK, Essjay is not a foundation spokesman, and Wikipedia doesn't have official press contacts. Essjay's interview with New Yorker and the problems with it are mostly between Essjay and New Yorker. But still, some press stories treat this as something Wikipedia has done. Are we failing to communicate that individual users don't represent the project?
2. Checkusers, oversights and ArbCom members have access to privileged information. Both the fact that this information is sensitive, and the fact that access to it is limited, so it can't be checked by a regular user, requires trust in these people. Should we require these candidates for these functions to reveal their real-life identity? Does being elected/appointed to these sensitive positions make them de facto representatives of the project in the eyes of the world?
3. We don't require editors to identify themselves, and the idea that we should is not going to be seriously considered. But obscuring one's real-life identity is not the same thing as inventing an alternative real-life identity. Should lying as opposed to not telling about your real life be frowned upon? Zocky | picture popups 05:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I believe Checkusers need to give their real names to the Foundation - trying to find where I read it. Daniel Bryant 05:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: User:Essjay/Checkuser/Thoughts is where I read it - see the email correspondance. Daniel Bryant 05:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly argued for a requirement that checkusers must reveal their true names to the Foundation, but was argued down. (There are a number of anonymous checkusers left; the first one that comes to mind is JayJG.) Kelly Martin (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Sort of - Essjay's positions of trust make him an unusual case.

2. (a.)No, no editor should be required to reveal real world identity to the community at large. (b.)Sort-of-yes, regardless of what the world at large expects, I expect that arbitrators, bureaucrats, and checkusers act in ways that reflect positively on the project.

3. Yes, absolutely, and frowned upon is much too mild a wording. Durova^Charge! 05:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? A person's identity doesn't matter here I thought, only what they do. So why should it matter if it is true or false? This isn't Citizendium. Milto LOL pia 05:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And what he did was lied to garner trust and respect he hadn't earned. Although his contributions have been otherwise stellar, just look at the public embarrassment his lies have caused. He should have come clean on his own and taken his lumps, rather than cast the site in a negative light before the general public. Durova^Charge! 05:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Embarassment? Who's embarassed? Are you? Really? I'm not. And Jimbo's not. I don't see why anyone else should be. Most people identities aren't even tied to their WIkipedia accounts, so it's not like anyone's reputation is at stake. If it's just the general idea of people laughing at Wikipedia, then I hate to tell you, but that will never change. Milto LOL pia 05:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I - as well the editors at The New Yorker and several other reputable publications that deemed the story newsworthy - respectfully disagree with your analysis. Durova^Charge! 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So does Jimbo, now, as of 06:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC) -- Ben 19:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Item #2: Yes on revealing their real-life identity. If I didn't believe this before, I do now. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes. Wikipedia is not responsible for the actions of any editors except inasmuch as they are mandated by the Foundation. This needs to be made clear to the public.
2. Oversighters, checkuser-ers, and arbitrators are not representatives of the community, the site, or the foundation.
3. Lying is a breach of trust. Wikipedia works on trust. Therefore, lying seriously harms the Wikipedia community. It should certainly be "frowned upon." If you thought I was (to cite some random example) an aide to the President of the US, you would treat me with a certain amount of respect (even if you're a Democrat), which would be very good for me. I am not an aide to the president, of course, and I've never said I was, but I hope you'll agree that if I did, that would be a seriously harmful action. I would characterize Essjay's lie as "seriously harmful" and a WP:POINT violation. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• He apologized, he has been embarrassed, and harassed. I don't see the need for any further action. It is not as though his credentials entitled him to the job. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Correct, it was not his credentials as an academic nor Ph.D. It was his credentials as truthful, trustworthy and of good judgement—those characteristics are what is in question now. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rcade's place in all of this

For the past 48 hours, Rcade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made absolutely no contributions to the project except to this discussion. Here are some tasty diffs.

• "[Using a pseudonym is] not a sufficient excuse for waging a calculated effort to deceive people about academic credentials you do not possess…"
• "Aren't you the same person who just said Essjay might have faked academic credentials for years for innocent reasons?"
• "What it would accomplish is show that Wikipedia leaders are accountable for their actions. There's no way [Essjay] should remain in a position of authority at Wikipedia." (on his talk page no less)
• "I don't see how Jordan can continue to serve in a position of leadership here, given the seriousness of the fraud." (again on his talk page)
• "Using Fake Credentials to Justify Edits" II III IV

