Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: gomi

I am amused and befuddled by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden The ArbCom has come down with a bunch of tough-minded words about BLPs.

On the one hand, I can see that the article would be embarassing and damaging to Marsden, resurfacing a 10-year-old false date-rape case and more recent criminal harassment charges. Marsden has apparently complained in person to Wales about this. While not finding any material unsourced, the ArbCom case says that the article is "too negative" and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden#Articles_which_relate_to_Rachel_Marsden. Does this apply to Brandts article? To all BLPs?

On the other hand, the statements in this article, while negative, were well-sourced, and all the information remains in the article history.

Finally, and perhaps most bizarrely, SlimVirgin is the one who has stubbed and full-protected the page -- she isn't ArbCom and has not thus far been involved.

Posted by: Somey

SlimVirgin might know Rachel Marsden personally. There are plenty of points of comparison between them - Canadian, right-wing, blatantly dishonest, extremely annoying... At the very least, there's going to be some "sympathetic vibrations" going on there.

As for Jimbo, he was once photographed with Ann Coulter, and Marsden is supposedly the Ann Coulter of Canada, right? Only without the book deals? Maybe Jimbo is a sucker for right-wing extremist "eye-candy." Though Coulter's getting a little pigeon-toed these days, and Marsden is much younger... Maybe this could be the start of a beautiful relationship!

Posted by: gomi

Pigeon-toed? I would have said bow-legged. That's what happens when H&)(*)*(HJJKGF [No Carrier]

Posted by: Somey

...when Horseback riding becomes a way of life? Hey, I've seen it happen!

I should hasten to point out here that I would fully support Marsden's efforts to have her Wikipedia bio completely removed, assuming that's what she's actually trying to do. But if not, i.e., if she just wants them to censor the article so that it tells the world only how super-wonderful she is, despite her [CENSORED] past, then as far as I'm concerned it's just another way in which Wikipedia helps degrade Western culture, as they usually do. And hey, guess what! That's exactly what Slimmy is doing for her, right now!

Of course, if she succeeds at this it'll be because she isn't a critic of Wikipedia, that's the long and short of it. After all, D-Brandt has plenty of media savvy (even if nobody knows who he is or what he looks like), and knows a few lawyers, and has a far better case, having not actually done much of anything wrong in his life to speak of.

At least not that anyone knows about, anyway!

Posted by: gomi

You're thinking of Katherine Harris!

Posted by: Somey

Hmm. I'd forgotten about her... I just feel really sorry for the horse!

But hey, as long as we're doing a picture show, here's one of Rachel:



She's a hottie, huh? Apparently she'll sell you out to Richard Mellon Scaife or Karl Rove without even a second thought, but I could probably forget about the hate politics for one night, assuming she gave me the same consideration.

And what is she standing in front of there, a concrete stairway into some sort of dungeon? I guess I'd better be extra-careful when we go out on our big date!

Posted by: Somey

Okay, before we get too carried away here, let's remember what Ms. Marsden actually wrote on her own ArbCom page.

It's hardly unequivocal, isn't it? It's clear she doesn't want the article removed for privacy reasons, because then she wouldn't have added the qualifying statement ("should another article be created," etc.).

So, in effect, she wants the article deleted - presumably along with the unpleasant revision history - but then she apparently wouldn't mind a new article, without the nasty revisions visible to all, some time later on - and presumably under the ever-watchful eye of Slimmy & Co.

Personally, I (and many others here, I suspect) would get totally on her side if she were to change her mind, and forcefully and unequivocally state that she doesn't want an article about her on Wikipedia at all, ever, and no foolin' around. (I'd support the removal of this discussion thread too, FWIW - call me the mean ol' censorship guy if you must...)

But where there's smoke there's fire, and there's something about this woman that makes me somewhat skeptical.

Posted by: guy

I thought the problem was that most of what she objected to was fully documented from reliable sources.

Posted by: Somey

Correctimundo! But naturally, Marsden herself isn't going to be caught saying that such sources are "reliable."

This sort of thing came up during the lengthy BLP policy discussions a while back. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/archive3#Indirect_sourcing_of_negative_info.3F was Jeff Gannon, the right-wing blogger who'd been given full press credentials at the White House in order to ask puff questions, who was later found to have been a male prostitute, with nude photos of himself on his website, a resume full of ridiculous exaggerations, the whole nine yards. The fact that he was a male prostitute is certainly undisputed, but the real problem, as we've all repeated over and over again, is that with a person like that, "anyone with an IP address" can insert all sorts of exaggerations and lies on top of it, and those things can remain there for months, maybe forever. And because the truth is already stranger than fiction to begin with, those insertions are more likely to be accepted by the RC patrollers in the first place... most of them aren't inclined to support Gannon's side of things anyway, after all.

