Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ The Rachel Marsden affair _ Jimbo & Rachel Marsden : Scandalous
Posted by: Castle Rock
In case you were wondering why http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5196l on Wikipediahttp://valleywag.com/362374/wikipedia-founders-fling-with-fox-news-fox in the Valleywag. They also link here too!
QUOTE
Jimmy Wales loves to talk about "transparency" and "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." Unless it's about his scandal-prone girlfriend. Wales, who is divorcing his second wife Christine, has been secretly seeing conservative TV commentator Rachel Marsden since last fall, friends say.
And something for JzG: a http://valleywag.com/362564/transcripts-of-wikipedia-founders-sex-chats is included.
QUOTE(seanpercival @ 3:24 PM)
These chats turned my "stub" into a full wiki page
Posted by: Derktar
This seems to be almost too good to be true. The reactions to this will be very telling.
Posted by: Kato
Is this for real?
If so, those transcripts will keep us in one-liners for months:
Jimbo Wales : "I am supposed to be designing a google killing search engine so I can buy a jet"
Posted by: Robster
There isn't the slightest chance that stuff is legit.
Is there?
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
Meanwhile, abusive sockpuppeteer JoshuaZ - who previously http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_7&diff=prev&oldid=183003932 his secret account to help keep Marsden's BLP - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Marsden&direction=next&oldid=195019456#Marsden_and_Jimbo to keep this new tale off WP as long as possible.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Sat 1st March 2008, 2:08am) 
Meanwhile, abusive sockpuppeteer JoshuaZ - who previously http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_7&diff=prev&oldid=183003932 his secret account to help keep Marsden's BLP - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Marsden&direction=next&oldid=195019456#Marsden_and_Jimbo to keep this new tale off WP as long as possible.
Rachel Marsden will fail to keep these rumors out of the article. Then she'll want to blame someone for it and wonder "which goddam idiot created an "encyclopedia" which acts as resume at the top of every internet search, but which any clown anywhere can use to propagate any rumor or opinion about me". Here is the idiot she seeks:
Posted by: Aloft
Wow. He's not kidding when he says that BLP's should be handled in a loving manner.
I think this is probably the beginning of the end for Jimbo's role in the WMF. The typical donor will start to wonder just how his money is being used. It doesn't matter that Jimbo pays his own travel; the mere perception of impropriety will be enough for the WMF to want to distance itself from him.
"I'm doing this for the child chicks in Africa Canada..."
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Fri 29th February 2008, 9:08pm)
Meanwhile, abusive sockpuppeteer JoshuaZ - who previously http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_7&diff=prev&oldid=183003932 his secret account to help keep Marsden's BLP - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Marsden&direction=next&oldid=195019456#Marsden_and_Jimbo to keep this new tale off WP as long as possible.
And they will http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=195027856&oldid=195027320 Jimbo's Talk page, too.
I'll check in with my friend Jimbo on Facebook and see if any of it has even a grain of truth.
Greg
Posted by: WordBomb
QUOTE(Robster @ Fri 29th February 2008, 7:05pm)
There isn't the slightest chance that stuff is legit.
Is there?
The only way any publisher would consider running something like those transcripts is if they were certain that they (the transcripts) were legitimate.
Also, I have it on good authority that there's more to come...not necessarily chat transcripts, but other "evidences" of Jimbo's dalliances.
Posted by: thekohser
Complete tangent, but I was reading the Wikipedia article about Jimmy Wales, to see if they mention that he's been married twice already (anybody know that, or is that just more satire?). Lo and behold, Jimbo and I were both married in Monroe County, Florida -- thankfully, not to each other!
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
Posted by: Alkivar
you people seem surprised...
jimbo is an untrustworthy man who is well practiced at being two-faced.
he should run for congress he'd fit in real well!
Posted by: Kato
I'm guessing, judging by Marsden's http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/29/marsden/index2.html...
QUOTE(Salon.com)
Marsden was next charged with criminally harassing former Vancouver radio host Michael Morgan in 2002. According to the statement of facts in the case, Marsden and Morgan met in 2001; soon after, he called the police
...that they've had a break up, and the leaked correspondence is from Marsden herself, seeking revenge on Der Jimbo. If that Salon article is anything to go by, Jimbo's going to have to deal with a lot worse to come from Marsden.
Posted by: thekohser
I received a fairly prompt reply from Jimbo on Facebook, with him certain I can understand why he can't comment on it.
Interesting.
Posted by: thekohser
http://digg.com/tech_news/Exclusive_Transcripts_of_Wikipedia_founder_s_sex_chats...
Posted by: Peter Damian
Should this thread be languishing in the lounge? Seems pretty on-topic to me.
Posted by: Moulton
Time to dust off the word 'salacious' here.
Posted by: jorge
Someone move this out of the lounge please.
Posted by: Kato
This blog post by Danny Wool has more "salacious" details and Jimboisms
http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/03/money-for-nothing-chicks-for-free.html
Here's Jimbo to Bono of U2
QUOTE(Danny Wool)
I remember how, in Mexico City, Bono explained to us how the band leaves the arena after a concert by running through a long plastic tunnel stretching from the stage to their limos. "I need one of those," Jimbeau responded, "because I am like a rockstar too." That may be. He certainly gets to have sex with groupies. It is just unfortunate that for the longest time, some of this was funded by well-meaning donors, who really thought that their $5.00 would pay for hardware and bandwidth.
Posted by: Kato
<moderator note> Thread moved to General discussion from Lounge, as it is about WP. Renamed from "Scandalous" to "Jimbo & Rachel Marsden : Scandalous"
Posted by: Moulton
Not only is it scandalous and salacious, it also brings Wikipedia further into disrepute.
This has got to be close to Jimbo's worst nightmare.
Posted by: Aloft
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 1st March 2008, 12:30pm)
This has got to be close to Jimbo's worst nightmare.
It needs to be the end of his association with the WMF.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Aloft @ Sat 1st March 2008, 6:43pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 1st March 2008, 12:30pm)
This has got to be close to Jimbo's worst nightmare.
It needs to be the end of his association with the WMF.I noticed Seth Finkelstein's comments that it is not really serious? I completely disagree- it clearly shows that Wales provides favourable treatment, either by direct intervention or by proxies to people with whom he is associated. Why should we believe that he does also not accept bribes, gifts, holidays etc from people who want the power to control their own biographies and other articles with sockpuppets as Gary Weiss has done? The man should resign from the Wikimedia foundation immediately and the project should completely break all ties with him.
Posted by: jorge
I see there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#BLP_COI_by_you on Wales' page, started by Cla68, mentioning that Wales supposedly commented on the sooper seekrit mailing list that he:
"felt unable, because of COI reasons, to participate in the BLP of certain Canadian journalist"
Why should we believe that JzG and JoshuaZ did not merely act as his proxies in fixing the article according to Wales/Marsden's preference?
Posted by: Rootology
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_pFTAY7MF8" ?
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(jorge @ Sat 1st March 2008, 7:17pm)
I see there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#BLP_COI_by_you on Wales' page, started by Cla68, mentioning that Wales supposedly commented on the sooper seekrit mailing list that he:
"felt unable, because of COI reasons, to participate in the BLP of certain Canadian journalist"
Why should we believe that JzG and JoshuaZ did not merely act as his proxies in fixing the article according to Wales/Marsden's preference?
It is almost certain that JzG was under orders from Wales as outlined here:
QUOTE(ValleyWag)
Most recently, a tipster tells us, Wales "sent a mass email to a 'special' Wikipedia list of admins at the beginning of February, right before he was set to spend the weekend with Marsden in DC. Said he wanted her page cleaned up.
http://valleywag.com/362511/how-wikipedia-got-jimmy-wales-laid
Here's the type of thing JzG was doing early February:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=next&oldid=189783275
This ties into the JzG / Jimbo Wales relationship. Where Jimbo is using a willing JzG, a man who seems on the edge of a complete breakdown, to act as a fixer / bully on content. Anyone can tell that JzG has lost the plot completely -- surely even Wales -- but as I've stated elsewhere, Wales doesn't seem to care about that as long as JzG is doing the dirty work.
As JzG says : You're either with his friend Mr. Wales or with the enemy
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=176591341&oldid=176590424
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
I don't understand why everyone is so SHOCKED, SHOCKED that he cheats on his wife, cheats with a journalist, or even (heaven forfend!) sends sexy chat msgs.
He was a porn dealer for God's sake.
And if those listserver msgs are correct, he was more or less bragging about his affair, so he's probably not all that upset it is public. Hey, if it eclipses his bad Wikia press, it's gotta be good news... (with regrets for his poor wife. I hope she gets a decent settlement, and he doesn't rip her off)
Anyways, why would this render him liable to removal?
I'm thinking the lost funds might be grounds (gold washingmachine? Go Florence!).
But even then, I doubt it.
Posted by: Heat
Poor Jimmy. If only he'd read the uncensored Rachel Marsden article he would have known he was heading for serious trouble.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sat 1st March 2008, 7:37pm)
I don't understand why everyone is so SHOCKED, SHOCKED that he cheats on his wife, cheats with a journalist, or even (heaven forfend!) sends sexy chat msgs.
He was a porn dealer for God's sake.
And if those listserver msgs are correct, he was more or less bragging about his affair, so he's probably not all that upset it is public. Hey, if it eclipses his bad Wikia press, it's gotta be good news... (with regrets for his poor wife. I hope she gets a decent settlement, and he doesn't rip her off)
Anyways, why would this render him liable to removal?
I'm thinking the lost funds might be grounds (gold washingmachine? Go Florence!).
But even then, I doubt it.
He has to go because he can't be trusted not to intervene, or to get others to do so for him in biographies of people with whom he is connected.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Sat 1st March 2008, 7:37pm)
Anyways, why would this render him liable to removal?
It is yet another example of Wikipedia's useless processes allowing for another blatant case of ...
CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
...alongside a reiteration of WPs multi-tiered editorial practices. Meaning that if you are a "friend of Jimbo Wales" and if you are on some secret list, you are given...
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT?
whereas if you are an outsider, through no fault of your own, you get humiliated and are subject to the most efficient revenge platform ever devised.
And http://allswool.blogspot.com/ all this gallivanting meant that "At one point he owed the Foundation some $30,000 in receipts, and this while we were preparing for the audit." Meaning a...
MISUSE OF FOUNDATION FUNDS?
Posted by: Rootology
QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 1st March 2008, 12:13pm)
And http://allswool.blogspot.com/ all this gallivanting meant that "At one point he owed the Foundation some $30,000 in receipts, and this while we were preparing for the audit." Meaning a...
MISUSE OF FOUNDATION FUNDS?
Danny best be careful and back this up with evidence. It's borderline libel territory, if untrue. If true... well, shit. Bye-bye contributions, bye-bye Wikipedia.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Danny Wool)
So Jimbeau cancelled an upcoming trip to Italy, Serbia, and Croatia, and got to work finding receipts. I helped process them. Subway ticket in Moscow: $0.50. Massage parlor in Moscow: priceless. Some were accepted; others were not, like the $650 spent on two bottles of wine during a dinner for four at Bern's—I remember that one because he submitted it twice, once with the tip scratched out. I wonder if the students who gave up their lunch money to donate to Wikipedia would have approved of that expense. In the end he reached a deal with Brad—details unknown—and paid the Foundation about $7000 in two checks. I don't know what happened with the rest, but the checks can be found in the list of donors.
http://allswool.blogspot.com/
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
QUOTE(Rootology @ Sat 1st March 2008, 3:44pm)
QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 1st March 2008, 12:13pm)
And http://allswool.blogspot.com/ all this gallivanting meant that "At one point he owed the Foundation some $30,000 in receipts, and this while we were preparing for the audit." Meaning a...
