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

Essjay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

[edit] Section 1 (long file + edit conflicts)

Early closure not warranted. Recent profile by the New York Times[1] had already changed votes. AFD should run its course. RWR8189 07:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order note: [2] Milto LOL pia 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Premature close (under three days) by User talk:El C, no explanation of reasoning, close appears to go completely against policy-based Keep consensus. Deleting this given all the bad press also seems to be a WP:COI violation against WP itself, sweeping under the rug. would this be happening if it wasn't a famous wikipedian? this will turn into another Brandt level fight if he doesn't RV his close... - Denny 07:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reading the expanded reasoning, sticking by my statement. Didn't arbcom just say that closing discussions early was harmful? Also, what on earth does it matter if Essjay was/is a contributor? We have articles on other Wikipedians. If one of them does something salacious or 'bad', do we censor it out since they may be active contributors? re-open the original AfD, restore article, and relist (with same opinions--don't make us all redo it pointlessly) for another five days. If it has to run 7 days than it does... but early closing doesn't help, and the article's existence doesn't hurt anyone in any way. - Denny 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Query: What expanded reasoning? (SEWilco 17:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

• the longer message El C posted about why he deleted, after I went to bed. I was gonna consider changing my opinion if it was a good policy based deletion as I understand it... but it wasn't. Thats what I meant. El C's expanded reasoning. - Denny 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Where is that message? (SEWilco 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

• Points #1-#3. They weren't there last night. - Denny 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per RWR. The NYT matter only came up in the AfD in the last hour or so before the premature closure and all editors who discussed it agreed that it mattered. Two editors changed their opinions based on the presence of the NYT source. (And expanding now that El C has given his close comment)- El C in his close comment states that "I think the consensus is that Wikipedians should protect one another from harm is absolutely pivotal" - there was no policy basis for this claim and I don't even see a consensus for this point in the AfD, so El C also deleted it for a highly questionable reason. His closing statement also did not at all take into account what this might look like to the general public or to the Wikipedia community. JoshuaZ 08:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. It was highly presumptous of El C to say that he didn't think the New York Times article will alter opinion when, less than an hour after the story hit, I changed my opinion from merge to keep. This was bad form on El C's part in closing this early immediately after extremely relevant new information came to light. The most egregious part of this is that El C claims to have been aware of the new information when he closed the AfD. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Update based on El C's greatly expanded closing comment. Speedy overturn as there was an obvious conflict of interest in the closing. Instead of being based purely on the merits of an article and the arguments based on that issue, the early closing was apparently motivated by the fact that it was a story on a former contributor. That's clearly an inappropriate rationale for closing and the AfD should be relisted/reopened immediately. I don't believe El C has demonstrated in his closing comment that he has enough separation from the subject of the article to allow him to objectively close the AfD. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why you argue that I suffered from a conflict of interest;I find your above comment too vague and anectodal for me to entirely comprehend. El_C 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

      Here's a couple reasons:

      • "I think the consensus is that Wikipedians should protect one another from harm is absolutely pivotal."
      • "a Wikipedia with a human face does not (though, indeed, it could) mean a loss of objectivity, and that this is absolutely essential to foster a positive editing environment (and the productivity that emerges from this does make these sacrifices worthwhile)."

      Those statements, to me, indicate that issues outside the merits of the article held sway in your decision. Reasons due to your proximity to the subject of the article. (By the way, what was anecdotal about my previous comment?) —Doug Bell ^talk 10:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