And then there are his edits here that are easily visible (1 2). There are limits to discussing this subject, and Rcade needs to be introduced to these limits and now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• If he's just here to antagonize Essjay and hype this situation, I would support a block until he can agree to be more productive. But he should be given a proper warning first (from an admin willing to follow up). --W.marsh 05:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a very current debate, and there's no requirement for editors to edit articles daily. Trying to shut people up by draggin in a bunch of diffs always backfires, especially when those people are established editors. Just leave it be. Zocky | picture popups 05:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree and would not support a block yet at this time. – Chacor 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, his contribution history is longer than I'd thought. I'd scanned it and just seen earlier edits to Foundation people-related articles, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. --W.marsh 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Come now, this isn't all that different from webcomics people showing up to vehemently criticize our deletion policies. Given Wikipedia's footprint on the internet, it should be expected that internet personalities are going to want input on our governance, even if they don't edit. Feel free to encourage him to work on adapting his activism to the culture, but on no account should he be blocked. --Michael Snow 05:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why are we having this discussion? So what if Essjay is not a tenured professor? What policy or guideline has he broken? What bad edits has he made? Has be been uncivil? From what I can tell, he spoke to the New Yorker as a private citizen, not an official spokesman, and ultimately embarrassed himself. I think he's suffered enough. I'm hardly the touchy-feely, huggy type, but this is probably a good time to reaffirm our appreciation for the work he does here -- not to kick him while he's down. If I've missed something and he actually really is a whale-killing, pedophillic, trash-littering, dog-torturing, evil person, let me know. In the meantime he's got my support and I suggest we move on to something else. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still figuring out how I feel about this, but currently my main concern is that somebody in a position that is all about good judgement appears to have had a shocking lapse of it, one that started in his first few edits and carried through until dramatically exposed with high visibility. I feel for the guy, and I understand much of his work has been exemplary, so I'm dismayed by the "release the hounds" approach. But I don't think sweeping it under the rug is a good option, either. William Pietri 06:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Could you say more about the limits you see to discussing this subject, Ryūlóng? I find that phrase a little ominous on its own, but I'm sure it was well meant. Thanks, William Pietri 05:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• When I write these, I need to re-read them. The "limit" I'm talking about is the fraying of patience. I know that users don't have to edit every day, but when a user's sole edits within a short span of time are all in the Project space or the user talk space and all in one area, there should be something mentioned. All of Rcade's edits lately have been harassing Essjay concerning the statement in the New Yorker.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Of the posts you list, all but one were addressed to another user in response to a comment. I'm not sure that this ought to be characterized as harassment. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I would not have commented on Essjay's user talk page if it had not become the place the issue was being most actively discussed. When it moved here, I moved as well. None of my comments were directed specifically at him. Rcade 16:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I guess I don't read them as harassing. In assuming good faith, I figured that he just felt betrayed and was expressing his feelings. People on all sides seem a bit overwrought by this. Part of the problem for me is that the discussion on this is scattered, with much of it on Essjay's talk page, so it's hard to tell things directed specific people versus more general comments. William Pietri 06:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• The suggestion that I'm a outsider jumping in here to harass Essjay is out of line. Check my user talk page. I'm an occasional contributor who has 200 edits and has been here since late 2005. I've commented on this issue because I care about Wikipedia's governance -- the same reason I wrote about Wales editing his own bio and am mentioned on his bio Rcade 13:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay's actions on the project

Whatever essjay claims to be or not has no real bearing on his administrative actions here at wikipedia. If anyone has any problems with how he is performing as a 'crat checkuser arbitrator adminsistrator or oversight-er then they should open an RfC. I can't believe that there is really calls for his removal from positions where he makes incredibly valuable contributions to the project. If the press are stupid enough to think that a random user (however many hats they wear) is a subsitute for an offical press contact then that is there problem and doesn't truly affect us here. Maybe we should be disparaging them for their shoddy journalism (not checking their facts) rather than essjay for a harmless lie that doesn't diminish from his usefulness to the project. Viridae^Talk 08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, it does have a bearing -- and it appears, by all indications, more than a "harmless lie". Essjay presented himself consistently, until recently, as a tenured professor to the Wikipedia community -- and even claimed to have been a former head of his department. This is not merely a persona adopted for the sake of anonymity, but one he used in contacting non-Wikipedians to establish his credibility. See his comments from April 2006:

I've contacted a few professors after other Wikipedians have pointed out that the instructor made the "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" argument to students who were, in fact, Wikipeidans. I have a copy of my form response at User:Essjay/Letter. When I was head of my department, I certainly would have taken knowledge of such conduct into consideration, and I think similarly minded department heads/deans would as well. The young lady should make an appointment with the department head/dean/provost post haste. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The worrisome part is not just that Essjay was deceptive, but that it makes Wikipedia "look bad" outside the community. Whatever his positive virtues-- and there are many-- misrepresentation of his credentials both on Wikipedia and outside it, reflects badly on us all.--Leflyman^Talk 08:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it affect his ability to continue to perform duties he has performed for some time without issue? Viridae^Talk 08:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If Essjay stands for an RfA (let alone RfB), it is certain that he won't get through. But that is more of a commentary of the way we do the RfA business than it is of Essjay's actions. Tintin 08:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Does lying to gain a position of trust affect one's ability to be trusted? Yes, it does. A quick check for historical note of Essjay's RfA shows his original nom was on July 13, 2005 (my-oh-my, those were the days when a mere 2300 edits were enough for adminship!) At that time, his original profile did present his credentials as a professor of theology, and particularly noted, "I take great pride in having been described to the Arbitration Committee (in a case unrelated to me) as "one of Wikipedia's foremost experts on Catholicism."