MISUSE OF FOUNDATION FUNDS?
Danny best be careful and back this up with evidence. It's borderline libel territory, if untrue. If true... well, shit. Bye-bye contributions, bye-bye Wikipedia.
I'm going to be surprised if Jimbo doesn't go around trying to sue the shit out of everybody. He's been a little "legal threat happy", recently, from what I hear. He's probably been anticipating this coming out and what he may do--maybe this was foreshadowing things to come.
How would it effect the project if Jimbo goes on a "sue the shit out of everybody" campaign? I know I'm getting ahead of myself, but it's fun to speculate.
QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 1st March 2008, 3:48pm)
QUOTE(Danny Wool)
So Jimbeau cancelled an upcoming trip to Italy, Serbia, and Croatia, and got to work finding receipts. I helped process them. Subway ticket in Moscow: $0.50. Massage parlor in Moscow: priceless. Some were accepted; others were not, like the $650 spent on two bottles of wine during a dinner for four at Bern's—I remember that one because he submitted it twice, once with the tip scratched out. I wonder if the students who gave up their lunch money to donate to Wikipedia would have approved of that expense. In the end he reached a deal with Brad—details unknown—and paid the Foundation about $7000 in two checks. I don't know what happened with the rest, but the checks can be found in the list of donors.
http://allswool.blogspot.com/
HOly cow...This story has legs. And coming out at such an time in the community, when it is more divided over Wikipedia's direction than it has ever been!
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 1st March 2008, 2:00am)
Is this for real?
How would we be able to tell?
But if it is true, the worst part isn't even in the transcript.
Posted by: badlydrawnjeff
I wouldn't be shocked if it's true that he had any sort of dealings with Marsden - while "juicy," that's not the issue.
The issue is that Marsden got preferential - and quite possibly unfair, given my suspicions about the ArbCom case and her alleged relationship - treatment due to her, no pun intended, position.
That being in a relationship with Wikipedia leadership can actively affect content is worse than Essjay, quite frankly. Even if you think the Marsden ArbCom case was proper, you can't be proud of the road that it very likely took to get there.
If I send Jimbo a bottle of wine, can I get my bullshit Arbcom case renamed to "BLP?" Of course not. That's the real problem here.
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(badlydrawnjeff @ Sat 1st March 2008, 9:37pm)
I wouldn't be shocked if it's true that he had any sort of dealings with Marsden - while "juicy," that's not the issue.
The issue is that Marsden got preferential - and quite possibly unfair, given my suspicions about the ArbCom case and her alleged relationship - treatment due to her, no pun intended, position.
The issue is that Marsden got preferential - and quite possibly unfair, given my suspicions about the ArbCom case and her alleged relationship - treatment due to her, no pun intended, position.
No, read the first paragraph on the transcript page. Not the
transcript itself, just the introductory paragraph. I don't want
to quote it since if it's not true, it's really defamatory. But, if it
is true, anything done on WP is a side issue, and I really hope
someone is helping RM out.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 29th February 2008, 11:43pm)
I think this one could be entered into wiki-commons?
Oh the humanity!
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5196&st=0
Merge this thread about Rachel from 2006?
Posted by: badlydrawnjeff
AB, that's now. What was happening in 2006 with this is what should concern some folks in terms of Wikipedia.
That Marsden's allegedly getting bullied by Jimbo is a different issue altogether.
Posted by: AB
I wouldn't call it an entirely separate issue, but,
if true, it's certainly a more serious issue. And,
if not true, it's a serious defamation.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 1st March 2008, 3:48pm)
QUOTE(Danny Wool)
So Jimbeau cancelled an upcoming trip to Italy, Serbia, and Croatia, and got to work finding receipts. I helped process them. Subway ticket in Moscow: $0.50. Massage parlor in Moscow: priceless. Some were accepted; others were not, like the $650 spent on two bottles of wine during a dinner for four at Bern's—I remember that one because he submitted it twice, once with the tip scratched out. I wonder if the students who gave up their lunch money to donate to Wikipedia would have approved of that expense. In the end he reached a deal with Brad—details unknown—and paid the Foundation about $7000 in two checks. I don't know what happened with the rest, but the checks can be found in the list of donors.
http://allswool.blogspot.com/
Mr. Wales is a rich guy, right? Doesn't that mean no advance would be appropriate. Incur the expense, present the receipts, get reimbursed. He's not Florence for Christsake. By the way two checks? As in payment plan? I wonder if either he or WMF treated the payments as "donations" as Wool seems to suggest. That would be inappropriate on either/both ends.
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
QUOTE(Heat @ Sat 1st March 2008, 7:52pm)
Poor Jimmy. If only he'd read the uncensored Rachel Marsden article he would have known he was heading for serious trouble.
Feh. Like he would have believed a wikipedia biography was accurate.
Posted by: thekohser
I find it quite funny and unsurprising that there is not yet any mention of this http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-March/date.html or the http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/date.html mailing lists.
Would you all say that's because the moderators are deep-sixing it before it's posted, or because they're all terrified to even bring up how this is going to be a http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=Marsden+Wales+Wikipedia&btnG=Search+Blogs in another day or two?
Greg
Posted by: Moulton
There seem to be quite a few mainstream journalists entangled in this WikiMess.
Posted by: Chris Croy
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 1st March 2008, 6:52pm)
I find it quite funny and unsurprising that there is not yet any mention of this http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-March/date.html or the http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/date.html mailing lists.
Would you all say that's because the moderators are deep-sixing it before it's posted, or because they're all terrified to even bring up how this is going to be a http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=Marsden+Wales+Wikipedia&btnG=Search+Blogs in another day or two?
Greg
The latter.
---
This will (probably) be more destructive to Wikipedia's image than any previous scandal.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statement%2C_March_1st%2C_2008
QUOTE
Statement of Jimmy Wales
March 1, 2008
Over the last few days, a few gossip websites have decided that my personal life is somehow of interest to people and, against my wishes, are publicizing details about a brief relationship I had with Rachel Marsden. While, typically, this would not warrant a response, because my role with Wikipedia is being dragged into it, I felt the need to set the record straight on a couple of issues.
First, while I find it hard to imagine that anyone really cares about my sex life, the facts are: I am separated from my wife. I considered myself single at the time of my one meeting with Rachel Marsden on February 9th, 2008. I am no longer involved with Rachel Marsden. Gossipy stories suggesting that I have been in a relationship with her "since last fall" are completely false.
The second, and far more important, issue is this false notion which is being peddled that I intervened inappropriately to redraft her Wikipedia biography. The facts are that, in Wikipedia, I work closely with a team called "OTRS," which handles email complaints and works hard to address concerns relating to the biographies of living persons. Rachel Marsden first approached me via email two years ago with complaints about her bio. We had never met. I subsequently reviewed her bio and I found it not to be up to our standards. My involvement in cases like this is completely routine, and I am proud of it.
I decided to meet Rachel Marsden in person for the first time in early February of this year. Accordingly, three days before that meeting, to avoid any appearance of a potential conflict of interest, I disclosed my plans to OTRS and further disclosed that it was a personal matter. I recused myself from any further official action with respect to her biography.
I care deeply about the integrity of Wikipedia, and take very seriously my responsibilities as a Member of the Board and as a member of the Wikipedia community. I would never knowingly do anything to compromise that trust.
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Sat 1st March 2008, 10:28pm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statement%2C_March_1st%2C_2008
QUOTE
Statement of Jimmy Wales
...
I care deeply about the integrity of Wikipedia, and take very seriously my responsibilities as a Member of the Board and as a member of the Wikipedia community. I would never knowingly do anything to compromise that trust.
Damn, you beat me by 10 minutes or so, Wales Hunter.
I guess Jimbo wasn't "knowingly" ordering $300 bottles of wine and trying to get massage parlor expenses reimbursed through Danny Wool. Because Jimbo would NEVER knowingly compromise the trust of his Wikipedia community!
I absolutely believe that, too -- because the Wikipedia community and the success of Wikipedia are instrumental to his long-term financial success at Wikia, Inc. and on the $90,000-a-day lecture circuit!
So, what we have here is a man who absolutely and believably is unknowingly compromising the trust of his community.
Greg
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 3:28am)
The facts are that, in Wikipedia, I work closely with a team called "OTRS," which handles email complaints and works hard to address concerns relating to the biographies of living persons.
Ask Daniel Brandt how closely Jimbo Wales works with a "team called OTRS".
"OTRS" indeed!
"...works hard to address concerns relating to the biographies of living persons."
How much more of this crap do we need to hear?
Posted by: thekohser
When will the [[Jimmy Wales]] article get updated with the separation from his wife and the encounter with Marsden? I imagine his article is super-protected, though, right?
Greg
Posted by: Kato
Posted by: Derktar
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 1st March 2008, 8:00pm)
When will the [[Jimmy Wales]] article get updated with the separation from his wife and the encounter with Marsden? I imagine his article is super-protected, though, right?
Greg
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=195257754&oldid=195172941
Posted by: thekohser
Somebody cue the "dramatic groundhog" music.
Look at http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Rachel%20Marsden!
I'll also bet that http://www.google.com/trends?q=Rachel+Marsden gets a lot different in the next week or so.
Also, http://alexa.com/data/details/main/rachelmarsden.com and http://siteanalytics.compete.com/rachelmarsden.com/?metric=uv will probably change in the next 15 to 30 days.
Greg
Posted by: Heat
Just wait until Marsden retaliates for being snubbed/dumped on her website. When a cop she was boinking dumped her she retaliated by posting his emails and accusing him of leaking anti-terrorist information (resulting in an internal investigation by his superiors).
My bet is this is just beginning.
Hard to believe Wales would have such poor judgment.
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 12:34am)
Hard to believe Wales would have such poor judgment.
Were you born yesterday, Heat?
Posted by: Heat
http://valleywag.com/362730/wikipedia-creator-jimmy-wales-dumps-girlfriend-on-wikipedia
Posted by: dtobias
The "Cyberstalking List Clique" is adamant that it is thoroughly evil to have any association with somebody involved with stalking or harassment. So I guess the clique must disown Jimmy Wales now, for his involvement with an http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/23/rachel-marsden-comes-a-stalkin-once-again/.
Posted by: thekohser
In the first nine hours since the pronouncement, I think the funniest thing is that the Wikipediots seem most concerned about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=195298730#Marsden_statement to WP:OTRS in Jimbo's statement or not.
Jimbo has a hot, steamy wiki-meetup with a saucy brunette TV personality, and the big consequence these nerds are worried about is a blue link for journalists not to get the wrong idea about their Open-source Ticket Request System software!
Posted by: Moulton
OTRS is a joke. Window dressing, like the legendary Customer Complaint Department that never actually resolves anyone's complaints.
Posted by: thekohser
For those who have read the http://valleywag.com/362564/transcripts-of-wikipedia-founders-sex-chats, you've probably noticed the un-clickable links to the Washington DC Doubletree Hotel web page that was the site of the encounter between Wales and Marsden.
For everyone's convenience, I have made these http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:Hilton_Hotels/Doubletree/Washington_DC, so that everyone can see the posh hotel room which Jimbo stayed in earlier this month.
