Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay

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

The result of the debate was Move to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay. No comment on the situation, but a poll is not an appropriate usage of a community noticeboard subpage. And, as a personal note, it'd be really nice if we could discuss things, rather than blindly voting. Anyone willing to start some discussion on that page, rather than just voting one way or another, has my personal support. Ral315 » 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay

Nothing but an enormous Personal Attack page. If people want something done which has any chances of getting anywhere, they should file an RfA. Corvus cornix 17:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to hve been some sort of dispute about how this should be closed and when. As someone who barely knows who Essjay is and an admin in good standing, I'd be happy to close this when it comes times, when it comes time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The contents are not personal attack. If there is another reason for deleting the page, cite it. --Nlu (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:POINT nomination. – Chacor 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Trolling. —Cryptic 17:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for assuming good faith. Corvus cornix 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Seriously. I think this MFD is dumb, but trolling? What would he have to gain from suddenly disrupting WP out of nowhere? Milto LOL pia 20:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - useful for gauging community opinion, while being non-binding, quite similar to a Wikipedia:Request for comment. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure now is the time for an RfA... —Doug Bell ^talk 18:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Breaks down the issues nicely. 65.127.231.23 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • — 65.127.231.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The reason this is a subpage is to keep the main noticeboard a manageable size. This is certainly an appropriate community noticeboard straw poll. A Train ^{take the} 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No different than a user conduct RFC, and those have long standing precendt. GRBerry 18:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  A user conduct RFC allows for open-ended comment. This just invites people to vote "flay Essjay alive" because they are angry. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Imposture of an admin is not a trivial matter - Skysmith 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Polling is evil, but discussing is not. The discussion is not binding, but is meant to give the higherups an impression of the feelings of the community. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So then discuss. That page is not a discussion, it is a straw poll. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is a place for constructive criticism, aslong as no personal attacks are being made againsy him its fine.Tellyaddict 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's not an attack page; it is a perfectly legitimate straw poll to see what the community thinks; deleting it will only exacerbate things. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Catchpole 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:NPA is not optional. Those who disagree with Essjay's actions should file an WP:RFAR. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: This matter has already blown way out of proportion, at least let it blow over before strawpolling. I know many members of the community are staying away from it, so it's not going to be representative of widespread opinion at this time. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete • Per m:Polling is evil - in such a sensitive situtation such an insensitive and crass approach just amounts to a bloody lynch mob. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not representative. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is improper to have a poll when the community is still incensed about this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:NPA we souldnt turn this into a witch hunt and "straw polls" are not discussions or File a RFC then . Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  WP:NPA is not a criteria for deletion. You should have referenced WP:CSD#G10, which applies (emphasis added) to "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity". The page is not serving that purpose, it is serving the purpose of letting Essjay know that a significant fraction of the established community of editors does not trust him, and the purpose of providing the community with a forum for seeing what they, as a whole feel. There is no applicable speedy deletion criteria. GRBerry 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Sounds like you're rationalising an attack page, with all due respect. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  What part of "not an attack page" do you not get? This is a page which is interested in exposing and punishing a fraudster. Yes, Essjay is a fraudster. That's not a personal attack, that's a FACT. F.A.C.T. Fact, and there are a great number of us in the "community" who believe that his kind should not be accepted on this project, much less in positions of power and authority. Trying to delete their opinions isn't going to change that. FCYTravis 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Screaming FRAUDSTER at the top of your voice isn't helping your argument at all. You really need to prove that Ryan would NOT be in the position he is in today if he had told the truth, and to be honest, you can't do that, can you, which is why your shouting FRAUDSTER at the top of your voice. -- Heligoland 19:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  "Punishing"? I thought there was no punishment going on on Wikipedia. I thought things were done in order to prevent future misbehavior. But FCYTravis's actions on this page and his edit above make it clear exactly what the purpose of the "straw poll" is. Corvus cornix 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  A fraudster who's also done tremendous good for WP, let's not forget. The fact that people don't seem to be able to hold these two things in their mind at once is a good reason to delay the poll. It does not provide a sense of the community's considered judgement. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Nope, I am saying that this is not an attack page. It has more than one legitimate purpose (which is not attacking Essjay), and it is serving those purposes. GRBerry 19:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Please cease removing an accurate description of an admitted fabricator, fabulist and liar from this page as a supposed "personal attack." It is a truthful description of his actions. FCYTravis 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  This diff [1] ? -- Heligoland 19:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  No, the diff where Peter M Dodge removes the paragraph from the page. FCYTravis 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There is no precedent for this glorified personal attack page. If your going to RfC him or RfAr him, bloody well do it, but there is no justification for a page full of thinly veiled personal attacks where there's no chance of a decision and which really isn't going to achieve consensus. Nobody can even prove his claims led to his holding positions and there is NO suggestion of any abuse of powers. -- Heligoland 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep — Don't like the way the discussion is going, so try to delete it?! Ludicrous! Show some common sense. You can't make this issue go away by deleting it and pretending it didn't happen. --Cyde Weys 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  It's not a discussion. It's a straw poll. I would think an administrator of your experience would know the difference. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Go look at that page again and tell me there isn't extensive discussion going on. I dare you. --Cyde Weys 19:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  It's an extensive discussion on a far-too-crowded page, in the wrong place, created by a user who's against the whole matter. It's not a proper discussion, and not how discussions should be. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per above. community wants to discuss. - Denny 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Editors are staying cool, and there are no personal attacks on the page. We cannot run away from the issue by deleting all pages related to it. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This appears to me to be the most civil and organized manner yet attempted to discuss and address this issue. More importantly, I see no acceptable reason to delete the straw poll. --ElKevbo 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Anything else looks like and quacks like a cover-up. FCYTravis 19:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This isn't an attack. ~ UBeR 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, though if someone wants to move it to WP:RfC/Essjay, that would make sense. This discussion is going to happen somewhere. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tom Harrison. ElinorD (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a pointless page. Jimbo appointed EssJay to arbcom knowing full well about the ... umm ... scandal or whatever it is. So he certainly isn't going to change his mind regardless of the outcome of this straw poll. The only thing keeping this stuff around does is give a few laughs to people who don't like Wikipedia. --BigDT 19:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Regardless of how I feel on the underlying subject (don't really know, honestly), this is not an attack page any more than any RfC, RfAr, or Noticeboard discussion of a user's conduct is an attack page. This would all be pretty standard stuff - if it weren't such a massively important person on WP doing something so debatable so publicly. A quick look at WP:ANI shows several discussions of user conduct. What makes this one different (other than the aforementioned "much bigger deal than usual" and the fact that many of us genuinely like Essjay)? It may be right that a RfC would be a good way of formalizing the discussion, but this informal side of it is often-used as well, and particularly useful when things are fairly unsettled (as they are). Let this run its course - and then if someone thinks an RfC would be beneficial, maybe one can be opened. (For the suggestion that they use RfAr instead - that raises a host of issues I don't think we need to get into yet.) --TheOtherBob 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Exactly. An RfAr would be an escalation of this matter beyond where it currently stands. If public pressure convinces Essjay to resign his posts, then no such messy, ugly and drawn-out proceeding is necessary. He can exercise his right to vanish and this matter is done. FCYTravis 19:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • So, is that the point of the page? To pressure him to resign to prevent a rfar? That is totally innapropriate in my opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    • That's certainly not my view of the point of the page - to the extent that that was FCY's view, I disagree. --TheOtherBob 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Claiming qualifications (two Doctorates no less) you don't have is an unacceptable violation of the trust Wikipedia is built on. It is therefore appropriate that a discussion of the implications of such a prominent user's violation of that trust take place. MartinMcCann 19:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe this is the wrong format, but I think we need to show that wikipedia isn't like another publication where you get hired and fired by a hierarchical system. Let people see the process through which we make decisions on promoting users and confronting problematic users. GabrielF 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I think this sets a dangerous precedent. Any time somebody does somebody disagress with, pop up a quick !vote straw poll and gang up on them. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  That's what makes it so similar to an RFC. Note, however, that the subject is not always criticised, they are sometimes backed. Look at these: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning - "popped up" by someone who disagreed, but the subject's action in question was mostly approved. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow - "popped up" by the subject in question, again mostly approved. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)19:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I further disagree with the page and believe it should be removed because it is used to make a point. FCYTravis stated, "Exactly. An RfAr would be an escalation of this matter beyond where it currently stands. If public pressure convinces Essjay to resign his posts, then no such messy, ugly and drawn-out proceeding is necessary." I think it is innapropraite to have it open as a way to force somebody out due to pressure. Come on now. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a POV fork. A discussion of these issues already exists at WP:CN, and this is an attempt to subvert intelligent discussion and replace it with a mindless poll. Chick Bowen 19:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Perhaps a merge onto the subpage, then? It seems that the breadth of the discussion is big enough to otherwise overwhelm the main page. --TheOtherBob 20:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• keep Almost everyone there has made additional comments about why the discussions is meaningful to them.Gwen Gale 20:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Don't make this situation into more of a circus than it already is. The community has every right and reason to discuss this unforeseen situation through innovative means. Durova^Charge! 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Considering the amount of people that found it worthwhile to express their views on this page, deleting it would increase tensions even more. --Van helsing 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Cyde. DOn't delete dispute resolution, kthx. Milto LOL pia 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, allow the poll to run its course. This does not constitute an attack page any more than an RFC or RFAr does. --Dhartung | Talk 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, set up an RfC if you like, and list possible outcomes, or take to ArbCom, but this poll has no force and acts primarily as a gathering ground for the various factions, in the process reinforcing the factionalism. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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