Purely speculative, but I suspect that many of those who supported his initial adminship (and later Bureaucratship) did so with the assumption that he was as he presented himself, a collegiate theologian-- as he wrote in answer to a direct question, "Most of my edits have been to theology related articles; I am a theology scholar after all." --Leflyman^Talk 08:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole situation is bizarre. !votes on RfA and RfB are usually made on the basis of trust and perceived good judgement. Surely this debacle would seriously affect users' perception of essjay if those !polls were to be re-run? If essjay was a "real-world" elected/public official of any sort then this kind of revelation would be absolutely game over for his career. Of course, the standards we expect here are lower than in real life, and I for one do not at this time support any motion for him to resign his various positions. What I would like is simply for someone (ideally the man himself) to explain just why he did this. It's one thing to protect one's anonymity- perfectly reasonable and easy to do. But it's just totally unacceptable to grossly inflate one's credentials and then use your adopted persona to try to get the upper hand in arguments and intentionally deceive other editors- and then extend said deception off-wiki. Apart from the potential damage to the project's credibility, the net result of this is surely going to be to encourage bad faith and mistrust among editors on-wiki. I've said it before but the point bears repeating- I just really, really don't understand why he did this. Badgerpatrol 10:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd doubt that, to be honest. Here at Wikipedia, someone's standing in a field of scince or arts should have no relevance in any arguements/debates and shouldn't come into articles writing. The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, without a degree, and that debates shouldn't have credentials brought into them, lest we were to breah WP:OR. As far as I'm concerned, it is Essjay's right to fabricate an identity, as I'm sure many other editors and admins do, and the concerns that he was misleading the community in debates by using his "false" credentials are ludicrous, as the community really shouldn't have been paying attention to his assertions anyway. Essjay is respected around here, so he has some significant influence in debaes, and I have no doubt that the ArbComm's earlier comment that he was one of the leading experts on Catholicism in WP can still stand, as I'm sure that Essjay knows much about the religion, even if he has no formal qualification. Essjay can still be trusted as much as any other editor here, and I feel that a guiding principle on Wikipedia is that you don't need to be an expert to give proper opinons of matters and provide viable sources where appropriate. To me, this is really just a big non-issue, which will soon blow over - if we were on Citizendium, and a user had made up his credentials for expert status there, then I feel that the outcry we've seen here would be appropriate, but as we all know. this isn't the case, so I feel that it is quite safe to close the book and get back to writing an encyclopedia. Martinp23 10:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin, if Essjay's misrepresentations had been limited to Wikipedia, your argument might hold water. But Essjay represented himself as a tenured professor to the outside world, where credentials do matter, and tried to use those false credentials to bolster the authority of Wikipedia. It's fine to treat Wikipedia as a Utopia where qualifications and credentials have no value, but this affair spills over to the real world, where they do have value (or, at least, are treated as if they do, which amounts to the same thing).

Actually, this affair shows the limits of Wikipedia's academic egalitarianism. We may say that everyone here is equal and that Wikipedia status depends solely on your editing, but that isn't always the case. In practice, people who claim high academic degrees or other badges of status in the real world often do get more respect than a random editor with no particular qualifications. This is because we bring the expectations, values and prejudices of the real world into Wikipedia with us. And when the real world deals with Wikipedia — as it does when we're examined in the press, or when a (real) college professor tells his students not to cite Wikipedia as a source — we have to respond on the real world's terms. In the real world, especially in the academic world, honesty is a fundamental and paramount value. If anyone in a white-collar job falsified academic credentials the way that Essjay did, they would almost certainly be fired. Of course, Wikipedia isn't a job, and I'm not saying that it is — but I'm saying that the analogy shows how important academic honesty is in the real world, and why the real world is going to regard this as a big deal.

If Wikipedia is just a game, an elaborate MUD with no connection to reality, then it's fine to say "Essjay is a model Wikipedian, and this is no big deal." But if we want Wikipedia to be treated as a reliable and trustworthy source by people who aren't members of the project, then we've got to treat this seriously. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly how do you know that Essjay has not abused his checkuser or oversight privileges? It is those positions of high trust that are particularly disturbing to me at this point. There is little to no transparency on the use of these functions and I hate to say it, but I've lost all trust in Essjay's judgement. Had he stepped forward immediately with a true apology maybe it would be different. His continued silence and refusal to step down despite the community disgust at his behavior is distressingly self-centered for someone I regarded so highly. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• At least as early as 06:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC), Jimbo Wales has asked Essjay "to resign his positions of trust within the community"... "because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now." (As I write, those positions still include ArbCom, "boardvote, Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator"; click this link to see his current status.) Jimbo also says, "From the moment this whole thing became known, EssJay has been contrite and apologetic." That leading clause is significant: the contrition and apology followed not the commission of the sin but its revelation by others. Any "Catholic scholar", indeed most ordinary people whether Christian or not, would understand the difference between being sorry for having done something wrong and being sorry for having been caught at it. -- Ben 19:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Anynobody

Since I starting editing here I have operated under the AGF guideline when it came to people's claims about their life, with the understanding that they may be false. I debated how to best handle such a situation, even posting a question about the appropriateness of questioning someone's professed credentials if they are behaving contrary to them on Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. That being said, these are the main issues as I see it:

• Not posting personal information for the sake of privacy and protection is acceptable in my opinion, because safety and security are obviously paramount concerns. Considering the lack of personal info on my user page I'd be a hypocrite if I said otherwise.