Anyhoo, that's the general argument - "we shouldn't allow ourselves to be censored by the very people who do bad things and then want to hide the evidence." And I might even agree with that, if it weren't for the fact that Wikipedia is open to anyone who comes along, and if I felt the Wikipedians in charge of this sort of thing could be trusted to do what's right in all cases when someone does come along with nothing but malicious intent.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

One of the complainants -- and a defender of Marsden -- in this case is "Arthur Ellis". An interesting name in that it is the pseudonym of the executioner in Canada (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_B._English). The things you find out at Wikipedia...

I see that SV is arguing that RM's article should be deleted because it is all negative. Curiuosly, when examining the article at google's cache -- which looked fairly balanced and well sourced and -- I see it is linking to Gurmant Grewal. Funnily enough, Grewal's article still exists, well sourced, and is, if anything, even more negative than RM's ever can be (unless she once again takes up her meat-space stalking tendencies in the future). Both of these people appear to have chosen to live moderately negative lives. What is a biography supposed to say about this kind of thing, anyways?

But like Somey, I say if the lady doesn't want an article at WP, just go ahead and delete it. No gnashing of teeth required.

Posted by: Somey

It might be interesting to see if Wikitruth.info decides to "rescue" the Rachel Marsden article if it actually gets deleted. I'd expect so... They even rescued the http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Uncensored:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America article the other day, after that finally got deleted after, what, 18 attempts? I think that's what it was... We've been ignoring the WikiEn-L list lately, but apparently they were http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-November/057147.html that after many, many months, they were finally able to delete an article called "Gay Nigger Association of America"!

So I guess Rachel's in good company now, eh wot? They're all enlightened and socially progressive now and everything.

Bravo!

Posted by: Somey

News Flash!

Wikipedia now officially has a double-standard in place!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=91899986&oldid=91820306

It may not stay that way, but it's blank as of now, and all the history is gone.

Posted by: Somey

SLIMVIRGIN MASSIVE HYPOCRISY ALERT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rachel_Marsden#Getting_started_again

I'd quote some stuff, but you almost have to read the whole thing to get the full effect. At least Slimmy has finally admitted to being a right-winger, for all intents and purposes.

...Oh, all right, here's one:

I mean, you see things like this, and you have to think, she's laughing at everyone. Wikipedia is basically her personal revenge platform at this point, and she certainly won't let it be anyone else's revenge platform, either.

There's also some talk towards the end about Marsden's sexual harrassment cases "never seeing the inside of a courtroom." I think it's important here, in the interests of truth and accuracy, to point out that the overwhelming proportion of all sexual harrassment accusations are never brought to trial. Nobody wants to bring those kinds of cases to court; they're extremely ugly for both sides. They're almost always handled internally by the companies involved, or settled out of court, and for good reason.

That kind of rhetoric is deceptive, and typically used by abusers and corporate shills to get the media off their backs. I'm not saying Marsden did (or didn't) do any of those things she was accused of, but she was formally accused, plain and simple. So... the fact that Slimmy uses that form of spin is suggestive, at least to anyone who's paying attention.

Posted by: gomi

And in other news, SUN CONTINUES TO RISE IN THE EAST

Posted by: Somey

Really? I had no idea it did that!

Sorry, I guess I was just having a "Mister Sulu Moment"!

Posted by: gomi

Sorry, just yankin' yer chain ...

Now, to add something substantive: Slimey has just gone through another http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=92860089 (nothing new here),. Of more interest, in a perverse way, is her incessant addition of "barnstars" and other pseudo-awards to her personal page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASlimVirgin&diff=92861307&oldid=89024190. Beside the obvious approval-seeking, what is the psychology of this. It seems distrubed to me: she takes a variety of unpopular positions, quite publicly, frequently castigates other editors and admins, for actual misdeeds or because of raging hormones (who knows?), but collects these silly trinkets. A disturbed mind, if you ask me!

Posted by: jorge

I believe she removed her poodle pic as it was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=92833367&oldid=92803998 by the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=92734647&oldid=92734309 who is probably blocked user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Brandon03. Also I see that SV's dancing penguin has unfortunately been deleted.

Posted by: Somey

Don't worry, it's a pretty long chain!


From what I've seen, people usually do that when they're feeling on the defensive amongst their peers... not that it takes all that much brilliant psychological insight to come to that conclusion...

It's quite possible that there are all sorts of weird skeletons in her psychological closet, but then again, sometimes a nasty person is just a nasty person, any way you slice it. And while lots of people suffer tragedy and despair at some point in their lives, only a very small minority of them vow to wreak vengeance on the rest of the world for it, and relentlessly pursue their vengefulness for years and years on end, running rough-shod over other peoples' ideals, and all the while making innocent folks suffer right along with the "guilty."

Regardless, I can't imagine there's any conceivable way she doesn't realize how unpopular she is!