      • I think consensus reflected those views; I fail to see how that amounts to a conflict of interest. El_C 10:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The closing admin is supposed to sort out the arguments based on policy from those based on emotion or WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You didn't do that and instead appear to have allowed your own emotional views to enter into the decision. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Again, I believe that the arguments were sort out based on policy, not emotion. El_C 10:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Oh really? Since you said that you thought the consensus is that Wikipedians should protect one another from harm is absolutely pivotal, would you mind referring me to the content policy supporting your statement? —Doug Bell ^talk 11:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Not only was the closure premature, but since this is a breaking story the AfD itself was premature. I've seen many similar examples where deletion considerations were held off until the long-term scope of the story and the incident were more clear. Anchoress 07:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, parts of my closing comments seem to have been accidentally removed (by myself) — I'll try to recrate them right now, but it may take me a little while. Please view the closing rational in this context. El_C 07:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The admins desperately need to get their collective act together. I've seen more out-of-process actions, more wheel-warring, more discussionsless overturns, more power-plays, more selective-enforcements in the past two weeks than I have in the past two years put together. It's a collective disgrace. Now, overturn this. Derex 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, there hasn't been too much admin conflict on this issue to this point. But this, I admit, was bad. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I said in the past two weeks. I've seen plenty overall, including a complaint lodged against you on ANI for it. Derex 08:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I suppose. I wouldn't call that incident with me wheel warring since a) the action was reversed following the required retraction from the blocked user, and b) no other admin expressed the view that the unblocking was improper. But to the point, my comment above was deliberately only in reference to the Essjay issue, and purposefully narrowed your statement to just that issue. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, and I object to a deliberate narrowing of a purposefully broad statement. There's a pattern, and it's not pretty, and this is but the most obvious case. As to the incident involving you, there was quite clearly criticism of you not discussing your action (which I happened to agree with otherwise) with the blocking admin. See "undiscussed overturns" in my lament. Derex 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
          • The narrowing was not to upset you, only to qualify my response. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. El_C was very premature in closing the AfD, and didn't appear to take into account the changing consensus to keep. Lithorien 08:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as above. Any ambiguity about Essjay's notability or whatever has been cleared up by the NYT and yeah, the fast closure was nothing but spin and wheel warring, not helpful. Gwen Gale 08:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In fairness to El_C, no wheel-warring has occured. JoshuaZ 08:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not my experience but that's ok, the pith is this was closed way too early. Gwen Gale 08:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: as per Denny and RWR... this was definitely a premature close and seems to be against policy-based consensus. .V. _[Talk|Email] 08:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen old AfD. Early closure only exacerbates the situation further. – Lantoka (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Pile-on overturn and reopen. Definitely premature, and the New York Times article has clear potential to change opinions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen. Contentious AFD and result is not clear yet. Should be allowed to run its course to make sure everyone who has something to say gets their say. A NYT article may also be a revelation affecting people's opinions on the article (though it has not affected mine). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per all above. Closer joins several other highly respected editors in acting out of understandable human sympathy for Essjay and appreciation for the good work he's done here without facing the fact that the reputation of the entire project is at stake.Proabivouac 08:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I still think that Ryan, as an individual, doesn't warrant an article, but even so this was an inappropriately early close. Wikipedia needs to get over this premature shutting down of discussion fad that has been going around. Dragons flight 08:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as a delete voter who still votes delete-merge, post-NYT. We don't need speedy closes of contentious AFDs at the moment. And changed to relist per precedent on the talk page, let's do everything normally. skip (t / c) 15:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, despite the close being more or less exactly what I'd called for. Attempting to stifle active, ongoing debate like this is counterproductive at best. —Cryptic 08:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn & reopen per Doug Bell. (First time I've been able to say those last three words in a while...) --tjstrf talk 08:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - a) speedy closes of contentious articles are the stuff a certain other website thrives on. b) the discussion was still ongoing with no consensus that would indicate a speedy action. Agathoclea 08:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Looks like El_C came back from a week-long Wikibreak just to close this AfD. link – Lantoka (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I underwent surgery and was in the hospital for over a week. I got discharged today (Jay can confirm this, I wrote to him about this prior to being admitted). Yes, this has definitely caught my attention. I'm sorry for the technical errors in providing the closing statement (I'm not using my own keyboard and this one, I found too late, seems to be semifunctional and glitchy). I am, however, disheartened by the calls to overturn in light of my expanded/restored closing statement which I feel answers most of the concenrs here. But I guess it didn't. Please give it a close read nonetheless and try to keep an open mind. Thx. El_C 09:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  People like and sympathize with Essjay; no reason to insinuate bad faith.Proabivouac 08:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  I hope it wasn't for that reason...that would be a serious conflict of interest. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • (ec) Yes, I'd seen that and found it odd, but decided to assume good faith that there was no behind the scenes maneuvering involved. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I never meant to insinuate anything about behind the scenes maneauvering. I am concerned because the edit history suggests that El_C acted hastily. This entire ordeal has been extremely emotional and complex, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with somebody who's been absent the last week closing this AfD. – Lantoka (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I did not feel that I acted hastily, though you are of course entitled to the opinion that I did. Naturally, I did not get a chance to participate in related discussions during the past week since I wasn't around, but I did spend considerable ti,e reviewing these today. El_C 10:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - If Wikipedia deletes this now, it will look like they're trying to cover this up. I'm not sure about notability, but for now, let's just let it stay, at least until this all blows over.--Azer Red Si? 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn immediately as an inappropriate and premature closure. Discussion was still ongoing, and additional coverage is coming to light, such as the New York Times article. RFerreira 08:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Is there enough WP:SNOW on the ground for the decision to be overturned and for the AFD to resume?--RWR8189 08:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• I wouldn't even think of SNOW here, it'll probably make things worse. Anyway, overturn, there was no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If there's little to no opposition here within the next 12 hours or so, I think WP:SNOW would be very appropriate. That's really the best way to minimize the reprecussions of closing this early. – Lantoka (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • STOP! Your thinking is entirely wrongheaded and will only result in increased disruption of Wikipedia. If the problem is early closure of discussions, further early closure of discussions will only exacerbate it. We do not want things flip-flopping back and forth every 2 days between AFD and Deletion Review. Do not take any unilateral action until this deletion review discussion has had time to for editors to discuss and to attempt to reach consensus. That includes allowing those editors who are not in the same timezone as you to fully participate in the discussion. Uncle G 12:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, unlike the early close of Essjay's AfD, the results of this DRV are overwhelmingly in favor of overturning the deletion. In addition, the less time the disrupted and early closed AfD stays closed, the less disruption. The way I see it, closing this DRV at the earliest oppurtunity is imperative to minimizing the drama associated with this incident. Of course, 12 hours may be too early, as you say. But the time limit is up to the admin that WP:SNOWs this. If you're really worried about comprehensive worldwide coverage, and think that people in Australia for some reason would start piling on Endorse Deletion, then maybe two days is a better ballpark number. But again, not my call, just an idea. – Lantoka (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closing. The article wasn't about Essjay, it was about events recently unfolding, so I don't see what the big problem is. This really isn't a controversial thing, but people seem to be anticipating that it is. The same information can be covered, and in an article where readers are more likely to find it. It makes sense from an organizational standpoint. -- Ned Scott 09:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So you are closing because you agree with the close, not in regard to whether the reasoning was good, whether it was within process, whether it is healthy to end the debate now for the community, whether this might potentially reflect poorly on Wikipedia in the media, whether this was consistent with the consensus or whether the NYT article had potential to change the consensus?JoshuaZ 09:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Point taken. I guess it won't hurt to let it take a full run. -- Ned Scott 09:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse per WP:DIGNITY. Sam Blacketer 09:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So you are closing based on an essay written less than two weeks ago, not in regard to whether the reasoning was good, whether it was within process, whether it is healthy to end the debate now for the community, whether this might potentially reflect poorly on Wikipedia in the media, whether this was consistent with the consensus or whether the NYT article had potential to change the consensus?JoshuaZ 09:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I am offering an opinion on what should be done. My medical friends tell me that if a scab is picked at enough, it can be infected with gangrene. Sam Blacketer 09:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Really, and my medical friends tell me that rushing through a diagnosis is not a good idea. Instead of trite analogies let's actually discuss the matter. JoshuaZ 09:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • We have articles on other Wikipedians. If one of them does something salacious or 'bad', do we censor it out since they may be active contributors? - Denny 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The close was premature, especially in light of the NYT article. Not that I'm thrilled to have an article about this. Haukur 09:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reopen. Purely on technical grounds, an "overturn" would make the circus restart with a five-day expiration date. That is not necessary. If there is something that is tried and true, is that early closures make a decision, no matter how good it is, stand on shakier ground. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm pretty sure everyone above means overturn the close, reopen the current debate. JoshuaZ 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It doesn't hurt to say that explicitly, and that's why I said so. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, very strongly. The NYT piece is the biggest coverage this thing has got so far, and El C closed the debate at the same time as that? No way, no way. It needs to run its course. It could become even more notable in the next few days. Everyking 09:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, reopen current AfD. I figured this would happen. Even though I still think the article should be deleted, the debate should be allowed to run the full period to avoid even more drama over this. WarpstarRider 09:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, perhaps reopen - not because I agree with the deletion, but closure has to be done properly. *sigh* wish we could do ONE controversial deletion debate in a calm, orderly, and systematic fashion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Sandifer? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, recommend doing this forthwith, and censure El_C. Per my comment at the AFD - "there'll be one admin restraining himself, with his showboating and "groundbreaking" solution, who will close the discussion however he feels like it should be closed, and balls to us all. (redacted) We need this, if no other AFD, to run to rule. Neil (not Proto ►) 10:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Calls for censure should be directed to WP:DR or the Arbitration Committee. I'm surprised you'd use this venue to press for such measures. As well, your language seems needlessly inflammatory & hostile. El_C 10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It was, and I do apologise for that. I have redacted the unnecessary portion of my above comment. I wait to see whether you will similarly apologise and undo your own error of judgement. Neil (not Proto ►) 10:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Clear and obvious endorse deletion. Sources are not about the living individual (remember WP:BLP?) but about a single incident. Seemed like a valid close to me, and there was more than enough input to gauge the community mood. Also, WP:NOT a public lynching. I think I might have made that up, but I doubt Jimbo would disagree. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The "lynching" comment illustrates everything that was wrong with the early closure. Instead of judging this as a content issue, you appear to be basing you opinion on the DRV on an emotional connection to the subject of the article. That's unfortunate. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, that's my judgment of the AfD itself, which included a lot of WP:BURNTHEWITCH style arguments. If there were multiple non-trivial sources about Ryan then we could have an article about Ryan, but there were not. There were multiple sources of differing degrees of triviality about the incident, so that goes in Criticism of Wikipedia, where an editorial judgment can be formed as to whether we need the RL name or not. But there is nothing on which to base a biography of Ryan, indeed I don't even know of a reliable source for the RL name, and the desire of a few people either to document our own navel lint or to put the boot into an admin with whom they've had a run-in should not affect that outcome. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I suppose those would be reasonable arguments if it was an article about Ryan. It's not. It's an article about the psuedonym "Essjay". We don't even know if the person behind Essjay is really named Ryan, and I think there's reason to doubt that he is. The article is about Essjay, the Wikipedia editor...whoever that might have been in RL. I'd certainly support renaming the article to Essjay scandal. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Same applies. Sources are about the incident. We don't need a picture of Essjay to rub his nose in it, and we don't need a separate article because we already have on on criticism of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
          • "Criticism of Wikipedia? This isn't a criticism, so merging doesn't seem correct. This is, as you say, an incident. An event. AFAIK, Essjay was not overly critical of Wikipedia, so I don't follow your reasoning. There are multiple, non-trivial sources about the incident involving Essjay. As I said, rename it Essjay scandal, but don't delete it. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I am very tired of unilateral out of process deletions by admins. Jokestress 10:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Well said Jokestess, you might imagine that non-admins are even more tired. WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, WP:SNOW: these are just the tools that only admins can use to enforce their own views. If a regular user tried to invoke these they are reverted and reprimanded within minutes. To much procedure is given to admins and too little oversight. Three strikes and your out - forever" should be the rule for admins. No edit-warring, wheel-warring, WP:CIVIL violations can be tolerated from admins. Oh wait, this policy is obviously needed but will never get in - admins! David Spart 11:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Random comment. Did anybody notice here that the article 1) is not deleted and 2) was never deleted (except for some silly vandal pages)? [3] Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Shhh. Yes, I had, but I figured that was just to save time in overturning the closure. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn - article is well cited and should be kept. It seems the Wikipedia administrators want to sweep this article under the rug....don't let them !! Wikinews Headphonos 12:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't make the mistake of putting all administrators under the same umbrella. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Premature, there is now coverage in numerous reputable sources. The fact that The New York Times did a piece on this means it is picking up speed in the media. Smee 12:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
  • I'm not happy to see the article and its history have been deleted in spite of an overwhelming consensus to overturn the out-of-process closure of the AfD. Gwen Gale 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The history has been restored. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn It is huge and is in the New York Times. Say no to censorship. --Jayzel 12:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Argh. I basically agree with the outcome (all of the notability is derived from the use of the incident by others in the context of Criticism of Wikipedia, but El C should be experienced enough to know that in cases like this, closing the AfD early means we will spend more time debating the issue, not less. So reopen (no need to restart the debate). Kusma (討論) 12:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as someone who had been watching and waiting for the inevitable independent media attention, such as what's come about since yesterday. El C should resign immediately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not one of your more sensible comments, I think. Assume bad faith or what? If it was "inevitable" then it was - well, inevitable, and trout-slapping someone for doing the inevitable would be very silly. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry that you feel that way. I believe your endorsement is less sensible than my call for an administrator who showed epically poor judgement to resign, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong endorse - wise decision by El C. Metamagician3000 12:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - as I warned in my comment on the AfD for a Qualified Keep for the article, it is not yet known how notable this subject will become. It may be that this will not end up as a major subject, but we don't know that yet: it's an ongoing current event. I believe the page should be restored and discussion over whether an article on this subject should continue to help the community establish true consensus on how to deal with meta-notability. --ScienceApologist 13:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. No opinion on the article yet, but this close was disruptive and unnecessary.--Eloquence* 13:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse - keeping this will just feed the trolls. And if you want a precedence of "speedy closures", take a look at Gay Nigger Association of America. Thanks. --218.219.212.168 13:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Premature and inappropriate close that was only bound to cause more drama. Prolog 13:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and new AFD even though I voted delete. An AFD of something related to a breaking news story was inappropriate, and closing it early even as more details were already available that were changing people's opinions even more so. As for "navel-gazing"; shall we delete John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy? --Random832 14:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC) On these grounds, I don't think it's appropriate to continue the previous AFD. --Random832 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - with a 2 or 3 day semi-protect to prevent IP vandals and allow sensible editing as the situation evolves Munta 14:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist in a weeks time. Due to the recent NYT article about the "fury of the crowd", this article and its history are implicitly referred to in print. The edit history of this article (and the other associated pages) should not be vanished in this fashion. John Vandenberg 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Reasonable discression used by closing adminstrator. Why can't people write what they want at the criticism of wikipedia article?