Hilton will probably appreciate the Google AdSense traffic, too.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 12:54pm)
In the first nine hours since the pronouncement, I think the funniest thing is that the Wikipediots seem most concerned about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=195298730#Marsden_statement to WP:OTRS in Jimbo's statement or not.
Jimbo has a hot, steamy wiki-meetup with a saucy brunette TV personality, and the big consequence these nerds are worried about is a blue link for journalists not to get the wrong idea about their Open-source Ticket Request System software!
Cos some of us are not turned on my salacious tales of Jimmy's sex life?
Frankly, my wikibiz, I don't give a damn.
Posted by: Moulton
It would be helpful if there were evidence to demonstrate that WMF did not reimburse Jimbo for that posh hotel room.
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 8:57am)
OTRS is a joke. Window dressing, like the legendary Customer Complaint Department that never actually resolves anyone's complaints.
It may not be 100% effective, (what is?) but I don't think I'd agree with "never" as a characterization of its effectiveness level. It often does work and work well. I'm certain specific counterexamples can be brought up, but I think it's better that WMF has it than if it didn't.
Disclaimer, I have an OTRS ID and I (very occasionally) work tickets.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 1:56am)
http://valleywag.com/362730/wikipedia-creator-jimmy-wales-dumps-girlfriend-on-wikipedia
http://web.archive.org/web/20060526202300/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Marsden
The article is here, but not on Wikipedia? I am confused.
Posted by: anthony
QUOTE(Rootology @ Sat 1st March 2008, 8:44pm)
QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 1st March 2008, 12:13pm)
And http://allswool.blogspot.com/ all this gallivanting meant that "At one point he owed the Foundation some $30,000 in receipts, and this while we were preparing for the audit." Meaning a...
MISUSE OF FOUNDATION FUNDS?
Danny best be careful and back this up with evidence. It's borderline libel territory, if untrue. If true... well, shit. Bye-bye contributions, bye-bye Wikipedia.
It's absolutely true. I don't have direct evidence, but I've known this for a long time through multiple independent sources, two of whom are or have been board members. Jimbo has also basically admitted it himself in an email conversation with me (though of course you have to read between the lines):
QUOTE(Jimmy Wales @ 21 May 2007)
Yeah, well, I have no idea. We have up to date audited financials. In the past several months, basically since the audit, I don't even have a foundation credit card nor turn in receipts for reimbursement anymore, because my travel is nearly all being paid by third parties.
The only financial transactions of any substance (I want to say the ONLY but can't remember right now) between me and the foundation have been about reimbursements for travel. In the old days, I would use the foundation credit card to purchase tickets and cover travel expenses, and then submit receipts. Then every few months we would go through all this stuff and settle up...
In the time period between the expenses and the submission of receipts, there would be an accounting category for outstanding expenses by me which had not yet been accounted for.
ALL receipts have been submitted, and the account in the books for that account is exactly zero. There have never been any allegations by anyone of embezzlement.
The books have been audited by a third party firm, and ALL the transactions were examined in detail, including an examination of receipts, any and all payments back and forth.
If I have to think about what sort of thing might have been at some point twisted, the only thing I can think of is that at times Michael was grumpy with me for being very slow about turning in receipts. Everything was cleared up about that, without incident of any kind.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 3:28am)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statement%2C_March_1st%2C_2008
QUOTE
Statement of Jimmy Wales
March 1, 2008
Over the last few days, a few gossip websites have decided that my personal life is somehow of interest to people and, against my wishes, are publicizing details about a brief relationship I had with Rachel Marsden. While, typically, this would not warrant a response, because my role with Wikipedia is being dragged into it, I felt the need to set the record straight on a couple of issues.
First, while I find it hard to imagine that anyone really cares about my sex life, the facts are: I am separated from my wife. I considered myself single at the time of my one meeting with Rachel Marsden on February 9th, 2008. I am no longer involved with Rachel Marsden. Gossipy stories suggesting that I have been in a relationship with her "since last fall" are completely false.
The second, and far more important, issue is this false notion which is being peddled that I intervened inappropriately to redraft her Wikipedia biography. The facts are that, in Wikipedia, I work closely with a team called "OTRS," which handles email complaints and works hard to address concerns relating to the biographies of living persons. Rachel Marsden first approached me via email two years ago with complaints about her bio. We had never met. I subsequently reviewed her bio and I found it not to be up to our standards. My involvement in cases like this is completely routine, and I am proud of it.
I decided to meet Rachel Marsden in person for the first time in early February of this year. Accordingly, three days before that meeting, to avoid any appearance of a potential conflict of interest, I disclosed my plans to OTRS and further disclosed that it was a personal matter. I recused myself from any further official action with respect to her biography.
I care deeply about the integrity of Wikipedia, and take very seriously my responsibilities as a Member of the Board and as a member of the Wikipedia community. I would never knowingly do anything to compromise that trust.
I think his lawyer wrote that....
Posted by: Heat
In the name of accuracy can someone change this thread's subtitle to "Can you say COItus?"
Posted by: No one of consequence
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 5:00pm)
In the name of accuracy can someone change this thread's subtitle to "Can you say COItus?"
We don't know if they actually consummated their relationship though. Apparently they have exchanged steamy messages but this was their first and only physical meeting. That by itself is pretty interesting to contemplate.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 9:10am)
http://web.archive.org/web/20060526202300/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Marsden
The article is here, but not on Wikipedia? I am confused.
Allow me to explain. The Wikimedia Foundation has employed in the past, and continues to employ to this day, irresponsible and/or incompetent software developers.
1. All it would take is a simple http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php line in a single Wikipedia file to remove the Wayback Machine (www.archive.org) from Wikipedia. I have experience with this on my sites. By failing to implement this simple precaution, the Wikimedia Foundation may be liable for the damage caused by its employees.
2. These same software developers do not install a "redirect" when the Wikipedia community decides on a redirect. Instead their software does a 100 percent substitution. This instantly transfers the Google juice from the redirected URL to the targeted URL, because the automated search engines have no way of knowing that it is a redirect. In this case too, the Wikimedia Foundation may be liable for the damage caused by its employees.
There are about nine copies of my old bio in the Wayback Machine also. Perhaps a lawsuit is in order. Just like a hospital is liable for a technician employee who, through lack of training or competence, causes injury or death to a patient, the Foundation itself is liable for the nonfeasance or incompetence of its employees.
Posted by: dtobias
Daniel Brandt's arrogance threatens to rival that of Jimbo Himself if he really thinks he has the right to declare for the Wikimedia Foundation what software settings their developers should properly use, and that it's malfeasance to do it any other way. Who put him in charge of their sites?
Posted by: WordBomb
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 10:04am)
We don't know if they actually consummated their relationship though.
Ummmm...did you miss this post-game wrap-up chat?
I'm guessing from this that they sealed the deal in the DC Doubletree.
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 1:00pm)
Perhaps a lawsuit is in order. Just like a hospital is liable for a technician employee who, through lack of training or competence, causes injury or death to a patient, the Foundation itself is liable for the nonfeasance or incompetence of its employees.
Please, Daniel -- just sue the Foundation already. If money is the problem, I imagine that Alex Roshuk would help you pro bono, and I would gladly contribute monetarily to your legal fund and promote it far and wide. But, if you're not going to actually sue, then these mentions of lawsuits just diminish your reputation.
Posted by: Somey
Well, I'm totally bidding on http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290211080891, which (according to the page on eBay Canada) he apparently left with Ms. Marsden at some point ot other. Thankfully, they've been "washed, twice, with Tide extra-strength liquid detergent"...
Currently the bidding is at $0.99 CN, which used to be about $0.03 USD, but is now probably more like $50.00 USD at current exchange rates. (Still, sometimes you just have to open up that wallet!)
At first I felt rather unsympathetic towards Ms. Marsden, whom I believed had unfairly benefited from some sort of "extra-special" relationship with one or more WP'ers in getting her bio article "fixed." But now that she's in "breakup mode," it's hard not to feel just a little bit sorry for her! I'd suggest that she get in touch with me personally, since I'm actually legally single, but of course she'd have to agree in advance to avoid the use of IM, e-mail, or IRC to carry on any substantive conversations.
Posted by: msharma
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 6:47pm)
Well, I'm totally bidding on http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290211080891, which (according to the page on eBay Canada) he apparently left with Ms. Marsden at some point ot other. Thankfully, they've been "washed, twice, with Tide extra-strength liquid detergent"...
Currently the bidding is at $0.99 CN, which used to be about $0.03 USD, but is now probably more like $50.00 USD at current exchange rates. (Still, sometimes you just have to open up that wallet!)
At first I felt rather unsympathetic towards Ms. Marsden, whom I believed had unfairly benefited from some sort of "extra-special" relationship with one or more WP'ers in getting her bio article "fixed." But now that she's in "breakup mode," it's hard not to feel just a little bit sorry for her! I'd suggest that she get in touch with me personally, since I'm actually legally single, but of course she'd have to agree in advance to avoid the use of IM, e-mail, or IRC to carry on any substantive conversations.
Heh, was just coming here with http://valleywag.com/362772/wikipedia-guys-ex+girlfriend-auctions-his-clothes-on-ebay What was Jimmy thinking? His pain has just begun, judging by this lady's past actions. (She gets extra points for the gratuitous Gitmo and terrorism references, though. Fox News commentators are never off duty!)
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 1:47pm)
Well, I'm totally bidding on http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290211080891, which (according to the page on eBay Canada) he apparently left with Ms. Marsden at some point ot other. Thankfully, they've been "washed, twice, with Tide extra-strength liquid detergent"...
Would http://cgi.ebay.ca/Wikipedia-Jimmy-Jimbo-Wales-T-Shirt-left-at-ex-g-fs_W0QQitemZ290211080341QQihZ019QQcategoryZ2312QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem be worth more to a collector, since it is stained with some mysterious goo? (salad dressing, maybe??)
I think that would make a fine avatar, btw!
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 12:32pm)
Daniel Brandt's arrogance threatens to rival that of Jimbo Himself if he really thinks he has the right to declare for the Wikimedia Foundation what software settings their developers should properly use, and that it's malfeasance to do it any other way. Who put him in charge of their sites?
Tobias, your comments on this Board are more pathetic than the comments of almost any other member. You run your own little http://dan.tobias.name/controversies/cyber/wiki.html on Wikipedia's BLP victims, making fun of all of them. At the same time, you have no personal stake in these issues, so you go around inciting people without taking any substantive stands on the issues yourself.
The only stand you've taken that I'm aware of is that you oppose BADSITES. But even that is self-serving — you want to be able to flitter between WP and WR, poking people here and there, because you find it amusing.
Your avatar says it all.
Some of us are trying to deal with real issues, and you get in the way. Speaking of arrogance, Mr. Mensa Member, I've been putting up with it from you for more than two years now:
2005-12-20: "We should basically ignore all his sniveling..."
2005-12-30: makes false allegations about the legality of NameBase on Philipp Lenssen's pro-Google forum
2006-04-07: incorrectly claims that Brandt edited Wikipedia under a look-alike misspelling of his user name
2006-09-08: on Brandt's notability: "...our bar for inclusion is generally lower than most of the mainstream media."
2006-09-09: "I'd like to see his whacked-out ideas tested and defeated in court."
You are 44 years old, Tobias. Isn't it time to grow up?
Posted by: dtobias
It's a bit humorous that I'm being accused of "poking people for my own amusement" and told to "grow up" in a thread where a whole bunch of people are snickering back and forth about Jimbo's ex-girlfriend and how she's selling his stuff on Ebay.... but whatever....