On a slightly deeper level, though, the barnstars could be both an intimidation technique - almost like rodentian ball-thrusting - and a form of self-delusion, something for her to look at on those occasions when she starts to feel a twinge of conscience or remorse at the way she's treated her fellow Wikipedians in the obsessive pursuit of her screwed-up personal agenda.

Posted by: AV Roe

It's quite absurd considering the fact that the barnstars are meaningless and just individual expressions by individual editors, a circle of self-congratulation and ego-stroking. A number of editors have had the good sense to minimize the barnstars either by putting them on a page other than their main user page (an "awards" page) or by reducing their size so as not to be ostenatious. Slim seems to take them seriously and is committed to displaying them in as vainglorious a manner as possible - much like a senior flunky in a dictatorship displaying rows of ribbons and trinkets on his chest. See here I am, she's saying, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough and doggone it people like me."

Posted by: Ior

This just in: SMOKING MAY LEAD TO CANCER

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Before BLP, there was the "Chip Berlet exception" that became precedent in the "Nobs01 and others" ArbCom case. According to this precedent, a person who has a biographical article on Wikipedia can simply become an editor using his real name or something close to it, at which point, any criticism added to the article becomes a violation of WP:NPA. Simple, isn't it? Of course, I'm not 100% certain that they would apply the same reasoning to all editors who have biographical articles.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Too busy to look up the diffs right now, but if you scan the Wikipedia article and discussion on Citizendium you'll see that the same Wikiprivilege (WikiPrivateLaw) applies to Larry Sanger.

Of course, it's hardly worth our trouble noting all of the private exceptions and personal exemptions to Wikipedia Policy, as the general rule of WP:RAFOP (Rules Are For Other People) covers them all.

Jonny

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Posted by: Kato

...time to re-cast our eyes over this old thread, seeing as it has become the focus of a ValleyWag expose on Jimbo Wales

http://valleywag.com/362564/transcripts-of-wikipedia-founders-sex-chats

Kelly Martin dishes more dirt on her blog... (the shamless guttersnipe )

http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2008/02/jimmy-and-rachel-sitting-in-tree.html

Posted by: Kato

This article gives a basic Jimbo Wales / Rachel Marsden timeline, and ends with

http://valleywag.com/362511/how-wikipedia-got-jimmy-wales-laid



Would anyone like to check to discover who "fixed" the article in early February? And we can discover who is on this "special Wikipedia list of admins"...

why no, surely not....

Guess who?

Posted by: Derktar

There's a flurry of JoshuaZ activity as well.

Posted by: Kato

I guess it was this type of thing JzG was ordered to do by Wales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=next&oldid=189783275

JzG plays down an unsavory allegation made by Marsden against a Canadian official, which was later shown to be false.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

I've just removed badly sourced salacious allegations from Jimmy's talk page. What the truth is, I neither know, nor care. But I'm guessing that those of us who remove Jimbo allegations will be accused of being in some sort of protect-Jimmy evil cabal. So I thought I'd be pre-emptive and strike here.

For the record (and I think my record is reasonable here) I wish to resist all tabloid tittle-tattle, gossip and innuendo on biographies, particularly concerning private information. I don't want to stop and think about whether I like the subject or not. I've defended the rights of subjects as diverse as Daniel Brandt, and Chip Bartlet. I've enforced BLP on the bios of neo-nazis, pedophiles and communists. So, my views on Jimbo don't come into my insistence that badly-sourced personal crap stays out of bios.

Every living person should be able to expect either strict protection of their biography from intrusive rubbish, or (perhaps often better) not to have one in the first place. You should not have to be Jimmy, or sleep with Jimmy, to get decency from wikipedia.

Admittedly, that remains largely my wishful thinking.

Posted by: thekohser

JzG, in his typically snake-like role, removed http://halifax.metronews.ca/index.cfm?sid=91900&sc=89 and narrative that cleared the officer.



We wouldn't want the sum of all knowledge that doesn't make Jimbo or his mistress look bad to have any citations that exonerate a victim of Jimbo's cyber-lover, now would we?

WAY TO GO, GUY CHAPMAN! Protect your "friend" with selective editing of other people's hard work. You are an asset to the Wikipedia Review, JzG.

P.S. You're http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=195105880&oldid=195105502 to ask Jimbo about it. Way to go, Squeaker.

Posted by: thekohser

Aren't you confusing "biographies" with "Wikipedia Talk pages"?

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Quite deliberately, yes. Both are published.

Posted by: badlydrawnjeff

Hey, Giano, now we know why you got screwed - you weren't doing the right screwing.

As interesting as this information is - especially w/the Marsden ArbCom case and all the rest - I think people should trek very carefully in these waters.

Posted by: thekohser

Doc, I don't remember you stepping up when Durova published that I had "given misleading information to journalists that was published in the mainstream press".

Where were you then?

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Please, watch your language, Doc. I just had a nightmare about Jimbo's flashlight. You can redeem yourself by killing that redirect again. Maybe JoshuaZ won't fight you this time. He deadminned himself under pressure since last December, and I also googlebombed him.