• Creating a false persona with fake credentials in the name of privacy is not acceptable. By doing this you have affected discussions in ways which can not be measured. I don't mean that statement to sound so melodramatic, but given what you have done several sobering questions come to mind:
  1. How many editors never raised questions regarding your opinions because they perceived themselves academically unworthy to question a person like your persona?
  2. How many editors asked anyway, and accepted your answer because they thought you were a professional?
  3. How many editors with actual credentials did you overrule?
  4. How many editors are watching these events and realizing that you (an Admin, then Arbitrator) are not being punished for using false information to help you gain those posts and thinking "Why not me? I'll make something up too."?

• Worse is the apology you have offered. The overall tone of it gives me the impression that you are in fact only sorry you got caught. You also seem intelligent enough to realize that compromising trust by falsifying academic credentials which benefit you is fundamentally wrong in any academic environment.

• Finally, it disgusts (but doesn't surprise) me that you would not at the least resign your elevated status. It also gives me grave doubts about the integrity of this entire project if you are allowed to keep them. (I'm not saying you should be booted off Wikipedia, but you have violated the trust that admins/arbitrators are given).

Please do not attempt to deceive us by claiming your actions were in the name of only privacy, if you can not admit an ethical mistake I'd rather you not "apologize" at all. Anynobody 08:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess Jimbo knew too... (this link is now dead as Essjay's archive is gone.) Once I accepted a position with Wikia, I was in a safe place to "come out," and I did. Before I accepted the position, I provided all my real details to Angela and Jimbo, and immediately provided the same information to Brad Patrick; I also placed it on my Wikia userpage, from where I expected it would fairly quickly make it's way back to Wikipedia. The stalkers picked up on it immediately (but couldn't believe that a 24 year old had fooled them), but nobody here seemed to notice, which I didn't find particularly odd, since I expected that everybody here knew what was going on. Anynobody 10:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I realize now why Jimbo said what he said in the beginning about not having a problem with Essjay's behavior. He and Essjay are friends, and I think Essjay accidentally or intentionally misrepresented his us of a pseudonym to Jimbo. I'm guessing Jimbo doesn't edit articles the way we do simply because he lacks the time. Even if he does, he probably hasn't found himself on a talk page watching Essjay using his pseudonym to influence arguments. Essentially, I think Jimbo assumed his friend wasn't doing anything unethical until he began to get the full picture. Anynobody 04:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to close

I'd like to move to close this discussion. Nothing good can come of it. Essjay has acquired his positions of responsibility within Wikipedia because of his on-project contributions, and deserves to retain them on merit. He has expressed his contrition for any damage that he has done to Wikipedia's reputation, but the main damage must be to his own reputation and it would be quite wrong and vindictive to attack him further. The wikimedia privacy policy is a particularly strong one, which means that everyone accepts the rules that contributors may be entirely anonymous. This discussion simply acts as a magnet for people with agendas of their own. Sam Blacketer 10:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Emphatically, do not close at this juncture. I am not commenting on Essjay's actions, because I don't care one way or the other (apart from one issue I would like to clarify, see below). But there needs to be somewhere for comment to take place amongst the community on the topic, and the community noticeboard is the appropriate place. Closing this discussion would send out the wrong message, both internally and externally. Proto ► 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are calling an expression of contrition itself contains yet even more lies and even blames others. Read that letter again where he says trust Wikipedia because Ph.D.s like him are in charge. This is not someone to trust. And if the wikipedia community accepts community leaders that behave like this then the outside community will have no reason to trust us or our work. So what if there is an attribution to a book or on line site. If we can't be trusted to do due diligence then no one has a reason to believe that an attribution actually supports the claim it is attached to. We as a community have to decide if we are writing something that can be trusted or not. WAS 4.250 10:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand exactly how you feel Sam Blacketer, I can not envision anything good coming of this. Closing this discussion down before the community can talk about it would probably be the thing those with "agendas" would want most. This way they could point out how it got "swept under the rug" so to speak. The worst thing any person or organization can do when they've made a mistake is refuse to address it. Ignoring a mistake compounds it into a bigger mistake the longer it goes unconfronted, let's just get this done in an open way (hopefully not taking forever). Anynobody 12:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think you miss the fact that a key aspect of "his on-project contributions" was the trust the community placed in his judgement. That's gone now, so the positions of responsibility need to be given back. They were handed out on a false premise that Essjay deserves the community's trust and is capable of exercising the best judgement. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No way. What is it with the tendency of Wikipedians to want to close uncomfortable discussions? You can't make this one disappear by sweeping it under the rug. In fact, it won't happen. The likelihood of this thread being closed now is similar to the half-life of a snowball in hell. --Cyde Weys 15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer, I agree with most everything you said except for closing the discussion. On that, I don't really have much of an opinion, as it isn't my place to tell people to stop talking about something. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Point of order. Seven days have not yet elapsed from the beginning of this episode, much less this discussion. The motion to close is therefore premature, and should not be recognized at this time. -- SwissCelt 06:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? —Centrx→talk • 08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Look above. Sam Blacketer moved to close this discussion. The point of order is on this motion. -- SwissCelt 08:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Is a last edit of October 17 2006 to late to run a checkuser on an account([21])? Proto ► 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