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 3:02pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 8:57am)
OTRS is a joke. Window dressing, like the legendary Customer Complaint Department that never actually resolves anyone's complaints.
It may not be 100% effective, (what is?) but I don't think I'd agree with "never" as a characterization of its effectiveness level. It often does work and work well. I'm certain specific counterexamples can be brought up, but I think it's better that WMF has it than if it didn't.
Disclaimer, I have an OTRS ID and I (very occasionally) work tickets.
Yeah, well, I asked an OTRS member to blank something
that outed me, then an arbitrator publicly attacked me
for doing so, which drew even more attention to the
matter, someone else mildly blackmailed me from asking
anything else to be blanked/deleted/oversighted (though
that's stopped with apologies), and now some jack-booted
violent thug claiming to be acting on behalf of WP is
threatening to cut my fingers off!
In other words, even if the OTRS member one talks to is
the sweetest person in the world, they don't actually have
the power to do anything. And I've heard some people
haven't even gotten responses from OTRS.
Posted by: Aloft
Has it been picked up by the mainstream press yet? I need some reliable sources for my new [[Jimbo Wales T-Shirt Controversy]] article.
Here's something I'm unclear on: Jimbo said in his statement that there was one meeting. How did he meet her at the hotel in D.C. yet leave his clothing at her apartment in New York?
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 6:33pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 1:00pm)
Perhaps a lawsuit is in order. Just like a hospital is liable for a technician employee who, through lack of training or competence, causes injury or death to a patient, the Foundation itself is liable for the nonfeasance or incompetence of its employees.
Please, Daniel -- just sue the Foundation already. If money is the problem, I imagine that Alex Roshuk would help you pro bono, and I would gladly contribute monetarily to your legal fund and promote it far and wide. But, if you're not going to actually sue, then these mentions of lawsuits just diminish your reputation.
As much as I'd love to see the WMF get successfully sued
already, I don't have the stomach for court battles.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 6:32pm)
Who put him in charge of their sites?
This isn't about being 'in charge'. It's about wanting
them to stop hurting him and others.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
QUOTE(Aloft @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 3:18pm)
Has it been picked up by the mainstream press yet? I need some reliable sources for my new [[Jimbo Wales T-Shirt Controversy]] article.
Here's something I'm unclear on: Jimbo said in his statement that there was one meeting. How did he meet her at the hotel in D.C. yet leave his clothing at her apartment in New York?
Posted by: Aloft
QUOTE(eBay)
High bidder: wordbomb( 0 )
If only it were a kimono...
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(WordBomb @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 1:32pm)
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 10:04am)
We don't know if they actually consummated their relationship though.
I'm guessing from this that they sealed the deal in the DC Doubletree.
Hush your mouth !!!
Don't let The ExciseMum find out discipline was involved …
We wouldn't want her going over to the Dark Side, now would we ???
Jonny
Posted by: dtobias
I like to think of my lack of personal stake in any of the battles being fought as something that gives me something approaching NPOV objectivity, meaning that I can see the absurdity, hypocrisy, self-servingness, and unreasonableness on all sides.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 1:30pm)
As much as I'd love to see the WMF get successfully sued already, I don't have the stomach for court battles.
I agree. Today is the first time that the Wayback Machine entered my radar as a possible way for someone to sue the Wikimedia Foundation without getting hung up on Section 230. Anyone who sues the Foundation and doesn't want to spend five years in federal court, should try to avoid Section 230 arguments until Congress gets its act together. Going after the nonfeasance of Foundation employees is one way. Donating a substantial sum and then suing the Foundation for fraudulent misuse of funds and abuse of its responsibilities as a nonprofit public charity is another.
The reason the Wayback Machine issue is interesting is because there is case law on this issue already. The folks at Archive.org have an opt-out through robots.txt, and they are also responsive if you fax them and request a take-down of something if you own the copyright. It's clear that the Wayback Machine is off the hook because they are responsible. That means the Foundation's failure to utilize its administrative remedies in dealing with BLP articles that have been purged makes them liable. If the Foundation fails to take obvious steps, such as using robots.txt to keep the Wayback Machine's crawlers away from the site, then a BLP victim who can prove damages is in a position to hold the Foundation accountable without getting dragged into federal court by Mike Godwin over Section 230 immunity. That's my impression — I am not a lawyer.
The facts of the case would be important, however. You'd have to be a BLP victim who had their biography purged or deleted, and then was damaged subsequent to that because it was still on the Wayback Machine. If you don't have the right set of facts, and/or cannot show damages, it's not worth pursuing in court.
However, it's still worth needling the Foundation about the issue. There are technical measures it could and should take to decrease the exposure of BLP victims who had their articles purged or deleted, and the Foundation has yet to even consider this issue.
Posted by: WordBomb
QUOTE(Aloft @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 12:46pm)
QUOTE(eBay)
High bidder: wordbomb( 0 )
Posted by: KamrynMatika
QUOTE(Aloft @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 7:18pm)
Has it been picked up by the mainstream press yet? I need some reliable sources for my new [[Jimbo Wales T-Shirt Controversy]] article.
Here's something I'm unclear on: Jimbo said in his statement that there was one meeting. How did he meet her at the hotel in D.C. yet leave his clothing at her apartment in New York?
Oh come on, we all know Jimbo is a persistent liar.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 9:01am)
Cos some of us are not turned on my salacious tales of Jimmy's sex life?
Frankly, my wikibiz, I don't give a damn.
Whut? You have salacious tales of Jimmy's sex life, too?
Jonny
Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal
Is this Wikipedia Review or the National Enquirer?
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Unrepentant Vandal @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 3:19pm)
Is this Wikipedia Review or the National Enquirer?
Wikipedia = <the non-trademarked analogue of> The National Enquirer.
Ergo, The Wikipedia Review = <the non-trademarked analogue of> The National Enquirer Review.
Jonny
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Unrepentant Vandal @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 2:19pm)
Is this Wikipedia Review or the National Enquirer?
Well sheez, what do you expect, UV? The co-founder of Wikipedia pursues a sexual relationship with a controversial right-wing (though admittedly Canadian) media personality, possibly at the expense of foundation donors, despite the fact that the media personality already has a history on Wikipedia itself of receiving preferential treatment, not to mention a reputation for "stalking" ex-boyfriends and generating negative publicity about them using the internet? What are we supposed to do, say "move along folks, nothing to see here"?
Time and time again I'm reminded of that scene from The Naked Gun where Frank Drebin is saying those exact words in front of a fireworks factory that's in the process of going off after being rammed by a truck full of explosives.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/nakedgun.gif
Oh, you already got it …
Jonny
Posted by: One
The whole thing just reeks of Jimbo's poor judgment, and I don't mean the affair. If WMF is to survive, it needs to cleanse itself with a bit more than Tide extra-strength liquid detergent.
On wiki: the timing suggests that Jimbo http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out nudged his minions into action, maybe including Thatcher, for the baffling New Years Day deletion. On the project, COI only seems to exist when he says so. This doesn't inspire confidence for either editors or donors who might naively believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Off wiki: the ginormous travel budget of WMF suddenly makes much more sense. Considering the way Jimbo mixes his for-profit, non-profit, business, leisure, and honorarium trips, it seems that a lot of his personal and Wikia expenses are being paid by kids who chipped in $5 at a time. That's more vomit-inducing than any mysterious white stain.
Sex is easier to understand than Catholic credentials or financial instruments, so I think we'll see much more coverage. Ideally, the media and public would be outraged by Wikipedia's daily sundry abuses, but I'll take what we can get.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 4:47pm)
QUOTE(Unrepentant Vandal @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 2:19pm)
Is this Wikipedia Review or the National Enquirer?
Well sheez, what do you expect, UV? The co-founder of Wikipedia pursues a sexual relationship with a controversial right-wing (though admittedly Canadian) media personality, possibly at the expense of foundation donors, despite the fact that the media personality already has a history on Wikipedia itself of receiving preferential treatment, not to mention a reputation for "stalking" ex-boyfriends and generating negative publicity about them using the internet? What are we supposed to do, say "move along folks, nothing to see here"?
Time and time again I'm reminded of that scene from The Naked Gun where Frank Drebin is saying those exact words in front of a fireworks factory that's in the process of going off after being rammed by a truck full of explosives.
You are so correct Somey.
Witnessing the hierarchy at Wikipedia is somewhat like watching a guy light his hair on fire and then watching him try to put it out with a hammer.
It is comical and yet frightening. Very little wisdom there; just fireworks and a loud sucking sound from the vacuum created by a void and "blackhole" of no morality.
Posted by: Robster
One has to wonder if the Sole Flounder is [[WP:AGF]] of the "Canadian Ann Coulter*" at this point. 
Poor guy... all he tried to do is help her remove her (perfectly legitimate) WP article (and apparently her pants), and now his [redacted]-stained clothing is being auctioned off on eBay. I almost feel sorry for him -- if this wasn't so reckless, and potentially a criminal misuse of WMF money and WP resources.
*no, wait, that's not fair, Marsden appears to be female
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 2:17pm)
Yeah, well, I asked an OTRS member to blank something
that outed me, then an arbitrator publicly attacked me
for doing so, which drew even more attention to the
matter, someone else mildly blackmailed me from asking
anything else to be blanked/deleted/oversighted (though
that's stopped with apologies), and now some jack-booted
violent thug claiming to be acting on behalf of WP is
threatening to cut my fingers off!
In other words, even if the OTRS member one talks to is
the sweetest person in the world, they don't actually have
the power to do anything. And I've heard some people
haven't even gotten responses from OTRS.
I'm sorry you did not have a good experience. If you can give me something to find the ticket with (subject line, copy of the email, ticket number?) I'll take a look at it, if you like. Or not, as you choose, it's up to you. You can PM me with the info. I tried to PM you this offer but it didn't work.
Posted by: Moulton
Dinosaur Brains
The scary part is that it might be technologically feasible to treat that garment the way tree resin was handled in Jurassic Park and create a whole theme park based on these legendary characters.
Posted by: Somey
Apropos of nothing, I'd just like to add that I made this avatar, recently added to our gallery, a full three days before I'd heard anything about the Marsden-Jimbo sexcapade allegations:
Weird, huh?
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 4:34pm)
Apropos of nothing, I'd just like to add that I made this avatar, recently added to our gallery, a full three days before I'd heard anything about the Marsden-Jimbo sexcapade allegations:
Weird, huh?
In the future, everyone will be Nostradamus for 15 nanoseconds.
Jonny
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 3:31pm)
I'm sorry you did not have a good experience. If you can give me something to find the ticket with (subject line, copy of the email, ticket number?) I'll take a look at it, if you like. Or not, as you choose, it's up to you. You can PM me with the info. I tried to PM you this offer but it didn't work.
That's very considerate of you. Here's an OTRS from me that is still waiting for a reply. It's only been 2.5 months, so I don't mean to rush you.
OTRS ticket number: 2007121310001984.
Brion Vibber and Erik Moeller know about it, and have done nothing.
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 9:31pm)
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 2:17pm)
Yeah, well, I asked an OTRS member to blank something
that outed me, then an arbitrator publicly attacked me
for doing so, which drew even more attention to the
matter, someone else mildly blackmailed me from asking
anything else to be blanked/deleted/oversighted (though
that's stopped with apologies), and now some jack-booted
violent thug claiming to be acting on behalf of WP is
threatening to cut my fingers off!