JoshuaZ voted twice in the DRV on that redirect last December — once as himself (plus incessant comments to keep the redirect), and then once as Gothnic, which was one of his seekrit socks. If he even comes near me again, I'll take it to ArbCom.

I may still file a C & D against the Foundation, since it's supposed to be a "redirect," but in fact the so-called "redirects" on Wikipedia are actually 100 percent substitutions, due to the technical incompetence of the Foundation's software-development employees. If it's not incompetence, then I believe this is done to artificially crank up the Google juice. Chief developer dude Erik Moeller has been on notice now for over a month, but he isn't doing anything about it.

The effect is rather like a googlebomb. Fair is fair. Good luck, Mr. Zelinsky. In the meantime, be sure you don't send your résumé to anyone who uses search engines, because it will just be a waste of your time.

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

OK, so - just so I'm crystal clear - as soon as this appears in a publication you endorse, its good-to-go for WP publication from your point of view?

Could you provide some examples of publications you'd find acceptable for this? Maybe someone will get to work waving the story under their noses.



Quite.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Haven't been able to follow all this, but those transcripts looked a bit hoaxy to me. Wouldn't be surprised if they borrowed some from the recent Flap About Motown.

<Insert standard joke about COI Mistress here>

Jonny

Posted by: Moulton

This persistent failure to prevent, avoid, or remediate such breaches of expectations regarding decent treatment from Wikipedia is a systemic and pervasive problem that deserves more attention from those who crafted and maintain such an erratic and irresponsible media enterprise in the first place.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Wikipedia fails in this regard because it was crafted without a functional social contract setting forth the mutually agreeable norms together with a functional conflict resolution protocol.

In the absence of such a functional social contract, such breaches of expectations of decency generate a steady stream of liminal social drama, including notorious cases that rise to lunatic social drama.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

I have said it before and I will say it again. Wikipedia fails to meet your expectations because it was crafted for a different purpose than the one you expect.

Learning depends on the ability to revise one's initial hypothesis.

Jonny

Posted by: Moulton

Do you mean to tell me (and this committee) that Wikipedia has no interest in being a respectable encyclopedia, but rather intends to be a major contender in the fast-growing business of MMPORGs featuring high-energy vexagonistic lunatic scapegoat psychodrama (aka Bloody Hell)?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

I cannot follow the last half of your sentence, but, yes, I think that the dynamic persistence of the system in its observed course demands that we consider the ever-growing-stronger possibility that the The Overseers That Bee In Control Of Wikipedia (TOTBICOW) have a different objective than crafting a quality encyclopedia.

Duh!

Jonny

Posted by: Kato

According to former Jimbo Wales confidant Danny Wool:

http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/03/money-for-nothing-chicks-for-free.html

Posted by: Kato

JoshuaZ writes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=195192169

Is he seriously suggesting that JzG, living in Reading England, suddenly decided to "fix" details on an article on a Canadian News Reporter who appears on some US TV show & thus an unknown in Britain, out of the blue?

And that the http://valleywag.com/362511/how-wikipedia-got-jimmy-wales-laidand JzG's early February edits are a coincidence?

Posted by: guy

Americans no doubt assume that everyone well-known to them is famous around the world, and anyone unknown to them can't be notable.

Posted by: WordBomb

For your collective sleuthing enjoyment, I've uploaded a spreadsheet listing most of the deleted edits to the Rachel Marsden article. http://www.antisocialmedia.net/marsden.csv.

Keep in mind, this is only the meta data, ie: editor name, edit timestamp, and comment.

If any of these seem especially interesting, let me know and I'll get you the actual substance of any edits you want by Monday.

Note my source indicates that there are over 1,600 deleted edits in the restore/view log, which I can also get for you, though the 1,100 in this spreadsheet represents the only ones where I'm able to access the full edit text, as well.

Posted by: guy

So by far the main editor is Bucketsofg (264 edits). Other major ones are:

90 Ceaurus
84 70.25.152.39/70.25.91.205 (possibly one person)
68 Arthur Ellis
59 Homeontherange
58 Pasboudin
51 Samaritan

Homeontherange is of course an old friend.

Posted by: WordBomb

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FRachel_Marsden_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=42635543&oldid=42635101
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:70.25.91.205

And indeed, Rachel Marsden might also be Ceaurus, but I have no idea at this point.

Posted by: Derktar

Posted by: Heat

Ceraurus and Arthur Ellis are both Journalism prof Mark Bourrie and have been much banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis
He's a friend of Marsden's and when he isn't shilling for her he's pursuing his feud with Warren Kinsella - generally by vandalising his article. IRL Kinsella has sued Bourrie and won a settlement of some sort.

SlimVirgin's role in the article is interesting.

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

Hey, how about http://mashable.com ?? Still too "tabloid" for wp?

