&lt;C2F697EE-9AF5-4917-A376-51E9C43F8DFA(a)prwatch.org&gt; &lt;45E765B8.5050601(a)earthlink.net&gt; &lt;99c65f730703011756x711c74b5hf6835868850fd482(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; &lt;38a7bf7c0703011828r2452ff82xf20143d55ef9520b(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; &lt;c52819d30703011830x4c0782d8i2aed75ac219fed6e(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; &lt;38a7bf7c0703011834x28ee9bc6pfb914a3c444b94a7(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; &lt;52a8cf060703011842s2dca0df1qa405e56dda90650(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:33:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: &lt;52a8cf060703011842s2dca0df1qa405e56dda90650(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; (Rob Smith's message of "Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:42:58 -0700") Message-ID: &lt;86y7mgm9xj.fsf(a)elan.rh.rit.edu&gt; User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.94 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed --text follows this line-- "Rob Smith" &lt;nobs03(a)gmail.com&gt; writes: wrote: community. took this True. It could've been discovered as far back as 7 January, if I may recount the timeline of events. It was 7 February that Essjay posted this: <http://www.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Essjay&oldid=66549> On an interesting side note, it apparently wasn't until 21 January that anyone noticed - that was when an anon user brought it up on [[User talk:Essjay]] <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&oldid=102161036>. Given the anonymity, the name provided as a sig, and the linked website, I think we can conclude it was in fact Daniel Brandt who first noticed it <http://www.whois-search.com/whois/216.60.71.100%20>. It is also interesting to note that Essjay never replied as [[User:Shanel]] quite quickly reverted it. (A lapse of judgement? I suppose so, in the same way Yanksox had a lapse of judgement deleting [[Daniel Brandt]]). As it happened, I watch User talk:Essjay, and I saw Brandt's comment, which worried me. I believe I discussed it on #wikipedia, but there was little interest and so there the matter laid until much later, 1 February, when [[User:Dev920]] apparently independently noticed the discrepancy and left a note on the talk page <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=104948143>; Essjay's reply was the first confirmation and first appearance of the stalker defense <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=104973443>. Dev went away satisfied (interesting that Essjay's reply to Dev's reply says that Essjay had been expecting these questions for some time), and the conversation was archived, and there matters laid (again) until later, in 5 February when [[User:Thatcher131]], invoking Star Trek, brought up the archived conversation <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=105762432>. This was shortly followed by a message from an anon <http://www.whois-search.com/whois/199.33.32.40>, who quoted from the now infamous _New Yorker_ article and expressed skepticism <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=105944722>. I do not know whether this was Brandt following up his earlier message - a whois traces back to Palo Alto's "City of Palo Alto, Department of Information Resources", and I believe Brandt is supposed to be using SBC IP ranges from San Antonio, although that is not conclusive. It was at this point that the merde began to hit the fan (for the general section of the history, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&offset=20070212185915&limit=500&action=history>). Another SBC IP <http://www.whois-search.com/whois/71.141.237.249> chimed in <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&oldid=106170762>; note his claim that Brandt was already actively spreading the news. A *fourth* IP <http://www.whois-search.com/whois/70.231.130.196> edited the third's <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEssjay&diff=106201706&oldid=106186328>. [[User:Musical Linguist]] then censored the two IP's post, apparently assuming they were from Brandt <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=106201706>. Another aside: [[User:Stevietheman]] posted an odd message referring to a Slashdot article <http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/07/1442229>; if you read the discussion, a prominent, moderated +5 comment by "Everyman" (apparently well known as a pseudonym for Brandt) basically lays out the issue. By this point, you may be wondering just when things really start happening. The first discussion that attracts any sort of widespread attention was started by [[User:Purples]], two or three days later on 10 February <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEssjay&diff=107237564&oldid=107198643>. Purples's post started a discussion that included [[User:Peter M Dodge]], myself ([[User:Gwern]]), yet *another* SBC IP <http://www.whois-search.com/whois/68.90.179.253>, [[User:Thatcher131]] again, [[User:Armedblowfish]], [[User:Cbrown1023]], [[User:User:Grace Note]], [[User:Majorly]], and well a lot of people. 13 and 12 February saw the majority of posts on the topic and I believe brought it to the attention of the wider community, eventually leading to the Signpost article, community portal discussion, and the main Slashdot article. I hope this chronology of events is helpful in showing that this was in fact a slowly brewing PR crisis, however suddenly it may seem to some to have arisen. -- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.