In other words, even if the OTRS member one talks to is
the sweetest person in the world, they don't actually have
the power to do anything. And I've heard some people
haven't even gotten responses from OTRS.
that outed me, then an arbitrator publicly attacked me
for doing so, which drew even more attention to the
matter, someone else mildly blackmailed me from asking
anything else to be blanked/deleted/oversighted (though
that's stopped with apologies), and now some jack-booted
violent thug claiming to be acting on behalf of WP is
threatening to cut my fingers off!
In other words, even if the OTRS member one talks to is
the sweetest person in the world, they don't actually have
the power to do anything. And I've heard some people
haven't even gotten responses from OTRS.
I'm sorry you did not have a good experience. If you can give me something to find the ticket with (subject line, copy of the email, ticket number?) I'll take a look at it, if you like. Or not, as you choose, it's up to you. You can PM me with the info. I tried to PM you this offer but it didn't work.
A bit late considering someone already saw it and
threatened to cut my fingers off. And at this point,
I'm talking to people who have oversight, even if
it is rather late.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 5:24pm)
OTRS ticket number: 2007121310001984.
Ironic that the serial number of that ticket is 1984.
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 5:35pm)
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 9:31pm)
I'm sorry you did not have a good experience. If you can give me something to find the ticket with (subject line, copy of the email, ticket number?) I'll take a look at it, if you like. Or not, as you choose, it's up to you. You can PM me with the info. I tried to PM you this offer but it didn't work.
A bit late considering someone already saw it and
threatened to cut my fingers off. And at this point,
I'm talking to people who have oversight, even if
it is rather late.
OK, well, just thought I'd offer.
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 5:24pm)
That's very considerate of you. Here's an OTRS from me that is still waiting for a reply. It's only been 2.5 months, so I don't mean to rush you.
OTRS ticket number: 2007121310001984.
Brion Vibber and Erik Moeller know about it, and have done nothing.
I'm fairly sure I wasn't talking to you, but I looked at the ticket and I don't think OTRS is the right vehicle to resolve that matter. I will have no further comment on it.
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 11:18pm)
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 5:35pm)
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 9:31pm)
I'm sorry you did not have a good experience. If you can give me something to find the ticket with (subject line, copy of the email, ticket number?) I'll take a look at it, if you like. Or not, as you choose, it's up to you. You can PM me with the info. I tried to PM you this offer but it didn't work.
A bit late considering someone already saw it and
threatened to cut my fingers off. And at this point,
I'm talking to people who have oversight, even if
it is rather late.
OK, well, just thought I'd offer.
Thanks, but unless I give up on oversight and
decide to settle for deletion, which wouldn't be
particularly effective given I have who-knows-how-
many admin enemies, there really isn't anything
you can do.
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 11:19pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 5:24pm)
That's very considerate of you. Here's an OTRS from me that is still waiting for a reply. It's only been 2.5 months, so I don't mean to rush you.
OTRS ticket number: 2007121310001984.
Brion Vibber and Erik Moeller know about it, and have done nothing.
OTRS ticket number: 2007121310001984.
Brion Vibber and Erik Moeller know about it, and have done nothing.
I'm fairly sure I wasn't talking to you, but I looked at the ticket and I don't think OTRS is the right vehicle to resolve that matter. I will have no further comment on it.
Well, why not tell Daniel who you think he should talk to?
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 6:22pm)
Well, why not tell Daniel who you think he should talk to?
I've set myself certain engagement rules, which I suppose I should put in my signature the way Sarcastic Idealist did. (meanwhile, you could read something that hints at them http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/wikipedia-review-and-my-participation.html) But in any case I'm not competent (in the legal sense) to speak to the matter that ticket raises and I prefer not to put myself in the position of having given him any advice, position, information, etc. on it for a number of different reasons. So as I said, I'll have no further comment. (that in itself was a big long no comment for those playing along at home)
Posted by: Heat
http://valleywag.com/362814/the-goodbye-email-from-jimmy-waless-girlfriend
QUOTE
jimbo.wales: I wrote an email to the internal editors list about your entry recommending some changes, etc. I said that I would run it by you for clarification/comment and email again if there were any updates I think we have two major problems right now first, the timeline is wrong about the recent cop case... that is the worst error and easy to fix
me: what's that?
plus, they also say he was "cleared". not true.
jimbo.wales: second we exactly and correctly sigh follow the bias of the press
right, so I complained about this
for you, they decided not to pursue charges, for him, he was exonerated... this is bullshit and the truth is the exact opposite
jimbo.wales: right so the way it is told now, hang on a second
let's actually do this right no
because the last thing I want to do is take a break from fucking your brains out all night to work on your wikipedia entry
jimbo.wales: "In September 2007, on her blog Marsden wrote about and posted a picture of a counterterrorism officer for the Ontario Provincial Police with whom she had an affair. She claimed that he had leaked secret anti-terrorism documents to her, then posted email messages from him as evidence that he had been pursuing her,[13] and sent to the National Post these along with sexually explicit pictures of him that she had received.[5] She was investigated for criminal harassment for this behaviour,[14] but was not charged.[15][16] The OPP's criminal investigations branch cleared the officer of any wrongdoing.[15][16]"
so our timeline is wrong
we say
(1) wrote about him on your blog
(2) posted email messages from him
(3) as a result he files harassment charges
me: exactly. it was a retaliatory complaint on his part that was launched 2 months after they initiated their investigation into his stuff.
jimbo.wales: but the correct timeline is
(1) wrote about him on the blog
me: hahhahaha
jimbo.wales: (2) he files harassment charges
(3) you post email messages to show how his harassment charges are bullshit
me: you're a sh*tdisturber.
right
I only posted the emails after he went public trtying to create trouble.
NOT before that.
jimbo.wales: nod
so we can get that sorted
and then this makes the story clearer
me: that's good of you to do. really.
jimbo.wales: ok so then the other thing is...
in my email I said, here are some thoughts about this, things that need fixing
and i may follow up if there are clarifications from her
but then I said I am recusing myself from it other than that
i explained that we became friends in IM and that I offered to give advice about your website and that we would be meeting about that
me: ahhhh so you qualified it, and left it "up to them".
jimbo.wales: and therefore not appropriate for me to directly edit the article with a conflict of interest
me: which usually, actually, works better than the alternative
jimbo.wales: the truth is of course a much worse conflict of interest than that but that will do
me: aaaaaaaaahahaha. lol
jimbo.wales: well this is an internal mailing list of people who specialize in fixing this kind of stuff, so you are in good hands
me: awwww thank you.
how many people are on the list?
jimbo.wales: oh, huh
I have no idea.
me: hahaha so you told them the half-truth.
jimbo.wales: depends on what the meaning of "is" is
me: ahahahahahha
me: what's that?
plus, they also say he was "cleared". not true.
jimbo.wales: second we exactly and correctly sigh follow the bias of the press
right, so I complained about this
for you, they decided not to pursue charges, for him, he was exonerated... this is bullshit and the truth is the exact opposite
jimbo.wales: right so the way it is told now, hang on a second
let's actually do this right no
because the last thing I want to do is take a break from fucking your brains out all night to work on your wikipedia entry
jimbo.wales: "In September 2007, on her blog Marsden wrote about and posted a picture of a counterterrorism officer for the Ontario Provincial Police with whom she had an affair. She claimed that he had leaked secret anti-terrorism documents to her, then posted email messages from him as evidence that he had been pursuing her,[13] and sent to the National Post these along with sexually explicit pictures of him that she had received.[5] She was investigated for criminal harassment for this behaviour,[14] but was not charged.[15][16] The OPP's criminal investigations branch cleared the officer of any wrongdoing.[15][16]"
so our timeline is wrong
we say
(1) wrote about him on your blog
(2) posted email messages from him
(3) as a result he files harassment charges
me: exactly. it was a retaliatory complaint on his part that was launched 2 months after they initiated their investigation into his stuff.
jimbo.wales: but the correct timeline is
(1) wrote about him on the blog
me: hahhahaha
jimbo.wales: (2) he files harassment charges
(3) you post email messages to show how his harassment charges are bullshit
me: you're a sh*tdisturber.
right
I only posted the emails after he went public trtying to create trouble.
NOT before that.
jimbo.wales: nod
so we can get that sorted
and then this makes the story clearer
me: that's good of you to do. really.
jimbo.wales: ok so then the other thing is...
in my email I said, here are some thoughts about this, things that need fixing
and i may follow up if there are clarifications from her
but then I said I am recusing myself from it other than that
i explained that we became friends in IM and that I offered to give advice about your website and that we would be meeting about that
me: ahhhh so you qualified it, and left it "up to them".
jimbo.wales: and therefore not appropriate for me to directly edit the article with a conflict of interest
me: which usually, actually, works better than the alternative
jimbo.wales: the truth is of course a much worse conflict of interest than that
but that will dome: aaaaaaaaahahaha. lol
jimbo.wales: well this is an internal mailing list of people who specialize in fixing this kind of stuff, so you are in good hands
me: awwww thank you.
how many people are on the list?
jimbo.wales: oh, huh
I have no idea.
me: hahaha so you told them the half-truth.
jimbo.wales: depends on what the meaning of "is" is
me: ahahahahahha
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 11:27pm)
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 6:22pm)
Well, why not tell Daniel who you think he should talk to?
I've set myself certain engagement rules, which I suppose I should put in my signature the way Sarcastic Idealist did. (meanwhile, you could read something that hints at them http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/wikipedia-review-and-my-participation.html) But in any case I'm not competent (in the legal sense) to speak to the matter that ticket raises and I prefer not to put myself in the position of having given him any advice, position, information, etc. on it for a number of different reasons. So as I said, I'll have no further comment. (that in itself was a big long no comment for those playing along at home)
So just pass Daniel up to whatever the
OTRS equivalent of a manager is, and
let that person either comment or pass
Daniel further up the chain.
Posted by: Anaheim Flash
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 2:35pm)
A bit late considering someone already saw it and threatened to cut my fingers off. And at this point, I'm talking to people who have oversight, even if it is rather late.
That's Law Enforcement concern, nevermind oversight. Get complaining straight away, maybe they'll round up Wales for enabling.
AF
Posted by: Somey
To be fair, I don't think there would be any point in having a BLP dispute resolution process on Wikipedia itself - the foxes have been guarding the henhouse for so long now, if anyone tried to change the situation they'd be accused of "breaking tradition."
At the moment, the only real way to deal with a BLP dispute is to go offsite and work towards the goal of discrediting and/or exposing as many involved WP editors and admins as possible, or barring that, towards the goal of eliminating WP as a source of biographical material. The only thing controversial or even objectionable about Daniel Brandt (as far as the rest of the world might be concerned) is that he's included uninvolved parties (i.e., all admins) in his efforts, as enablers.
Several of us, the most prominent/outspoken being Mr. GlassBeadGame, have suggested an independent, "external" reconciliation group of non-Wikipedians to resolve these kinds of disputes, but let's be realistic - any such group would look at articles like the ones on Brandt, Don Murphy, and several others, and say "why are you even hesitating to delete this?" Which, of course, is why such a group will never exist.
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 6:44pm)
So just pass Daniel up to whatever the
OTRS equivalent of a manager is, and
let that person either comment or pass
Daniel further up the chain.
No further comment on what is or isn't being done with that ticket. Sorry.
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Anaheim Flash @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 11:45pm)
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 2:35pm)
A bit late considering someone already saw it and threatened to cut my fingers off. And at this point, I'm talking to people who have oversight, even if it is rather late.