Posted by: Derktar

Oooohh, Here's the direct link for future reference: http://mashable.com/2008/03/02/ebay-wales-auction/

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

Ah, I hadn't seen that one yet - I was thinking more http://mashable.com/2008/03/02/wikipedia-gossip

Posted by: dogbiscuit

How's this for serendipity: see the link on the last article Wikipedia Bans Overstock.com - the link is "via Gary Weiss"


All roads lead to Weiss?

Posted by: Kato

http://mashable.com/2007/09/04/wikipedia-overstock/

Wow. That's amazing! And it shows what is at stake now, and how corrupt Wikipedia has become, when articles written by Weiss who has knowingly cheated the WP community still appear in links from other articles.

Posted by: One

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/garyweiss/6638671699539466625/ is enlightening. Seems that David Gerard was championing a promiscuous ban on all thing Overstock on the eve of his absurd bans on an ISP and Piperdown using some version of the duck test. "Bagley spoor shows itself pretty obviously by style."

Posted by: Derktar

Clearly an uninvolved admin.

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

Hey, "Doc", how about http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSOd2XLhTZ0E3mtqlBZlhukSa21w ? Will you support that one as a source?

Posted by: Kato

Somey, you were wrong back in 2006. It was the start of a hideous relationship that Wales will never live down. No Nostradamus points for you.

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

OK, "Doc", now we have http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/03/jimbo_wales_rachel_marsden/ too.

And http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=b1c9eef3-679c-4f86-955e-aa7a7806475f.

And http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008/03/03/4892306-sun.html http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/308766and http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/03/02/marsden-breakup.html

Are we up to three "really"'s yet?

Or is "reliable" just a fig leaf here?

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3475722.ece

"Doc"? Are you there, "Doc"?

Posted by: thekohser

Of course Doc is gone now. He is behaving exactly according to plan -- see my post about it on the Wikback Graveyard of Disappointed Admins:

Posted by: Moulton

According to my scorecard, Jimbo's biggest fear is having the project fall into disrepute.

Episodes of disrepute seem to be hitting the mainstream press about once a month now.

Posted by: Giano

There are times when it hard not to feel some form of schadenfreude, and resist the temptation to post an edited version of this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiano_II&diff=173593364&oldid=173588881 right back on his page. Joking apart, he probably feels pretty stupid, without anyone else needing to rub his nose in it. He's not the first man to be lead by his donger and he certainly won't be the last - so I shall say nothing more.

Giano

Posted by: Peter Damian

Sadly many of the diffs connected with that seem to have mysteriously disappeared ('database error').

Posted by: Giano

I think "Jimbo and the Arbonauts" will find their current problem rather harder to sweep under the carpet. Picking a mistress is rather like buying a horse, one should study the form before mounting and riding. A fall can be very damaging.

Giano

Posted by: AB

That is so sexist.

WOMEN ARE NOT LIKE HORSES!

Posted by: Giano

FGS - get a life!

Giano

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334652,00.html

Too tabloid for ya, "Doc"? Is any source reliable enough yet?



He sure is - doing the only thing he can, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=195606234&oldid=195606210.

Your post is spot on - reliabilty, notability: pure smokebombs. The objective is to keep egg off the Spiritual Leader's face and pretend this isn't happening, or isn't important.

They've got their fingers in their ears, and they're singing to themselves. Poor buggers.

Posted by: AB

In the name of the Unforgettable Butterflies, stop
comparing women to domestic animals!

Posted by: thekohser

Women? I thought he was talking about ArbCom!

Posted by: AB

Oh, really?

Posted by: thekohser

Thank you for the compliment. Doc is just having a little trouble moving through PHASE 2 ("this is just a tempest in a teapot"). He'll be saying crazy things for a few hours, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Marsden&diff=prev&oldid=195616283:



...without really http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_clinton#Sexual_misconduct_allegations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Shimizu#Relationships_with_Angelina_Jolie_and_Madonna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Hunt#Sex_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_%28commentator%29#Andrea_Mackris_lawsuit.

That's just what Wikipediots do. Let them go. Let it run its course. This will all be worked out, similar to the [[Carolyn Doran]] "article", in about 7 to 10 days.

Greg

Posted by: Heat

I know they are owned by the same outfit (Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp) but hitting Fox News and the Times of London with the exact same story evokes having a dump truck unload its garbage on the steps of Buckingham Palace.

And look http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/index.html it's the lead story on Fox's Science & Technology page under the headline "Wikipedia Sex Scandal".

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

I'm surprised that the sex angle is getting so much play. Sure, it's funnier than hell, and if Jimbo bragges as much about his exploits as Danny says then maybe he deserves it.

But the real story here is $300 bottles of wine and Russian massages that Jimbo tried to stick to the foundation. Danny says Jimbo eventually paid with checks which showed up as "donations". If this is true and Jimbo deducted those "donations" on his income taxes, then it is a very big problem for both Jimbo and the foundation. (Wouldn't we all like to deduct $7,000 of our indulgent squanderings as "donations" with a convenient falsified paper trail.)