Tarry a little; there is something else.

This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood;

The words expressly are 'a pound of flesh:'

Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh;

But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed

One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods

Are, by the laws of Venice, confiscate

Unto the state of Venice

Are you all satisified, or will you risk all for vengance? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above and understand that people have concerns other than "vengance" JoshuaZ 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Therefore prepare thee to cut off the flesh.

Shed thou no blood, nor cut thou less nor more

But just a pound of flesh: if thou cut'st more

Or less than a just pound, be it but so much

As makes it light or heavy in the substance,

Or the division of the twentieth part

Of one poor scruple, nay, if the scale do turn

But in the estimation of a hair,

Thou diest and all thy goods are confiscate

Of course you seek only to justly execute on your contract to write an encyclopedia. In doing so, in taking your pound of flesh, shed no blood, nor cut less or more - because, per WP:BLP "the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm.'" Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And no harm is done. Your continual misunderstanding of this clause is amazingly tiring. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to the above without making it sound like a threat to call Mr. Jeff's employer, so I'll just note that if other people had their privacy destroyed in the way Essjay's was, they wouldn't want an article that was shortly going to be the first google result for their real name to be a wikipedia hit piece written by the worst bottomfeeders we bless with "encyclopedia" editing rights. If you think that's not harm, you've got to have some sort of trust fund paying for any major expenses you have coming up. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your heavy-handed hostility and abuse of poetry is neither helping matters or contributing to intellectual debate. Hipocrite indeed Andrew831 15:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How about just stopping responding altogether until you grasp the issue at hand and start understanding what you speak of? That's probably the best route. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Large gifts have I bestow'd on learned clerks,

Because my book preferr'd me to the king,

And seeing ignorance is the curse of God,

Knowledge the wing wherewith we fly to heaven,

Unless you be possess'd with devilish spirits,

You cannot but forbear to murder me:

This tongue hath parley'd unto foreign kings

So, learned clerk, tell me, what is that I do not understand? The pound of flesh is sought - but it appears that blood is seeping from the wound in Essjay's breast. Is the article writable without causing undo harm to the subject? I think not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Misguided poets // Can be very dangerous // You mean "undue harm" Neil (not Proto ►) 16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Haikus are pretty // but sometimes they don't make sense // Refrigerator Milto LOL pia 16:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone is (in)famous widely only for their own negative actions, does that mean they shouldn't have an article? or only if they are wikipedians? we have articles on active Wikipedians already who are notable. If one of them was all over the news for negative actions... does that info get censured for being Wikipedians? Protect our own? - Denny 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• The AfD was probably going to arrive at the right outcome in the end, and deletion probably IS the right outcome but El_C (by now, this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened) should have known better than to close this particular one early. Coming in after being in hospital and not having watched the whole thing unfolding suggests that maybe El_C didn't have enough context to make an informed decision. Overturn this closure, reopen at AfD and allow to run its course. Usually I am a fan of IAR and SNOW when using them cuts controversy and lets us get on with things but interminable DRvs that get closed early because of AfDs that get closed early and then result in AN/I or arbcom cases (it's happened) waste more time than letting the original run would have. Let this DRv run (do NOT speedy it!!!) then let the AfD run too. Reopen AfD at the end of a full DRv with a suggestion to El_C that he ought to know better... ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion 129 kb is enough discussion to judge consensus. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There is a reason rules and timelines are in place and it only serves to create further drama and disharmony in the community to ignore those rules and make a unilateral decision.. --Andrew831 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I'm still undecided on the early deletion. However, I don't see any concensus for the remedy of protecting the redirect for at least a year. Essjay is in the middle of a breaking news story, and even if it doesn't satisfy notability concerns today, heightened or otherwise, it's certainly premature to say that he won't satisfy them a month from now. TheronJ 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, and can we please, please all stop with speedily closing controversial discussions. That always turns out counterproductive. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - when are all these early closers going to get a clue and see that their closes are not helping? El C should resign and clear the way for admins who are trying to do what's best for WP instead of wanting to be the first to close a high-profile debate. Milto LOL pia 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Premature close. Not that I expect admins to follow any rules. (SEWilco 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