That's Law Enforcement concern, nevermind oversight. Get complaining straight away, maybe they'll round up Wales for enabling.
AF
There is actually an entire thread on this, in which I've
explained my reasons for not wanting to involve law
enforcement. See the link in my signature.
Posted by: WordBomb
QUOTE(Heat @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 4:43pm)
<snip>
OK. this has officially gone from funny to disturbing. But a good kind of disturbing. Sort of. People, we are, at this moment, observing the undoing of Jimbo Wales and his poisonous hold on Wikipedia.
I knew it would happen, but always thought it would happen with a whimper, not a bang, er, so to speak.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 7:17pm)
Yeah, well, I asked an OTRS member to blank something that outed me, then an arbitrator publicly attacked me for doing so…
Which arbitrator?
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 3rd March 2008, 12:05am)
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 7:17pm)
Yeah, well, I asked an OTRS member to blank something that outed me, then an arbitrator publicly attacked me for doing so…
Which arbitrator?
Is that information necessary?
Given the information WP published about me is still
very much publicly available, despite the fact that it's
already lead to threats of physical violence, I am
concerned that giving details might help more people
find it. And, if I ever do convince them to finally
oversight the bloody thing, after hours of IRC and
dozens of e-mails to at least 7 arbitrators and
oversighters at this point, telling you then might
make it seem like I was ungrateful to them for finally
getting rid of it.
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 7:11pm)
It's a bit humorous that I'm being accused of "poking people for my own amusement" and told to "grow up" in a thread where a whole bunch of people are snickering back and forth about Jimbo's ex-girlfriend and how she's selling his stuff on Ebay.... but whatever....
I have no desire to make fun of anyone's non-abusive love life,
but in a break-up, there are some lines that shouldn't be
crossed. I've known of worse break-ups, such as ones that
have involved violence and even rape, but, as far as non-violent
break-ups go, this one is fairly bad. I don't know what is true
and what is not, or which of them to feel sorry for, but
something is clearly going horribly wrong.
Posted by: thekohser
Oh, mercy me, thank the Lord. We can all stand down now. The #1 issue that seemed to concern some of the first Wikipediots who dared to comment on Jimbo's "Marsden Declaration" -- of course, we know the all-important issue was:
Shouldn't there be a link to "OTRS" to help journalists better understand what that is?
-- has finally been resolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statement%2C_March_1st%2C_2008&diff=195438492&oldid=195437419!
Now, the link to OTRS is secure. The page is protected (thanks to my http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statement%2C_March_1st%2C_2008&diff=prev&oldid=195248293). And we can all go home now. Nothing to see here.
P.S. Is Jimbo such a wiki-boob that he doesn't even know how to protect a page of his own (lawyer's) creation? Don't answer. I know the answer already.
Greg
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Aloft @ Sat 1st March 2008, 2:49am)
Wow. He's not kidding when he says that BLP's should be handled in a loving manner.
One of the quotes of the month! Bravo.
If it was just a matter of how much public pain the man was willing to take for a little nookie, well, that's your human male. "I can fix your sink AND your bio, baby; I've got the Tools".
God gave men a brain and a wang, but only enough blood to run one at a time. And there's the consequences later, sure, but that's the human condition. As they used to say in the days before antibiotics, when syphilis was treated with heavy metals: "One night with Venus; one year with mercury." This is the start of Jimbo's unpleasant mercury treatment.But it's not all nookie (Brandt, for instance, has denied ever seeing the BLP-fixing couch
). With Jimbo, from Boomis on, it's been a matter of how much pain 
he's willing to endure on behalf of his BLP policy per se, even when he didn't get anything out of it, personally. He knows it hurts people. Even with special protection, it hurts HIM. Again and again. But, yet, still he's wedded to it. So there's something... monomaniacal here about his attachment to it. It's almost as though he can't do anything about it, and this is one aspect of the encyclopedia which really has gotten away from him, and now is controlled by anonymous board members who (of course) really have no direct exposure to the havoc it causes.Jimbo! Please!
While you still have any power left (and we see you still can get it up in some ways), make WP give UP bios of anybody not already famous enough to be in normal encyclopedias, unless with their permission. It's win-win. YOU will certainly suffer less. So, to repeat, if you can't do it on behalf of other people by reason of empathy, for godsake at least change the policy for WP, if only just to help yourself.
--Milt
Posted by: Heat
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Marsden&diff=prev&oldid=195624795
QUOTE
Obviously you have to do more than fuck somebody to get a decent Wikipedia entry.
Posted by: Samurai Commuter
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 11:49pm)
QUOTE(AB @ Sun 2nd March 2008, 6:44pm)
So just pass Daniel up to whatever the
OTRS equivalent of a manager is, and
let that person either comment or pass
Daniel further up the chain.
No further comment on what is or isn't being done with that ticket. Sorry.
Lar, are you really a checkuser? Have you noticed the rash of WP:DUCK permablocks that have been happening lately, without (or even in spite of) Checkuser results? Does anyone in the leadership at Wikipedia really realize how many innocent people get permablocked as sockpuppets?
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(Samurai Commuter @ Mon 3rd March 2008, 3:59pm)
Lar, are you really a checkuser? Have you noticed the rash of WP:DUCK permablocks that have been happening lately, without (or even in spite of) Checkuser results? Does anyone in the leadership at Wikipedia really realize how many innocent people get permablocked as sockpuppets?
I am really a checkuser, yes. You can examine my WikiMatrix to see where, if you wish. I know that Checkuser is imperfect and that sometimes other means need to be employed. No system of checks, no mechanism of investigation, nothing organized by humans, can ever be perfect.
I hope that helps answer your question.
I would note that right now, a fairly significant arbcom case is turning at least in part on what weight DUCK evidence provided and evaluated by the community should be given.
Posted by: Amarkov
This is ABSURD. The page has now been protected. The information was moved to the Marsden article, where it was promptly removed. Thus, the information now exists nowhere, despite the fact that NOBODY HAS EVEN CLAIMED IT SHOULDN'T BE IN WIKIPEDIA.
Posted by: Heat
QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 3rd March 2008, 11:32pm)
QUOTE(Samurai Commuter @ Mon 3rd March 2008, 3:59pm)
Lar, are you really a checkuser? Have you noticed the rash of WP:DUCK permablocks that have been happening lately, without (or even in spite of) Checkuser results? Does anyone in the leadership at Wikipedia really realize how many innocent people get permablocked as sockpuppets?
I am really a checkuser, yes. You can examine my WikiMatrix to see where, if you wish. I know that Checkuser is imperfect and that sometimes other means need to be employed. No system of checks, no mechanism of investigation, nothing organized by humans, can ever be perfect.
I hope that helps answer your question.
I would note that right now, a fairly significant arbcom case is turning at least in part on what weight DUCK evidence provided and evaluated by the community should be given.
Yes, it is interesting that the WP:DUCK buck stops at Gary Weiss even though the Mantanmoreland sock evidence is far stronger and more thorough than what sunk a lot of other Ducks.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Mon 3rd March 2008, 11:47pm)
This is ABSURD. The page has now been protected. The information was moved to the Marsden article, where it was promptly removed. Thus, the information now exists nowhere, despite the fact that NOBODY HAS EVEN CLAIMED IT SHOULDN'T BE IN WIKIPEDIA.
Oh come on, since when are the Times of London, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Wired Magazine considered reliable sources on anything?
Posted by: Eleland
At times like this, the only thing you can say is,
TRULY EPIC LULZ
Seriously though, I think those chat logs are fabricated. They're just too perfect. Jimbo paranoid about the Google guys eavesdropping? Joking about how he doesn't want to take time out from sex to edit her Wikipedia article? As much as I'd love to believe Jimbo is that crazy, it's too much. She is, after all, a psycho hose beast of the first order.
But the allegations of Jimbo abusing WMF expense accounts will stick. They're supported by multiple lines of evidence, and reliable sources (ha, ha) ran with them.
I've always been rather skeptical about those who predict the imminent demise of Wikipedia. Given that WP still has, at its nucleus, a Jimbo personality cult, and Jimbo's reputation is apparently going down in flames, I may have to revise that skeptical stance.
Posted by: The Joy
ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4386200
Posted by: Nathan
Moderator note: I absent-mindedly posted something here and deleted it as a retraction, as well as its reply by Amarkov (for no other reason other than because a response to a deleted post would make no sense).
This epic saga has http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2008/03/04/wikipedia_founder_dumps_girlfriend_online/2493/ so double the chances it will hit the NYT.
I'm getting impatient! 
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Eleland @ Wed 5th March 2008, 12:12am)
At times like this, the only thing you can say is,
TRULY EPIC LULZ
Seriously though, I think those chat logs are fabricated. They're just too perfect. Jimbo paranoid about the Google guys eavesdropping? Joking about how he doesn't want to take time out from sex to edit her Wikipedia article? As much as I'd love to believe Jimbo is that crazy, it's too much. She is, after all, a psycho hose beast of the first order.
Did you take a look at http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=125 ? The very changes discussed in the chatlog were later made by other admins, which is fishy indeed. So if the deal wasn't done in this way, it's a very fancy bit of embroidery by a woman scorned.
It occurs to me that Jimbo's language in his supposed chats can be subjected to sock analysis in just the way we've long done it. For example, he chat-writes: "Nodding." Is that a characteristic of Jimbo agreeing to something in chat-mode? Inquiring minds want to know. And there are a bunch of other little quirks that should be identifiable.
-- Milt
Posted by: Heat
QUOTE(Nathan @ Wed 5th March 2008, 3:56am)
Moderator note: I absent-mindedly posted something here and deleted it as a retraction, as well as its reply by Amarkov (for no other reason other than because a response to a deleted post would make no sense).
This epic saga has http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2008/03/04/wikipedia_founder_dumps_girlfriend_online/2493/ so double the chances it will hit the NYT.
I'm getting impatient!
The NY Times has the AP story
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Wikipedia-Founder.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=marsden&st=nyt&oref=slogin
I think Erik Moeller is right. I'm tired of these tabloids like the New York Times, Washington Post, Times of London and Daily Telegraph (yes, the Wales story is there too) muckraking like this.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Heat @ Wed 5th March 2008, 4:09am)
I think Erik Moeller is right. I'm tired of these tabloids like the New York Times, Washington Post, Times of London and Daily Telegraph (yes, the Wales story is there too) muckraking like this.
Yes, these attack sites have been spreading their harrassment memes and trolling for a long time. They must be attacked.
Release JzG on them!
ATTACK!!!
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 5th March 2008, 4:05am)
Did you take a look at http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=125 ? The very changes discussed in the chatlog were later made by other admins, which is fishy indeed. So if the deal wasn't done in this way, it's a very fancy bit of embroidery by a woman scorned.
Keep up Milton, we spotted this long ago
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=5196&view=findpost&p=82386
Guess who made http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=next&oldid=189783275
ATTACK!!!
Posted by: Nathan
Heat: It's about time too!
Nope, NYT is not notable at all...
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 4th March 2008, 11:05pm)
It occurs to me that Jimbo's language in his supposed chats can be subjected to sock analysis in just the way we've long done it. For example, he chat-writes: "Nodding". Is that a characteristic of Jimbo agreeing to something in chat-mode? Inquiring minds want to know. And there are a bunch of other little quirks that should be identifiable.
-- Milt
Nodding? R U Xperienced? I think it means he's either Sleepy or Dopey, and if doesn't see his "Doc" real soon he's gonna be real Grumpy. Don't even get me started on what Snow White and Sneezy are up to.