Posted by: dogbiscuit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMLrqpz7OsE

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

Wait a minute, I'm an idiot. The Real story here is the COI suggested by their copulation, followed by Jimbo's "http://valleywag.com/362814/the-goodbye-email-from-jimmy-waless-girlfriend" coi quote - poisoning the very heart of wikpedia's neutrality by its Sole founder, no less.

jimbo.wales: and therefore not appropriate for me to directly edit the article with a conflict of interest
jimbo.wales: the truth is of course a much worse conflict of interest than that but that will do

Gosh, there's just so much here my tiny mind can barely grapple

Posted by: No one of consequence

No, you were right the first time. In the real world, no one cares whether Jimbo influenced Marsden's bio. That's just so much Wikipedia (and Wikipedia Review) narcissism and naval-gazing.

However, the financial shenanigan story apparently dates to the audit of 2 years ago when Danny was still at his old post, so its not really relevant to this story and is a bit stale to boot. Too bad, too. WR could make better use of whatever power it has to ignore this story and try to bring new light to the older financial issue.

Posted by: Kato

What a load of crap.

Folks cared about Jimbo editing his own biography a couple years ago -- it was all over the media. And this time round, plenty of people are interested in Jimbo's influence over Marsden's bio. Here's one such example.

http://poligazette.com/2008/03/03/wikipedias-authority/

No one of consequence, you are naive, wrong and you merely try to spin away almost all the key issues that come round. A classic Wikipedian. I imagine you were one of the people on Essjay's talk page spinning away there, "I don't have a problem with that..." etc. Nothing to see here etc. Story a bit stale etc. Or berating us for having the temerity to believe it actually meant something. Blaming us for Wikipedia's failures.


You're a member here. You first.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Let's be clear.

1) I don't care who Jimbo has sex with - so he may be a letch, did I expect more? 2) The COI is bullshit. I can't see anything that was done to the article that shouldn't have been done under BLP anyway. Jimbo often asks OTRS to clean things up - and WR is at its best when in complains that cleanups don't happen quickly enough - not when it complains they happen too quickly.

3) The story is certainly news now. Not so much because it is sex, but because Mr Wiki (apparently) had the ill-judgement to dump neo-celebrity on wiki and she (predictably) retaliated (on e-bay). That's news that not even the London Times can resist. And this story probably has legs yet. It will almost certainly end up in Jimmy's bio. But (and this is something I fight for on many bios) BLPs are not news aggregaters. Because it's newsworthy this week doesn't make it encyclopedic. Whether this story has any durable importance in terms of recording Wales's bio, remains to be seen.

My guess is that Danny's allegations will prove more significant. But that's a guess, and till Jimmy and the WMF respond (as they must) we won't know what that significance is. WP:NOT a crystal ball etc.

Will any of this be significant in a week? Who knows? we can only speculate?

Anyway, the discussion will no doubt continue here (and on the official mailing lists .... if I can find it?) ....

Posted by: Saltimbanco

Idle question: did Wikipedia pay for Jimbo to fly to New York in order to get his freak on?

Posted by: gomi

I don't know why you guys don't get it -- a reputable encyclopedia cannot be run by a "God-King". The issue may not be COI impropriety, but more the appearance of impropriety.

Jimbo's exalted status within Wikipedia, coupled with the lack of a viable and structured management system there, casts the whole enterprise into disrepute. Your arguments about BLP and whatnot ring hollow -- the differing treatment of (e.g.) Daniel Brandt and Rachel Marsden bear witness to this.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

So ask for Daniel Brandt to be treated like Rachel Marsden, rather than the other way about. Although, I'd not be too sure who has the lower opinion of Jimbo.

Seriously, you guys way overstate Jimbo's current influence. You've obviously all been banned so long that you're out of touch. Keep up with it. Jimbo's influence on en.wp is marginal in the extreme, and diminishing by the day.

Posted by: gomi

Well, forgive us for watching, for example, the incredible corruption and ineptitude of the ArbCom, and believing that the behaviour of Wikipedia's ruling elite is the fruit of a poisonous tree.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

His overt influence has diminished, of that there is no doubt. However, he still has his chums doing his bidding, and the 'inability to get things right in a crisis management system' he put in place is still in full flow, so his actual influence is quite strong. His influence will be really diminished when (ok, if) some sensible management structures are put in place which remove the influence of the old guard.

Posted by: Kato

Well the thing is, they are. That is the beast Jimbo himself has created and encouraged himself. You are just 12 months or so behind people like me in coming to terms with that. There is nothing you can do about it and you are standing on the shore fighting against the sea. See this blog post

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080121/2007-at-the-review-the-unvarnished-truth-the-red-pill/

Posted by: jorge

I beg to disagree Mr. DocG. JzG and JoshuaZ intervened per his "suggestion"- we all know they will do whatever he suggests, being two of the most brainwashed cult members. If Wales can be bribed through sex to alter a biography, why should we believe he cannot be bribed with money or gifts?