  That's right, all 1,165 of us are cut from exactly the same cloth and make the same decisions. We never disagree, ever, and all break the rules all the time. Neil (not Proto ►) 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as we should not have articles about users (and Essjay is a wikipedia user name), SqueakBox 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC) and because of this the article was improper and thus the deletion was appropriate, SqueakBox 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Squeakbox, this is not AFD 2; please direct your opinion as to whether or not the deletion process was correctly followed, not whether the article aught be deleted. Neil (not Proto ►) 16:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  not true per policy. We have articles on other Wikipedians. - Denny 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Disgaree. We have articles on people who happen to be wikipedians. Eg the Constance Cumbey article is called thus and not Cumbey, SqueakBox 16:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Your argument still doesn't hold from as I reread policy now... there is no policy that says notability and verifiability applies to anything *but* a wikipedia username. Can you show that? - Denny 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  SqueakBox, doesn't all the media coverage mean anything? Or is that just something Wikipedia should ignore, since the subject is a Wikipedian? Milto LOL pia 16:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Thats the problem... unless there is a policy that says "No Articles On Wikipedians" or a policy that says "No Articles On People Notable Because Of Wikipedia" this whole thing is messed up... - Denny 16:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  The fact is though that Essjay is not a wikipidian. He is however notable being the subject of a New Yorker and a New Your Times article. So even if there were policy not to write articles on users - that would not be the case now he has left Munta 16:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I thought we were supposed to avoid self-referencing. Can you give me one other case where a user name has an article? If not we are on new ground. While I am not sure we should wait a year before doing anything as El C (an admin I respect from way back) suggests I think we should wait a month and depending on notability we could consider an article on the individual who uses the user name Essjay. I would be very happy with an article on Richard Weiss but very unhappy to see an article on SqueakBox, SqueakBox 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Go look through this list. There are dozens of articles where the username is the name of the article. - Denny 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  That's only when the user name happens to coincide with the wikipedia name as ios opften the case, eg Daniel Brandt, but this isnt the case here as we know that Essjay is not the real name of the subject of this article, SqueakBox 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Essjay was the only name given. Has the speculation about his real name become verifiable enough to use as the article title? But that sounds like something to be dealt with in a rename proposal, not a deletion review. (SEWilco 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

  I think I may be unintentionally unclear. "Essjay" the Wikipedia user is notable. So, he has an article, that was deleted/closed incorrectly... there is no policy that says we can't have an article on a username if it's notable, and doesn't make a differentiation over what shouldn't be an article. If it's WP:N, WP:V, WP:ATT... it's in... unless we make a rule that says we can't have articles on things that get notable *because* of Wikipedia (which would be silly, as Wikipedia is a major force in the world) then theres no reason to close/delete this beyond loyalty to Essjay. I have no problem with that, but if thats why it's being deleted, thats what the deletion reason should say... based on that, is what I meant--there's no rule/policy that says you can't have an article on a username, so the closing on that ground wasn't right. - Denny 17:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  I think we are moving onto new ground in having articles using wikipedia user names and thus should take great care and try to find consensus in so doing, SqueakBox 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Given the attention given to this issue both within and outside of the Wikipedia community, the discussion should have been allowed to run its full course and only then closed. This closing was needlessly and unjustifiably premature. --ElKevbo 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, new AfD. First, because of an unwarranted early close. Second, there was no consensus on any single solution, so the result should have been a no consensus keep. An early close under those circumstances was disruptive and completely out of line. Just observe process, people, and let these processes run for their alloted time. (See also the thoughts of Glen at ANI). Sandstein 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, premature close for such a widely reported story. -- Zanimum 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete - there was no compelling reason to close the AfD early. The story is still developing. The subject is notable and the article should be kept. Johntex\^talk 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, and urge everyone to remember that "speedily closing" a controversial issue is likely to drag it out longer in the end. Especially given new information and additional sources, the course of the discussion reasonably could have changed, and it should have been left to see if it did. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and let it run. I really don't care for process over outcomes but this one really could have done with running long enough for the community to be happy with deletion. MLA 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: El C has commented on his user page that he does not object to the closure being reverted. [4] —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The consensus here is to overturn the decision as well, SqueakBox 17:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you certain of that? Most of the comments are about the early closure of the discussion, not the question of whether the article should be deleted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I meant overturn the delete decision, I dont think any decision on whether the article should be deleted can be got from this page, SqueakBox 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Considering the quasi-conflict of interest aspect of the entire situation, it was undoubtedly the wrong decision to close early, and the closing admin simply had to be aware of the trouble it would cause. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and start over poor decision, no consensus to delete, NYT issue came to light recently which affects the issue for everyone. Philwelch 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per user:Jokestress. "I am very tired of unilateral out of process deletions by admins." Firsfron of Ronchester 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section 2 (long file + edit conflicts)