...between a week and a month of records available. --Van helsing 11:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

as of this moment records go back to jan 31st.Geni 12:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of a sockpuppet on his own RfB

Clearly enough, given what is now known, this is clearly a sockpuppet !voting in support of Essjay's own RfB. The sock has edited 'on behalf' on Essjay several times, with an apparently intimate knowledge of what he's doing [22]. Is it reasonable to suggest that, had the community known at the time of the RfB that Essjay had used a sock to vote for himself that he would not now be a bureaucrat? 137.222.189.198 10:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a meat puppet? In going through his history I saw mention of himself being a homosexual, this seems to be the same thing as a heterosexual having his girlfriend/wife vote. Anynobody 11:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No need to go overboard with allegations here. It appears that Robbie31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Essjay's partner and being completely aboveboard about it. We don't have any evidence to assume that he's a sockpuppet, and I wouldn't count him as a meatpuppet given that his vote in support of Essjay's RfB was quite open about his motivation. Sandstein 11:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well wouldn't it be nice if we could trust appearances when it came to Essjay... —Doug Bell ^talk 17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I did see him mention it. Indeed he was open with his affiliation, but still at best it seems like a COI at worst meat puppetry. I'm not saying he should have the vote disqualified, just trying to figure out what exactly a meat puppet is (I think he should resign not be removed because of one vote). Anynobody 11:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, did you also see the mention of him being a tenured professor? Note how that has disappeared along with the mention of having any kind of a partner. No, privacy has not come to the fore (!) since otherwise the partner wouldn't have been mentioned in the first place. 137.222.189.198 11:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the real count was only 142/13. Perhaps an uninvolved b'crat can re-evaluate the decisions to promote based on this new number. Milto LOL pia 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Feh. Who cares? Did it change the outcome? No. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is pointless. More and more editors who have no idea what has been going on or even who Essjay was until today are jumping in. Robbie has been a known quantity for years. He has posted to Essjay's talk page explaining Essjay's periodic absences, and once asked for help when Essjay was suddenly unavailable for a long time but accidentally left his status light set at "In." Unless this is all an elaborate deception of course. Running here and claiming, "OMG Essjay has a sockpuppet" would be like running to Fre Republic and shouting "OMG Hilary influenced Bill's executive actions." Unless you can get Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee (who have known about this for a month) to suddenly reverse-turn on the situation, its time to let this die. Thatcher131 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not time to let this die though. Essjay still has all of his powers. Let's say, oh, George W. Bush was found to have done some extremely illegal stuff during his term ... would you "just let it die", or would you demand impeachment? --Cyde Weys 15:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. From a non-US perspective, Bill Clinton apparently did not do anything illegal, however much one might disapprove of it, but still the right hounded him mercilessly - about things that nine tenths of them are probably still doing every day. Sounds very much like the same deal! Guy (Help!) 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice attempted analogy, but ... I don't need to tell you what damage lying about academic credentials does to political careers. --Cyde Weys 16:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Clinton did commit illegal actions (perjury). On the other hand, EssJay did not. The more significant difference is that while Clinton had (and Bush has) the ability to send our troops overseas to die, Wikipedia admins do not. If EssJay's false academic credentials caused him to have undue weight or something like that in an editing conflict, then sanctions as an editor may be appropriate ... but they have no bearing on whether he has properly used the administrative/crat/checkuser tools. Any of us who are admins - whether HS students or college professors - are janitors. --BigDT 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Although this has crossed my mind once or twice, I immediately dismissed it and do not think that Essjay is a sockpuppeteer. If it were true, Essjay did it very smartly: he made it so that this person had a reason to share his IP address, the user was his partner. In addition to the circumstantioal-nature of CheckUser evidence, this would be especially inconclusive evidence for establishing a sock puppet. This may or may not be true and there is no way to prove it without a confession. Cbrown1023 talk 01:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a good valid reason about why Essjay would use a sockpuppet when there overwhelming support for his petition? A valid opinion, but speculation. You would not like me speculating that you used your ip instead of your user name because you want to stay anonymous to take revenge for a block, failed RfA, or RfC against you, would you? -- ReyBrujo 01:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions and comment

First the questions:

1. On his blog Essjay says that he gave a couple more media interviews in February, 2007 about Wikipedia. Does anybody have access to these interviews? I would be interested to see if he came clean about his (I assume) real identity as a paralegal.
2. In his "apology" Essjay comments that Stacy Schiff offered him compensation for his interview. Has this been confirmed or denied anywhere by the New Yorker or Stacy Schiff herself? I notice that a Signpost writer asked a general question about Essjay's assertions concerning the interview. I only hope that Essjay's "apology" doesn't contain additional falsehoods.

Now the comment:

My greatest disappointment is that Jimbo Wales and other Wikipedia higher-ups knew about this situation for some time, yet made no move to tell grunt-level editors. In particular, I don't understand why Jimbo did not explicitly clarify the situation when he appointed Essjay to ArbCom. Apparently, Essjay had already divulged his (I assume) true identity in certain out-of-the-way places on Wikipedia and Wikia. But clear notice to all editors from Jimbo at the time of the ArbCom appointment would have been much appreciated and might have avoided some of the ensuing controversy.

