Administrator WJBscribe Options

[Pwok]

So, I sat down and read the entire New Yorker article about Wikipedia, including the editor's note about Essjay, i.e., Ryan Jordan, the man-child who falsified his resume and was praised for it by Jimmy Wales. In the aftermath, The New York Times wrote about the whole thing, which wound up embarrassing Wales and Wikipedia enough to cut Jordan loose.

So far, so good, but then I noticed something in the NYT piece. An administrator identified as WJBscribe is quoted rising to the young liar's defense thusly:

Just wanted to express my 100 percent support for everything you do around here. I think you were totally entitled to protect your identity. Don't let all the fuss get you down!"

Folks, this is the same WJBscribe who has intervened to censor verified, public-record information from the Matt Sanchez article that I discussed previously in the Articles section of this site. He has also banned me from Wikipedia. I guess it's par for the course, but then maybe it's par for the course on this website is to point out that Wikipedia has an active administrator who removes facts and defends fabricators.

No wonder the thing is going down in flames. I don't know if anyone saw the latest Colbert segment on Wikipedia broadcast on August 22, but I'd say Wikipedia is rapidly turning into the punch line of a joke. It's their own fault. Last spring, they got a clear warning to turn things around, but their arrogance and irresponsibility prevented them from doing anything. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

This post has been edited by Pwok: Thu 23rd August 2007, 7:56am

[LamontStormstar]

Although Essjay had a fake bio and all...

Was he really that harmful to Wikipedia or mean to people? Or was the fake bio his single black mark?

[blissyu2]

Although Essjay had a fake bio and all...

Was he really that harmful to Wikipedia or mean to people? Or was the fake bio his single black mark?

There were a few minor things. Things that I am aware of:

1) He added Wikipedia Review to the spam blacklist for "circumventing the ban on Amorrow's site doubleblue.info" - although he did at least remove it later after we deleted the link.
2) He stated that Amorrow was banned from Wikipedia for stalking but REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE, expecting us to trust him! He then, after stating it but refusing to provide evidence, told everyone on Wikipedia that we were supporting a stalker. Even after we then banned Amorrow, he refused to take that back or to correct anyone.
3) At one point he protected my user talk page for "unblock abuse", when I had asked to be unblocked, a legitimate request. Either he was completely stupid, or else he was severely abusing his power.

He may have done more, I don't know. We didn't really focus on him here, as we didn't consider him to be abusive. He was generally very helpful to us. I am not aware of any other black marks against his name, besides lying about his credentials.

[everyking]

He may have done more, I don't know. We didn't really focus on him here, as we didn't consider him to be abusive. He was generally very helpful to us. I am not aware of any other black marks against his name, besides lying about his credentials.

Can you please just speak for yourself here? I consider him to have been abusive, and it is evident that others here feel the same way.