¬ 2 B Trash Talk N R N E Thang …
Jonny
Posted by: everyking
QUOTE(Heat @ Wed 5th March 2008, 5:09am)
QUOTE(Nathan @ Wed 5th March 2008, 3:56am)
Moderator note: I absent-mindedly posted something here and deleted it as a retraction, as well as its reply by Amarkov (for no other reason other than because a response to a deleted post would make no sense).
This epic saga has http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2008/03/04/wikipedia_founder_dumps_girlfriend_online/2493/ so double the chances it will hit the NYT.
I'm getting impatient!
The NY Times has the AP story
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Wikipedia-Founder.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=marsden&st=nyt&oref=slogin
I think Erik Moeller is right. I'm tired of these tabloids like the New York Times, Washington Post, Times of London and Daily Telegraph (yes, the Wales story is there too) muckraking like this.
It seems to me that this scandal has the level of press coverage to warrant an article of its own.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Giano's view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=196036546
QUOTE
I hope no one reverts me here because this is very pertinent to Wikipedia's current affairs, and I'm posting as I want this to be widely read,both inside and outside Wikipedia. I think I am the person with the Wiki-knowledge and standing to say this. I have been asked by the press for my views, so I thought it would be honest, and correct, to publish them here.
Over the last few days like many others I have smiled at J Wales discomfort, and as you all know I don't have a huge amount of respect for him, so bearing that in mind, I hope you will all take to heart what I'm about to say, I have read all the gossip both the titilatious and libellous - and my opinion: There is no story. I first heard the rumours concerning his marriage and finances before Christmas, and the fact I dismissed them should tell you all something. I also have heard that many close to him would like to stick a knife in his back, so perhaps that should be born in mind too. An awful lot of emails do seem to go astray don't they? In fact, I have never seen such a badly organized, ham fisted and amateur assassination attempt in my life, and I've seen a few. Let's look at the facts:
He's been caught with his trousers down looking stupid, if that was an impeachable and serious offence the world would be devoid of half its leaders. In my opinion it's a huge pity she is not selling all his clothes, he's a scruffy looking bastard, and the prestige of Wikipedia would be improved if he invested in a couple of Italian suits, and you see, it is the prestige of Wikipedia that brings me to the details of the expense account - again no impeachable story. For the benefit of those who don't have huge expense accounts let me spell out a few unsavoury truths.
When on company business, if your expenditure improves (in your opinion) the prestige and value of the company - you can spend what you like, if your dining with an important client you give him Montrachet to drink not Australian, or Californian, chardonnay. Similarly, if on tour and you have back pain, one can justify a massage on company expenses to keep the tour going. It matters not, that some of us may think he could have been more frugal, and that massage has connotations, if he says the expenses were justified that is the end of the story. You can spend what you like, so long as you believe that expenditure will benefit in some way the company. That is all he has to say - and he will say that. He has not been caught with his fingers in the cash box.
There is not an Chief Executive alive, of any major company, who has not been berated by the Finance Secretary for losing receipts, when you are busy you shove them in pockets, then the suit (or those scruffy jeans) goes to the dry cleaners etc. etc. etc. - you get out of a taxi in a hurry and don't even pick the receipt up - for some daft reason I store them in hotel ash trays and then the chambermaid throws them away... this whole business is ludicrous.
Has he influenced the content of the Marsden page, in my opinion, yes, he probably has. However, I don't see any concrete evidence of it. and even if he has, it is not a serious enough crime for the torrents of abuse and publicity he is receiving - a warning from the Arbcom on his page is sufficient if that is ever proved.
I have not read or heard of one word, that would stand up in any court against him. If people want to get rid of Jimbo, they are going to have to find something more concrete than this - being a very poor judge of character is all he is guilty of, and that is not enough. The many millions of words written on this subject amount to nothing. Those that seek to be rid of him, have overplayed their cards - they did not even have enough points for an opening bid.
He may feel he has to resign over this, if he does not, and in my view, he need not, and people still want to be rid of J Wales, or curb his powers, it has to be done in an open, honest and frank way. The current state of affairs demeans the whole encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
Well, it *is* trademark Giano.
"Above it all", no-mud-wallowing, high principles, and good humor.
Along with a non-subtle plug for Italian fashion™.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
Giano has no sense whatsoever of what the word "nonprofit" means. Sure, some execs of fat foundations make fat salaries. Some university presidents get paid way too much. But when they get caught with their pants down, they're out the door. Go quietly or not — that's the only choice they have.
Posted by: Kato
I stopped reading when I read "There is no story".
For chrissake Giano. A thousand newspaper editors seem to disagree.
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 5th March 2008, 8:40am)
Giano has no sense whatsoever of what the word "nonprofit" means. Sure, some execs of fat foundations make fat salaries. Some university presidents get paid way too much. But when they get caught with their pants down, they're out the door. Go quietly or not — that's the only choice they have.
Actually, he's right. But he's referencing the specific financial points.
What's going to bring Jimbo down is the lurid details of the Rachel Marsten thing, which puts the whole issue of "who (or rather what) Jimbo is" on display. And it ain't pretty. No one really cared before, but sex sells, and there's sex in this story, so its a front pager.
And suddenly his system of COI, and all the dirt hits the fan, just as Danny is airing the dirty laundry online. Can anyone say: "Hell to pay?"
Also, Giano speaks as a European. Things are different on that side of the pond. Until recently, many European countries allowed bribes as tax writeoffs. NOT kidding.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 5th March 2008, 2:45pm)
Also, Giano speaks as a European. Things are different on that side of the pond. Until recently, many European countries allowed bribes as tax writeoffs. NOT kidding.
Giano's British isn't he? What are you talking about?
He's talking utter nonsense. And another thing, how would "the press ask him for his views"? No one knows who he is?
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 5th March 2008, 8:43am)
I stopped reading when I read "There is no story".
For chrissake Giano. A thousand newspaper editors seem to disagree.
I agree that this is a bit much.
It does fall in line with the old world European view that the sex lives of leaders have no place in the press. And that Americans are far too puritanical, and BLAH BLAH BLAH.
That old world view is also very hypocritical, I hasten to add. Sarkozy HAD to marry his girlfriend, the model, and FAST, because the very conservative French didn't like their leader having sleepovers out of wedlock. We Americans think that the French are wide open liberal, but go try dating a French person, and suddenly Americans look awfully open minded. Ask me
Italy is a last ditch holdout, with many dirty old men feeling quite safe in practice of their trade in their real jobs.
Which are sort of more of a hobby (the jobs, I mean) and the dirty behavior the professional emphasis (apologies to Giano, but I have my own basis for opinion - and that isn't a blanket critique of Italians, just some particular ones, and some of them I know personally).QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 5th March 2008, 8:50am)
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 5th March 2008, 2:45pm)
Also, Giano speaks as a European. Things are different on that side of the pond. Until recently, many European countries allowed bribes as tax writeoffs. NOT kidding.
Giano's British isn't he? What are you talking about?
He's talking utter nonsense. And another thing, how would "the press ask him for his views"? No one knows who he is?
Many journalists were hot after Giano during the December scandal of Durovagate. Rumor has it that he eschews the press, and did so last December. If he did want to comment on this matter, he'd not be forced to make much of an effort.
Giano, I think, lives in GB, but he's one of those EU creatures, that has one passport, and lives in another EU
As far as writing off bribes (which I believe the intention of which was to be when you had to make bribes in "certain" "other" countries to get business done), Germany allowed it until fairly recently, when the OECD put the kabosh on that practice. Maybe France too. I forget, and cant be bothered to check.
QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 5th March 2008, 12:49am)
It seems to me that this scandal has the level of press coverage to warrant an article of its own.
HA!
Because THATs, going to happen.
And I'm sure it will be supressed, and make Wales look even worse for the suppression, because the press has gone nuts over the story, and will go accordingly nuts over Wikipedia's very predictable attempts to ignore it on-wiki.
Posted by: Kato
"Old World"? I've lived in the "Old World" for many decades. In contrast to the US, the press chases stories on the sex lives of leaders and mocks the US media for its deferential attitude to the rich and powerful. In Europe people get chased down underpasses by paparazzi (named after Fellini's celebrity chaser in La Dolce Vita) on motorbikes. It's so aggressive people get killed over stories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello! Or should I say http://www.hola.com/? In Spain and Italy, all people do is talk about the sex lives of the rich and famous. In the UK, it can bring down a government, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profumo_Affair.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 5th March 2008, 3:10pm)
"Old World"? I've lived in the "Old World" for many decades. In contrast to the US, the press chases stories on the sex lives of leaders and mocks the US media for its deferential attitude to the rich and powerful. In Europe people get chased down underpasses by paparazzi (named after Fellini's celebrity chaser in La Dolce Vita) on motorbikes. It's so aggressive people get killed over stories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello! Or should I say http://www.hola.com/? In Spain and Italy, all people do is talk about the sex lives of the rich and famous. In the UK, it can bring down a government, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profumo_Affair.
A slight oversimplification to say it was an affair that brought down the Government, but yes, these things can happen.
Then again, the married with kids Mark Oaten was challenging for the leadership of the Lib Dem Party when it emerged he regularly paid rent boys to shit on him.
Then again, it didn't emerge (due to use of D-notices) that Tony Blair's daughter tried to commit suicide a few years back when she was being bullied about her dad's foreign policy!
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 5th March 2008, 9:10am)
"Old World"? I've lived in the "Old World" for many decades. In contrast to the US, the press chases stories on the sex lives of leaders and mocks the US media for its deferential attitude to the rich and powerful. In Europe people get chased down underpasses by paparazzi (named after Fellini's celebrity chaser in La Dolce Vita) on motorbikes. It's so aggressive people get killed over stories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello! Or should I say http://www.hola.com/? In Spain and Italy, all people do is talk about the sex lives of the rich and famous. In the UK, it can bring down a government, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profumo_Affair.
I knew I was going to get flamed for such a generalization, but well, hell, that's life.
The UK is an exception to the old rule. The British are extremely harsh on moral turpitude among politicos, a fact to which much history attests. No press eats a politician alive like the British press. And if the Brits had their way, Clinton would have been not only impeached, but impaled, and hung out for the dog's to dry. I remember this bit of friendly advice from the Economist, "If It's True, Go" (Cover story of the prominent weekly periodical) with a baleful looking Pres on the front page.
And the old rule is being broken. Sarkozy's wife's case was a watershed, for the old French way. Remember that Mitterand had an entire other family for ages, including a child (daughter) out of wedlock (and an effective 2nd family, as his relationship to the mother was a longstanding affair), which the press politely hush-hushed up, until he was near death and started being seen in public with her, probably as a sort of compense for the years she was hidden.
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(jorge @ Sat 1st March 2008, 1:59pm)
He has to go because he can't be trusted not to intervene, or to get others to do so for him in biographies of people with whom he is connected.
Well, many people on WR have thought he needed to go for EVAH, of course.
And a few days later, I retract what I said.
This is a press firestorm, and it might do the trick.
If it were a matter of cheating on his wife, however lurid, it wouldn'tve cut it for a kickout.
It's a different world, with Rachel's own kick-back-at-him-for-the-crap-breakup (when, oh when, will Jimbo NOT do the wrong thing when faced with bad publicity? Dumping his babe, to avoid problems, only made it MUCH MUCH WORSE. Oh boy has Jimbo met his match in this woman, MAN, has he ever).