I'm sorry to be harsh, but I don't see how Essjay can continue in positions of trust within Wikipedia. I don't want to remove his editing privileges, and I certainly don't want him to lose his job at Wikia. But his positions of authority – from adminship on up – should be removed, with no prejudice to Essjay's regaining them through normal channels. I think this is the fairest, most sensible resolution to a situation that has already generated more adverse publicity (and justly so) for Wikipedia than anything since the Siegenthaler incident. Casey Abell 14:09, 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 1 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. Thatcher131 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have Essjay's user pages on my watchlist, and I don't follow Slashdot. It's obvious that many other grunt-level editors were taken by surprise on March 1, too. Explicit clarification of the situation at the time of the ArbCom appointment would have done no harm and might have done much good. Also, the February 1 date relates to my first question. The interviews Essjay discusses on his blog occurred after that date. In those interviews did he make any false representations concerning his academic or professional credentials? I only hope the subject didn't come up. Or if the subject was discussed, I hope Essjay was truthful. Casey Abell 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about him and don't read Slashdot either. Did he think every Wikipedia user was familiar with him, his persona, and the history of both before the New Yorker article broke? If he did think we all knew the "truth", why are we (those who AGF on user page assertions) expected to sort out his true identity when he holds positions of responsibility? If he wanted to play games like this, he should not have accepted elevated positions. Since he has made good contributions, as many others have pointed out, I'm not advocating a complete ban. I also would probably not submit willingly to an arbitration matter he is involved with in a leadership role. Anynobody 01:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

I did quickly scan the discussion, pehaps I missed it. Was there a request for community action on the subject of this discussion? Thanks, Navou ^banter / _contribs 12:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No there wasn't, which is why I suggested user conduct WP:RFC as a better venue. Essjay has a strict request against other people removing vandalism from his user space, which led to discussions about the distinction between vandalism and trolling and then a decision to move the general conversation to this board where the removal of trolling is undoubtedly permissible. That would, of course, be equally permissible at RFC. Durova^Charge! 14:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of people requesting community action on Essjay. Specifically, the removal of his higher levels of access. --Cyde Weys 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the community empowered to act upon those requests? Durova^Charge! 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would say yes, absolutely yes. Given evidence and facts, this is our (this includes the subject of this discussion) project. If the community calls for the removal of an editor from a sensitive public position of public trust the community would be empowered to do so. However, this user has admitted the wrongdoing, I personally see no problem with assuming future good faith in light of the admission. Community action in this case would be a fundamental privilege of the community. In the absense of any suggested community action, I would be so bold as to close this discussion and let the archiver take it to the archives. We do not sit in judgment without a suggested action; to do so would be pointless and divisive to the project. If the community wants to set a precedent, or allow for forgiveness, this would be the time and place. Navou ^banter / _contribs 18:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Problem with his admission of wrongdoing is that a significant portion of the community - myself included - considers it grossly inaequate. Durova^Charge! 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. This is a notion that needs firmly squelching. Jimbo cannot do anything if the community does not agree to allow it to occur. He could not have instituted the ArbCom; they could not issue meaningful decisions; an admin cannot function in the absence of continuing agreement with their decisions; a bureaucrat from which the community withdrew support would soon find themselves unwanted among the candidates on RfA; a checkuser's decisions would be open to straightforward denial; an oversighter's actions, particularly in the absence of open review, would become permanently suspect if there was no faith in the person. The community is empowered to act because it exists, and because it gives 100% of the meaning that anything on Wikipedia has - including the actual encyclopedia, without which Essjay would have had no positions to seek. Jimbo can ignore the community, but he does so at the peril of the project; if he ignores the community too much or too light-handedly his authority within it will eventually weaken and be dispelled. Yes, the community can even remove Jimbo. 137.222.189.198 16:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, the community cannot do anything if Jimbo does not agree to allow it to occur. A general point - I am not convinced that Jimbo is the big diabolical God-king of malevolence many have now decided to paint him to be. Sometimes, the community is stupid. I am not saying that this is one of those times, but a little bit of executive command is sometimes needed as we are not always alert to or aware of the higher-level background issues (legal action, legislation, complaints), or we make too much fuss about 'freedom of speech' or some other construct ahead of decency and common sense. Proto ► 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. ArbCom cannot serve if it does not have the community's trust. --Cyde Weys 16:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Question of action

What are we calling for? Removal from position of trust? Forgiveness? Closure of this discussion? This discussion needs resolved, or at least direction of resolution. Regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We're calling for a lot of things because we are angry! </sarcasm> This is why the straw poll is such a travesty... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What Jimbo is calling for, as of 06:42, 3 March 2007: "I have asked EssJay to resign his positions of trust within the community"... "because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now." (At this moment those positions include Arbcom, "boardvote, Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator"; click this link to see his current status.) -- Ben 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What we should be doing

To me, there are two main aspects of this: firstly, where we go with Essjay and his work for the project: the former is best dealt with at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay, which is under way. If there are any doubts about anything he's done other than his biographical claims, these need to be reviewed and resolved – which in many cases will be part of the normal editing process. Do we need a special forum for this, or do we rely on the usual procedures?