• Overturn, per NYT article. Kelly Martin's statement, referenced by El C in closing the AFD, that "if people are still talking about him in a few years, then write the article", is ridiculous. Notability is established by coverage of the subject by "multiple reliable sources", and we are recording that as history. There is no need to wait months or even years until the importance of this incident has faded in our minds to write the article. Many significant events of the past are no longer regularly "talked about" today, but it would be our loss if they had not been recorded. -- Renesis (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and return to some semblance of normal process. Do we have to shoot ourselves in the feet every time the media hands us a machine gun? Club And Fang 18:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, no need for immediate relisting. Give it a week as sources turn up and the story develops. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, it is embarrassing but it will be even more once the next paper/blog/whatever reports that our reaction to the scandal was deleting the reference to it. Alf^Photoman 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, if there is need, someone can (and certainly will) submit to AfD in 3-6 months. Quatloo 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and SALT. What is Wikipedia? Is it a serious encyclopedia or is it a message board? Well, right now, I'm leaning message board. Encyclopedias don't have self-referential drivel. They don't have articles about the 5 CDs that some high school kids made in their garage and gave out to their friends at school. Encyclopedias don't make it their mission to catalog every internet troll that ever existed. And they don't have POV forks of every controversial topic and they don't have lists of times that someone has called something they don't like Apartheid. Do you guys want to be a serious encyclopedia or do you want to be a message board? If we're going to be a message board that chronicles our own membership, memes nobody cares about, and has 15 articles for every possible point of view about any topic concerning the Middle East, then by all means, let's keep this article and get it up to featured article status. But if we want to be a serious encyclopedia, we need to get rid of it, along with the article on Brandt, and quit making hoards of CD track lists for CDs that nobody has ever heard of. Good grief people ... let's build an encyclopedia ... and that means we don't include articles about ourselves or about people whose only "notability" is that they did something pertaining to Wikipedia. --BigDT 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't AFD. We're voting on the legitimacy of the close, not whether the article should be deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • But there's no reason to go through a process just for the sake of doing it. Yes, DRV is first and foremost about process ... but in the case of something like this, process is trumped by the need to do the Right Thing (tm) and the Right Thing (tm) is to be an encyclopedia. --BigDT 18:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and forbid use of SNOW in any controversial discussions. Once again an early close just means we waste time discussing the closure rather than the issue. And since closing something earlier is presumably intended to save time, it ends up accomplishing nothing. Trebor 19:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Well said. – Lantoka (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn immediately I can't believe this article was deleted prematurely.--Alabamaboy 19:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, re-list. Closing the discussion early was a mistake made against consensus. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Notable, Varifiable , Reliable, persistent sources,--multiple sources (including NYT and the New Yorker) Cadenhead and every blog in country (I know you might think they don't count but the sheer number--Did I mention NYT and New Yorker?) If this article doesn't pass muster almost none should. It reminds me of US flag burning debate-- people are trying to be loyal to WP by violating fundamental notions of what an encyclopedia should be. Also Deleted in AfD on mere plurality when no one was raising trivial issues. Edivorce 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Per above the page was deleted far too early --Barry entretien 19:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Even though I voted keep in the original discussion, I am amenable to the other alternatives (i.e. a redirect to a section of the criticism of Wikipedia article, although maybe that's not the best article to redirect to). I am concerned that El C's closing comments appear to give preference to Wikipedians (i.e. they are more entitled to removal of source negative content, and faster, in articles about them). Savidan 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn immediately - This decision has all the qualities of a coverup. // Internet Esquire 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  A coverup? This DRV is about an article in the encyclopedic content - the unbelievably long RFC is still there. The comments on Essjay's talk page and Jimbo's talk page are still in history. We're only talking about whether there should be an article in an encyclopedia about this incident. --BigDT 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist - Although wikipedians, particularly the active ones who are likely to frequent this page, are not likely to be able to take a neutral point of view on this subject no matter how hard they try, the discussion could at least be looked at rationally (or actually through the eyes of the notability guidelines failing a rational discussion otherwise). The points about BLP were almost a joke... right? There were no unfounded statements which may be concerning to the subject, and the issue received independent attention. This person was profiled for a long article on wikipedia... How much closer to wikipedia do you want? Of course, in view of the current situation recovering the article is not in the best interests of admins who wont be able to stay neutral considering their personal feelings on the issue, but it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia as a whole that for once "we" don't do things on a whim. Ansell 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion A wise decision by EI C. I do not think there is any need to relist again as the article is non-notable. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, relist - more publicity day by day it seems, and a premature close anyway. In the light of new evidence this is worth another look. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The close and deletion was done too early, should be relisted. Hello32020 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per NYT article. - Merzbow 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. No consensus to delete. No consensus to close early. Paul August ☎ 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This was a disappointing decision. Closed way too soon. — MichaelLinnear 23:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn — first of all, if any information is used in the article this is being redirected, a deletion is not allowed per the GFDL. Moreover, it was an early closure of a complicated debate in the middle of an equally complicated situation on Wikipedia, which appears to me to have a lack of true consensus. Plus, I saw no real response to the keep rationale in the closing, especially the fact that it meets WP:BLP with numerous attributions to reliable sources. We cannot 1.) early close heated discussions; 2.) merge, delete, and redirect as opposed to a simple merge and redirect; and 3.) ignore keep rationale — just to save face for the project. What I see here is similar to a double standard, which is not something that will be looked upon well by the public and a large group of users. Back to the policy issue: I see people citing essays and guidelines above and on the AfD; why such the undermine policy (BLP and attribution) to do something that will be perceived by the public as saving face? But this argument has gone back and forth numerous times, and I think the early closure and consensus issues are more important to this overturn. — Deckiller 01:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and return to AfD. I argued to delete this, but clearly no consensus had formed and the NYT article will almost certainly be used to bolster (incorrectly in my view) arguments in favour of retention. Those should be heard. I respect El C very much as an editor and unlike many others who have just indulged in a knee-jerk reaction (too early, no consensus, etc...), I think his authority, longevity and good faith count for a lot and need to be taken very seriously. In this case, however, closure was premature (if well-intentioned) based on the reasoning proffered. Send it back, let the arguments be made and then delete by fiat as required. Eusebeus 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section 3 (long file + edit conflicts)