Posted by: Doc glasgow

/Sigh/, those who wish to see conspiracy, will always bend reality to that end......

The last time Jimbo intervened on en.wp (over rollback) he was simply ignored by the community and arbcom, and contradicted by Florence. But, I suppose you guys need your Emmanuel Goldstein to hate.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

I don't think that's true. Even if Jimbo doesn't do work or exert himself, he is still displacing whatever leadership would fill his shoes if he stepped aside, much like dead wood. And then there is 'leadership by example', where others find it rational to emulate him.

Sorry, no better way to put this, but you just can't polish a turd. You end up with everyone covered in shit.

Posted by: Kato

Nonsense. Why the hell did JzG suddenly appear at the article in February out of the blue? The same date the tip off said Jimbo arranged to have the Marsden article "fixed".

Have you had your porridge today? You are living in cloud cuckoo land Doc. Wake up laddie.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

What will be more lasting and damaging than the COI or financial improprieties is the re-establishing the link between Mr. Wales' current undertakings and the Bomis pornography era. This will demonstrate that Wales has not changed. It will hamper his effort to re-cast Bomis as something other than pornography. It will undermine WMF credibility as a non-profit. The taint will rub off on Wikia, which is dependent upon good faith generated by Wikipedia.

Also, please don't invoke WP:NONSENSE as it is considered bad form around here.

Posted by: Milton Roe

It's interesting? Yeah, but it's pretty familiar. SV's role here is simply to sanitize things with fire when investigative reporters or editors (usually certain types with a past who remind her of herself) get into touble on Wikipedia.

That's nice. I'm glad SV can empathize with one narrow segment of the population. Her problem is that she can't seem to empathize with anybody else, and does real damage in the process of protecting her own nest of the poor picked-on.

Until SV develops full humanity and a little less paranoia, I would vote that she be de-fanged (not that this is likely to happen). But so long as I'm fantasizing, I'd like to see that horrible face stuck on the back of her head, Valdemort375, to be blasted out of power along with her.

Throwing Some Philosopher's Stones,

--Harry

Posted by: thekohser

Yes, Doc, let's be clear. The "clean up" that JzG executed on the Rachel Marsden article was this: he removed a reliable source citation that stated Marsden's male counterpart in their affair had been exonerated by his police department.

And that improved the encyclopedia, how?

The only way I can think is that it made Marsden look better and it cast doubt on her antagonist, the Canadian constable. Is that what Jimbo wanted before he got busy in the hotel with her, or is that what JzG thought was important that night, logging into Wikipedia from England to edit on a biography centered on one of "his" Commonwealth nations?

Keep talking, Doc. Your hole is tapping into the Earth's mantle now. See if you can go for the core.

Greg

Posted by: Ior

If you ask me, it is Jimmy Wales who is out of touch (with the community). As to his influence, the only thing that has changed in that regard is the transparency in which he communicates his requests, using backchannels like IRC and private mailing lists rather than on-wiki discussion. And believe me, we're not all banned. Some of us have been admins for years.

Posted by: AB

They aren't complaining that the clean-up happened
'too quickly'. They are complaining about the
hypocrisy. As in, would RM's bio have been cleaned
up if she had not done so much to win Jimbo's favour?
Certainly, if she goes that far, she deserves whatever
she gets. But she shouldn't have to go that far, it
should be her right as a human being, whether she is
Jimbo's lover or his most vocal enemy.

If Jimbo's article were held to the same low standards
as many other bios, perhaps he would be encouraged
to strengthen the BLP policy across the board. For
example, implement an opt-out policy.

Posted by: Kato

The whole place is tragically hypocritical and inconsistent. See the Joe Lieberman affair

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/

...where Wales appeared before a Senate Committee hearing held by Joe Lieberman. Wales protected Lieberman's article for the duration, then unprotected it afterwards, where it continued to receive an onslaught of damaging vandalism.

He only cared about his own image there. Afterwards he couldn't give a crap what his website asserted about Lieberman.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Right. Compare MEN to domestic animals. Since that is basically what they are-- woman's last domesticated animal. (Okay, I stole that from Will Durant). Now, peace, you two. I've lived long enough to know that neither sex objectifies the other, more than the other (was that clear?). They just do it in different ways. And if they didn't do some of it, none of us would be here, since it's a rough world out there, and not enough time or opportunity to make really good but crucial decisions, on what scanty data there is. Agreed?

--Milt

Posted by: Somey

What he said!

Still, Giano could have just as easily compared "picking a mistress" to choosing a good exercise bike, and it really wouldn't have changed the sentence's tone or meaning all that much.

What's more, I know lots of women who have an enormous amount of respect for exercise bikes.