In a way, the more important thing is to reaffirm and review what we're doing. My understanding is that Wikipedia is about WP:A, showing verifiable sources, and not about editors being qualified, or relying on their expertise. No Original Research can be hard on experts, but it's an essential part of Wikipedia. Ideally, no editor should display any credentials – since work is such a part of what we are, it's inevitable that people will say what they do on their user page, which is right, but listing qualifications is going too far. If they're real, they imply pulling rank rather than justifying work by the quality of references, and so are more nuisance than help. If they're in any way false, they're obviously a disaster waiting to happen. So, my main suggestion is that we look at our guidance and get back to the five pillars. Rather than aspiring to be authoritative, this resource is at its best as a dynamic summary with as good references as we can get, continually negotiated with the aim of improvement. My tuppenceworth. ... dave souza, talk 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's only half of the equation. This matter also raises the issue of how we select administrative personnel. If you check this user's RfB (Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Essjay) you'll find many people commenting on how trustworthy he is. It's hard to imagine that they would have voted in that way if they'd known of the deceptions. -Will Beback · † · 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. In some ways it comes down to judging users on their actions rather than their userpage or their claims to expertise. Not necessarily easy to do, but then how do you check the credentials of users working under a pseudonym? .. dave souza, talk 00:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't just about what the user wrote once on his user page, it's about what he repeatedly re-asserted in article talk pages, AfDs, and to the press. Those are actions. -Will Beback · † · 00:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution isn't enough to write a good encyclopedia article, unfortunately -- in fact the best attribution can do by itself is help prevent our articles from being actively harmful and deceptive. The best articles demonstrate a command of the relevant literature. It is only with that breadth of knowledge that you get a sense of what about the topic is important and what is not. (In our terms, a sense of what the article should focus on in order to meet the undue weight aspect of our neutrality policy.) Identifying people who have that command of the literature is useful because their knowledge is a useful resource. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, but the relvance here isn't clear. The editor in question made very few article edits, but thousands of administrative edits. Perhaps there's a lesson buried in there somewhere. -Will Beback · † · 03:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The point being that Dave's remark about "showing verifiable sources" vs. "relying on expertise" is misleading because expertise, in the form of a fair command of the literature on the topic, is needed to write top-quality articles. Also, the advise of someone with expertise can be useful for those of us without it, to make sure we aren't missing something important. So it is useful to identify people who are actually experts in particular fields.

As far as the matter at hand goes, the relevance is that users do have reason to take academic credentials seriously (though not with blind credulity). Therefore lying about them, especially in an outrageous manner, is deplorable. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Apologies for my remark being misleading, my intent was that expertise is shown through quality of edits which must be supported by verifiable sources and not by the claimed qualifications of the editor. Both lying about credentials AND using them to justify an edit are deplorable, if understandable where credentials are genuine. Trust me, I'm a doctor ;)

The point about administrative edits made by Will Beback is significant here. There seems to be a wide assumption that Essjay's administrative work was valid, but Sbharris's experience suggests a need for review. ...dave souza, talk 09:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What did Jimbo know, and when did he know it?

The section heading above is not entirely serious — I'm not calling for Jimbo's (or Essjay's) impeachment, nor do I think that this affair is to Wikipedia as Watergate was to the government of the United States of America. But it's also a serious question which I don't think has received enough attention in this affair. The New Yorker correction says:

Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikia and of Wikipedia, said of Essjay’s invented persona, “I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it.”

Jimbo's sole comment on-wiki about this matter has been:

Essjay has always been, and still is, a fantastic editor and trusted member of the community. He apologized to me and to the community for any harm caused. Trolls are claiming that he "bragged" about it: this is bullshit. He has been thoughtful and contrite about the entire matter and I consider it settled.--Jimbo Wales 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As a point of fact, when Jimbo posted this comment Essjay had not apologized to the community. His (limited) apology came one hour and twenty-six minutes later, at 16:06 UTC [23]. But this is a minor matter. What is not minor is that according to Essjay Jimbo knew about Essjay's false persona before Essjay took the position at Wikia (in, I believe, early January). Jimbo may or may not have known that Essjay had also used the false persona in a letter to an actual professor, in which he (irony of ironies) defended the reliability of Wikipedia based on the "well credentialed individuals" who participate in the project. (Incidentally, if we believe what Essjay says here this letter or one like it was sent to "a few professors", not just one.) Jimbo may or may not have known that in his early contributions, Essjay regularly referred to his "students" and his "classes", solidifying the false information formerly given on his user page. He may or may not have known that the "pseudonym" Essjay used was far more than a pseudonym. Whether Jimbo knew these things or not, he must have known, at the very least, that Essjay had lied to or misled the New Yorker reporter. (Essjay's remark that he "was doing a good job playing the part", and the sentence "He often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz" in the New Yorker article, would tend to suggest that the lie was direct, not merely a lie of omission as Essjay's statement would seem to indicate.)