• NOTE: - Three new informative pieces recently:

1. Top Wikipedia professor actually twenty-something student, The New Zealand Herald, 3/6/07.
2. Wikipedia: Why does Essjay need to “protect himself”?, ZD net, 3/5/07. (Blog, but interesting)
3. Wikipedia hit by identity crisis as student admits posing as professor, The Independent, 3/6/07.

Seems like the long list of reputable sources is growing every day... Smee 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

• Overturn. New evidence was coming to light. Abeg92contribs 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per above.[5] Arbustoo 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

SNOWBALLed -- Ned Scott 02:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I didn't think I'd participate in this deletion review, but the growing number of articles in the mainstream press show that closure was premature. The New Zealand Herald story and the Independent story demonstrate that this has made international news. If this didn't pertain to Wikipedia the result at this point would be an uncontroversial overturn and keep. Durova^Charge! 02:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn then move to Wikipedia namespace. Whatever we do, whatever the article contains, however many sources we get, this is an article about Wikipedia in Wikipedia, and people will see it as what Wikipedia says about Essjay, without making the distinction between Wikipedia the encyclopedia and Wikipedia the project. And why would they? The encyclopedia is written by the project, and the article will always be the project's side of the story, driven by the same forces as the current kerfuffle about the deletion of Essjay's RFC. It would be better if we aknowledged that and kept this meta-information in meta-space. When a newspaper or a magazine has something to report about itself, it doesn't do it in the regular news section either. Zocky | picture popups 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)