I would like to clear up an oversight on my part. I was, until this morning, under the impression that in my initial post on this subject (in response to a question from Dev920 made some weeks ago) I had made an apology for anyone who felt they were hurt by my decision to use misinformation. In speaking to various different people, including Jimbo, I did make it known that I was sorry that anyone felt hurt by my actions, and I believed I had done so in my initial statement. On re-reading that, I find I did not; it was a rather lengthy statement I had been thinking about for some time, and I seem to have left out a rather critical element of it. So, I rectify that now, with further apologies that it was not included originally, as I pointed people back to that statement in the belief it was complete.

I *am* sorry if anyone in the Wikipedia community has been hurt by my decision to use disinformation to protect myself. I’m not sorry that I protected myself; I believed, and continue to believe, that I was right to protect myself, in light of the problems encountered on the internet in these trying times. I have spoken to all of my close friends here about this, and have heard resoundingly that they understand my position, and they support me. Jimbo and many others in Wikipedia’s hierarchy have made thier support known as well. I’m also sorry the New Yorker chose to print what they did about me; there seems to be a belief that I knew they were going to print it, and that is not the case. I spoke with Stacy Shiff for over eight hours; in that time, she asked me about a variety of subjects related to Wikipedia and I have her much to write on. (Those who know me will know I am rarely ever brief in my comments.) That she chose to focus on two rather trivial reverts to [[Justin Timberlake]] and what my userpage said came as a complete surprise to me; it was, quite honestly, my impression that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be, and that in the absence of any confirmation, no respectible publication would print it. I did not have an advance copy of the article, and indeed, didn’t even get the complimentary print copy that others were given when it was published; I asked Stacy to send it to the Foundation for thier use instead. Further, she made several offers to compensate me for my time, and my response was that if she truly felt the need to do so, she should donate to the Foundation instead.

For two years, I have poured my life into making this site a better place. That many people feel hurt by my decision pains me greatly, and to them I am genuinely sorry. To the stalkers, the trolls, and the vandals, I am not sorry; they are abusive, hateful people, and they have done far worse things than those whole of the Wikipeida Community, myself included, have ever thought about doing. Now, I am going back to what I have always done: Making Wikipedia a better place. (In the immediate present, I’m going to bed, as I’ve been up for quite a long time.) Tonight, I will be back to my normal routine: Blocking vandals, closing RFAs, tending to the mailing lists, etc. I have no intention of going anywhere, because to do so would be to let the vandals, trolls, and stalkers win.

I have no doubt that others will continue to debate this matter; I have no intention to say anything further, as I have made my statement complete. If anyone needs me, look where the work of keeping the encyclopedia running is being done, and you’ll probably find me there. [[User:Essjay|'''Essjay''']] [[User talk:Essjay|(Talk)]] 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the website address below to verify the text:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEssjay&diff=111847534&oldid=111838285

And the person who pointed out the Robbie account being Ryan Jordan’s is spot on in saying this wee turd intentions where clear from the start.

Michelle Malkin links to a BBC article on the latest in a series of accuracy-related scandals involving Wikipedia:Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by controversy after the disclosure that a prominent editor had assumed a false identity complete wit…

A bit of research reveals that Essjay, who identifies himself as gay, has a partner called Robbie, who has a page on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robbie31

Robbie claims he is an attorney. My guess is that not only is “Robbie31″ not an attorney as he states on the page, but Robbie31 doesn’t actually exist except in the imagination of Essjay.

The only real thing in all of this is Jimmy Wales’ brazen corruption.

The fraudster in question, ‘Essjay’, penned this letter to a professor who doubted Wikipedia’s trustworhiness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter

The letter, with hindsight, is pretty funny. In it, he defends Wikipedia’s academic credibility, and introduces himself as a “tenured professor of theology”. He goes on to champion Wikipedia’s content, by saying, “Well credentialed individuals (myself included) participate in the project in the hopes that our involvement will help to make Wikipedia a better source”.

How can Wales possibly say that Essjay’s “tenured professor” claims amount to merely a pseudonym after that?