It has been argued that since Wikipedia is a level playing field where academic credentials mean little or nothing, Essjay's deception is insignificant on Wikipedia. This may be so, as far as his Wikipedia contributions are considered. However, when Essjay lied to or misled the New Yorker reporter, and when he wrote to a real professor using his false credentials on behalf of Wikipedia, Essjay acted in the real world, where this sort of dishonesty does mean something. In almost any white-collar job, if your employer discovers that you have falsified your credentials, you will be fired. I point this out not to say that Wikipedia is a job, or that Essjay should be fired, but to indicate how serious academic fraud is in the real world. This is the value system by which the world will be judging Essjay — and, by extension, Wikipedia.

Instead of censuring Essjay in any way, Jimbo promoted him to ArbCom after he knew about the false persona, and after he knew that Essjay had lied to or misled Ms. Schiff. The timing of this is, at the very least, unfortunate. It gives the appearance that Essjay was appointed not because of his sterling work on Wikipedia, but as a gesture of defiance. (Indeed, it's being interpreted that way in some sources.)

When Jimbo says he "doesn't really have a problem with" Essjay's misrepresentation of his academic credentials, he undermines the public view of Wikipedia's trustworthiness. I hope that we can all recognize that, as Larry Sanger points out, this gives the appearance that Jimbo endorses fraud. Now, I have the greatest respect for Jimbo and for the vision he has espoused — if I didn't, I wouldn't have clocked up (at latest count) 17,784 edits on this project. But I think that in this matter, he has erred. I also think that it's important for the community to voice our disapproval of this apparent endorsement — not because Essjay, or Jimbo, need to be publicly pilloried, but because the reputation of Wikipedia as an honest source of information is at stake. If we, as a community, say that this is no big deal, then we are saying to the world that we don't care about truthfulness. We are saying that we don't care about fraud. We are saying that we don't care whether Wikipedia is regarded as a joke or as a serious enterprise. We are saying that we don't care whether those who represent us to the world are truthful.

This is not about punishing Essjay, or even about berating Jimbo. This is about how we want Wikipedia to be regarded. If the community as a whole decides that Jimbo is right about this — if Wikipedia as a whole "doesn't have a problem" with Essjay's misrepresentations — then I, for one, am not certain that I want to participate in the project any longer. I want to believe that Wikipedia cares about the truth, and that Wikipedia is striving to be a trustworthy source of information. But if Wikipedia is just an elaborate MUD, then maybe I've been wasting my time here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Jimbo's recent statement has gone some ways towards restoring my faith. I wish that Jimbo had addressed the ways in which this affair interacted with the real world (in the letter and the New Yorker interview), but his request for Essjay to resign from "positions of trust" is, I believe, a strong positive step. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo replied with this to an email I sent him, and hopefully this also makes it better:

I just now learned that he used his false credentials in content

disputes, which really changes the character of things for me.

Unfortunately I am in India with sporadic net access until tomorrow, so it is difficult for me to deal with this in realtime. Please do let people know that I do NOT condone this. I thought it was much less of an issue which he had apologized for... I did not understand the extent of the deception. (Please feel free to quote this email in public discussions.)

--Jimbo

– Chacor 07:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Chacor. Yes, that does help. I am assuming that Jimbo also was not aware of the letter. I'm still somewhat troubled by the fact that Jimbo must have known about the deception to the New Yorker, and chose to appoint Essjay to ArbCom anyway, but these statements do ameliorate the situation substantially. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So when Essjay "apologized" for misrepresenting the truth, he misrepresented the extent of the deception. What a liar. As far as I'm concerned nothing he says is true without solid evidence. And I still keep hearing people say how great he was without providing evidence of it. He conned you guys good. WAS 4.250 22:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

This arbitration case has closed. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. Any user may fully apply the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to this article. Supreme Cmdr is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. This is a summary of the remedy provisions of the decision. Administrators and and editors should review the complete text of the decision before taking any action. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Highly regarded Spanish speaker needed to contact Columbian ISP full of vandalism

There has been an old ISP abuse report sitting around Wikipedia:Abuse reports that has reached the contact phase. However, none of our contact people speak Spanish according to the list of contact people. Could some well-respected Spanish speaker take up the case at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/TV Cable S.A? Thanks. Jesse Viviano 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You could toss up a request at the Spanish equivlent of the village pump on the Spanish wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just thought of the Wikimedia Embassy system, where our local chapter is at Wikipedia:Local Embassy. However, I do not know if I should use the embassy on this Wikipedia, post an anonymous message at the Spanish Wikipedia at es:Wikipedia:Embajadas, or if I have found the wrong system to use. In short, I could use help in this area I have next to no knowledge on how to use this system, and am afraid I would make a fool of myself. Jesse Viviano 19:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have the mail, I can translate and send it, get an answer and post it back. I have little time to create the mail for now, may be free enough next week if nobody takes this to do it all myself (although I am not sure about the well-respected part :-)). -- ReyBrujo 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to get in touch with User:Nick (formerly User:Heligoland), who investigated this case. I made the above notice when I realized that the Community Noticeboard was the perfect place for this request. Jesse Viviano 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)