Of course, every time *I* choose a mistress, I get the same reaction, which is basically "who the hell are you?" followed by threats to get a so-called "restraining order." Sheesh!

Posted by: Miltopia

Maybe we could all have a lesson on what a "simile" is and then stop the oversensitive BS in favor of discussing Wikipedia...

Posted by: Moulton

Of all the news coverage, I thought the WiReD article zeroed in on the real story — not the dalliance, but how it was funded.

Posted by: guy

Emmanuel Goldstein was completely out of power; the correct analogy is with Larry Sanger.

Still, if you think Jimbo is Emmanuel Goldstein , who is Big Brother?

Posted by: AB

Yeah, right. In the past, I've hardly even been able
to convince the guys I've had sex with to take the
time to date me, even if I offered to pay.



I have loved each and every man with whom I
have consented to sexual relations. The love
never lasted, though, because it was never
returned.

Maybe other women objectify the men they
sleep with, but that doesn't mean I do.

Posted by: AB

An exercise bike? What, so if he breaks the her by crashing into a
rock or something, he can just throw her away and get another?

Actually, that does sound like just the sort of thing a number of
guys I've been with would do.

*bursts into tears*

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

Oh come on, I don't remember people complaining when Giano was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II/archive_7#The_Italian_Stallion.

Posted by: Anaheim Flash

Wales waning influence –

(1) Wales is a member of the WMF board, albeit with the weird Chairman Emeritus status; he is far more well known than any other Board member and no Wiki editors or admins quote any of the other Board members as an authority when faced with a dispute.

(2) Wales claims that “in Wikipedia, I work closely with a team called 'OTRS”. No other Board member makes this claim. Is Wales, lying about his role in Wikipedia or does he in fact have an exceptional influence over how contacts made with WMF are handled, including those specifically related to Wikipedia BLPs ?

(3) Wales is both a WMF Board member and an Officer(?) of the Wikia Foundation placing him in a unique position of influence.

If Wales is directly involved in contacts related to BLPs, he is uniquely placed to engage with individuals who may have interests which coincide, or which are at variance with Wikipedia or Wikia Corps. (the two not necessarilly being the same). This is an incredibly powerful position which screams COI. Only when the rest of the WMF Board are seen to act in respect of this COI could anyone seriously claim that Wales’ influence has in any way been reduced.

AF

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

Given the WP entry appears to be excluding everything but that element, the statement is unconvincing.

When he thinks he's in private, Jimbo appears not to agree.

So for the record, we've learned its an acceptable source once its in the Times. Even if the Times parrots the story from the other sites with no discernable independent investigation or fact checking.

Posted by: guy

Original research!

Posted by: Moulton

There are now independently written stories in several newspapers. I saw one in the http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8459494?nclick_check=1 and another in the http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/wikipedia-head-accused-of-expenses-rort/2008/03/05/1204402516874.html.

Posted by: Heat

The story has been carried on four continents by my count. Any sign of Africa or South America yet?

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8459494?nclick_check=1



Ha!

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

I guess that when one is a former porn dealer, one doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.

Not that "one" deserves it. But I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom

Uh....really for the record...it is ok for the co-founder of Wikipedia to be a role model for the creeps of the world...how 6th grade...

and what a shame...I feel sorry for Jimbo's wife and any offspring that he may have helped to produce...

for all of the editors out there that work on the project thinking that it is a real job


In a few years, people will look at the piles of hardware in their garages and wonder what they did with their lives!

What a waste of valuable time.

Posted by: Yehudi

That's a perfect analogy. Goldstein was presumably meant to be Trotsky, and was given such an obviously Jewish name because Trotsky was Jewish. Sanger is too, although the Cabal wish to conceal that.

Posted by: Random832

gah, if any of you had actually read the damn book, you'd know that [spoiler]Emmanuel Goldstein was a straw man[/spoiler].

Posted by: WordBomb

I'm with Random832 on this one. I didn't get the impression from the book that Goldstein actually existed in any meaningful way.

During the Attack Sites RfAr I compared the role of WordBomb to that of Goldstein...a sort of shorthand for everything the Cabal existed to protect us from.

Posted by: Piperdown

I like that Marsden gal. She's got spunk! Literally. Jimmy's spunk. I saw it on Ebay. Ewwwwww.

Posted by: Somey

Well, exactly!

I mean (not to get too back on topic or anything), if we grant that Jimbo had been dating Rachel Marsden for several months prior to the events that precipitated their breakup, then Jimbo did just that, did he not? The "rock" that he/they "crashed into" was his supposed reputation for integrity as the co-founder of Wikipedia, which their relationship essentially threatened to expose as a sham (not that we need further proof).

As for me, I'm one of those guys who generally insists on not being the one to initiate a breakup. At least I used to be that way, until the Bush Administration came into power - at which point I realized that the whole "social contract" thing is basically a joke.