Talk about the worst woman to dump cruelly, and publicly if you don't want bad press. Wow.
Posted by: Kato
Anyway, the crux of the matter is that Giano is wrong. Of course it is a story. The story is neatly outlined by the Balitimore Sun here:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.wikipedia05mar05,0,6838851.story
...and ends with
QUOTE(Sun)
[Marsden] published transcripts of messages in which Wales explained how he would lean on a committee to fix her Wikipedia entry to her liking.
Which takes us back to the point of our thread back in 2006, and Somey's premonitions of Jimbo starting a relationship with Marsden, and her getting her article fixed.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5196
Posted by: dogbiscuit
Rachel Marsden is a nutter though. Unless there is more to the relationship than a one night stand, and there does not seem to have been much more than that, I find it hard to count that as a boyfriend/girlfriend split and struggle to see why she would go there except for the notch on the headboard for a high profile scalp. The whole, "I've never met you properly before but I am looking forward to my 24 hours of fun, friendship and possibly more" is most peculiar.
Methinks she does protest too much, and can't see that there was any relationship to bother over. It still beggars believe that anyone who was aware of her reputation as a man eater would go there. Shudder...
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 5th March 2008, 11:21am)
Methinks she does protest too much, and can't see that there was any relationship to bother over.
No matter.
Being dumped online, ON WIKIPEDIA (with corresponding follow-up IM, as a "special favor") is a level of scumbaggery that even the most freewheeling of maneaters doesn't deserve.
I mean, being dumped on Wikipedia.
I'm surprised that she had the good humor she did, to use Ebay. Most women would have gone to Walmart and gone gun shopping.
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 5th March 2008, 11:21am)
The whole, "I've never met you properly before but I am looking forward to my 24 hours of fun,
Not really.
It's also called "hitting on a famous person". I'm sure old Jimmy gets lots of those.
It boggles the mind, but he probably does.
Ewww.
Posted by: LessHorrid vanU
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 5th March 2008, 7:24pm)
...
It's also called "hitting on a famous person". I'm sure old Jimmy gets lots of those.
It boggles the mind, but he probably does.
Ewww.
Now do you realise why there are so many male hormonal teenage admins?
Posted by: Heat
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 5th March 2008, 4:14pm)
Talk about the worst woman to dump cruelly, and publicly if you don't want bad press. Wow.
Didn't Keith Olbermann name Marsden the "Worst Person in the World" one day?
Anyway, I'm surprised no one has mentioned Jimbo's most serious transgression with Rachel Marsden - conducting original research.
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 5th March 2008, 2:24pm)
I'm surprised that she had the good humor she did, to use Ebay. Most women would have gone to Walmart and gone gun shopping.
Thankfully for him he didn't get mixed up with Carolyn Doran!
thanks for the easy set up...
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Wed 5th March 2008, 3:18pm)
Then again, the married with kids Mark Oaten was challenging for the leadership of the Lib Dem Party when it emerged he regularly paid rent boys to shit on him.
Then again, the married with kids Mark Oaten was never taken very seriously as a possible leader of the Lib Dem Party.
QUOTE
Then again, it didn't emerge (due to use of D-notices) that Tony Blair's daughter tried to commit suicide a few years back when she was being bullied about her dad's foreign policy!
Then again, I'm far from convinced that that ever happened. There was only ever one source for that
http://www.bilderberg.org/pepis04.htm#60
and I wouldn't trust that site very far.
Posted by: Heat
It appears that there are no longer any reliable news sources in the world. Everything from the NY Times to the Times of London is a tabloid.
We wish to announce that as a result, we will be offering a daily print edition of Wikinews. Accept no other news sources a there are no others.
In unrelated news, Wikipedia would like to announce the launch of its Newspeak edition. Initially, Wikipedia.newspeak will exist alongside the Oldspeak (standard English) edition. However, we anticipate that by 1984, I mean 2014, we will be able to phase out the Oldspeak edition as well as the rest of the internet as there will be no need for anything other than the Newspeak edition.
We will also be dispensing with article "histories" since once a wikipedia article is changed, its previous versions are deemed to have never existed. Indeed, any change to an article is an illusion as in fact the article was always the way it appears to be in its latest version.
That is all.
Posted by: Replacement Party
QUOTE(Heat @ Wed 5th March 2008, 9:14pm)
Didn't Keith Olbermann name Marsden the "Worst Person in the World" one day?
I'm not sure if she made the worst person list, but Olbermann did do a story about her "colorful past" after she tried to argue the Duke lacrosse players weren't harmed by the false rape charges.
Posted by: Heat
QUOTE(Replacement Party @ Wed 5th March 2008, 11:19pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Wed 5th March 2008, 9:14pm)
Didn't Keith Olbermann name Marsden the "Worst Person in the World" one day?
I'm not sure if she made the worst person list, but Olbermann did do a story about her "colorful past" after she tried to argue the Duke lacrosse players weren't harmed by the false rape charges.
Of course not. Marsden's false rape charges against Liam Donnelly didn't do him any harm. That's why the current Jimmy approved version of the Rachel Marsden article reduces the incident to a he said/she said where they simply "accused each other of sexual harassment".
Posted by: One
QUOTE(Replacement Party @ Wed 5th March 2008, 11:19pm)
QUOTE(Heat @ Wed 5th March 2008, 9:14pm)
Didn't Keith Olbermann name Marsden the "Worst Person in the World" one day?
I'm not sure if she made the worst person list, but Olbermann did do a story about her "colorful past" after she tried to argue the Duke lacrosse players weren't harmed by the false rape charges.
This is all I could find:
QUOTE(Kieth Olbermann March 29 @ 2007)
OLBERMANN: Dude, we`ve captured our own stupidity on videotape. Hey, we`re not judging you. In fact, if we found this a week earlier, you guys might have earned yourself a Keithy.
Speaking of, tonight, the final grouping of nominees for the 2007 annual awards honoring the best of Web, category, Greatest Animal in All the Internets.
And he once made the joke himself. But are Laura and Barney now truly the president`s only supporters?
Those stories ahead.
Now, though, here are COUNTDOWN`s top three newsmakers of this day.
Number three, Roxana Arias Becerra, Miss Bolivia of 1993, arrested on charges of trying to take nearly two pounds of cocaine over the Brazilian border. A sad story, no doubt, but mentioned here only because a week ago, Sonya Falcone (ph), Miss Bolivia 1988, was ordered out of this country after she pleaded guilty to employing four illegal immigrants as household servants. You guys need to meet Tara Conner.
Number two, Sean Diddy Combs tells "The London Daily Mirror" that he had a nice, romantic trip to Paris with girlfriend Kim Porter. We went up to my suite and had tantric sex for at least 30 hours. You know, Mr. Diddy, they do say, if it lasts more than four hours, consult your doctor.
Number one, Rachel Marsden of Fox Noise Channel not going to be happy with her profile on Salon.com, not after she explained to Fox viewers how the Duke lacrosse players won`t suffer any long-term aftereffects from the false rape accusations made against them. Salon reports Ms. Marsden had filed quote, "questionable rape charges" of her own in her native Canada a decade ago, and later pleaded guilty to stalking, criminally stalking, a male Canadian radio host. Ms. Marsden, meet Mr. O`Reilly.
Speaking of, tonight, the final grouping of nominees for the 2007 annual awards honoring the best of Web, category, Greatest Animal in All the Internets.
And he once made the joke himself. But are Laura and Barney now truly the president`s only supporters?
Those stories ahead.
Now, though, here are COUNTDOWN`s top three newsmakers of this day.
Number three, Roxana Arias Becerra, Miss Bolivia of 1993, arrested on charges of trying to take nearly two pounds of cocaine over the Brazilian border. A sad story, no doubt, but mentioned here only because a week ago, Sonya Falcone (ph), Miss Bolivia 1988, was ordered out of this country after she pleaded guilty to employing four illegal immigrants as household servants. You guys need to meet Tara Conner.
Number two, Sean Diddy Combs tells "The London Daily Mirror" that he had a nice, romantic trip to Paris with girlfriend Kim Porter. We went up to my suite and had tantric sex for at least 30 hours. You know, Mr. Diddy, they do say, if it lasts more than four hours, consult your doctor.
Number one, Rachel Marsden of Fox Noise Channel not going to be happy with her profile on Salon.com, not after she explained to Fox viewers how the Duke lacrosse players won`t suffer any long-term aftereffects from the false rape accusations made against them. Salon reports Ms. Marsden had filed quote, "questionable rape charges" of her own in her native Canada a decade ago, and later pleaded guilty to stalking, criminally stalking, a male Canadian radio host. Ms. Marsden, meet Mr. O`Reilly.
On this day, "Comedian Rush Limbaugh" was Worst Person in the World.
Posted by: Nathan
Another new piece from Cade Metz at the Register.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/06/a_model_wikipedian/
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
QUOTE(Heat @ Wed 5th March 2008, 5:19pm)
We will also be dispensing with article "histories" since once a wikipedia article is changed, its previous versions are deemed to have never existed. Indeed, any change to an article is an illusion as in fact the article was always the way it appears to be in its latest version.
That is all.
All that openly available libel and defamation, gone?
Wow.
What genius at WMF figured this one out?
Godwin?
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Wed 5th March 2008, 3:15pm)
Thankfully for him he didn't get mixed up with Carolyn Doran!
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Wed 5th March 2008, 3:15pm)
thanks for the easy set up...
But I'll do you one better....
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Wed 5th March 2008, 3:15pm)
Thankfully for him he didn't get mixed up with Carolyn Doran!
Or (drumroll..) Thankfully for him he didn't get mixed up with Lorena Bobitt!
Posted by: Nathan
Perhaps Jimbo should have read this first: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1225599
;-)
Posted by: Cedric
CANADA
Where false rape charges cause no harm
since 1867
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Marsden posting to Jimbo. Also note the history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=200307525&oldid=200307410
QUOTE
As anyone who has ever cared about Jimbo here knows, the only way to have any sort of rational or caring discussion with him is in the Wikimatrix here. Alright, fine. Game on, sweetheart. Newsflash: Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia; it is a cult. I wouldn't even be included in a real encyclopedia. I want the Wikipedia entry about me deleted. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to accept. This is not a publishing company, nor is it some kind of altruistic venture for the greater good of humanity. Wikipedia is nothing more than the biggest and most prolific defamation machine that the world has ever known, run by people with varying degrees of personality disorders. You couldn't have cared less about my Wikipedia entry until we started sleeping together, Jimmy. At that point, it was nicely cleaned up and taken care of through your proxies here on the site, as per your instructions (and it's not the first time an article has been cleaned up through a proxy, as per your orders...this kind of stuff, contrary to popular belief, doesn't just happen "magically" here on Wikipedia). Now that we're not sleeping together and since you so publicly broke up with my here on this website, the page about me has turned into a complete free-for-all. Are you aware, Jimmy, that "NPOV" (aka "Neutral Point Of View") is actually an oxymoron? By its very nature, a "point of view" cannot be "neutral". Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried, Jimmy, and Wikipedia is no exception. As for you trying to make it seem as though your invisible hand isn't involved in any of this, perhaps it's wise for people to remember that the greatest feat the devil ever pulled off was convincing people that he doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelMarsden (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Posted by: Heat
Reverted 47 minutes later as vandalism.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE
...I want the Wikipedia entry about me deleted. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to accept. This is not a publishing company, nor is it some kind of altruistic venture for the greater good of humanity. Wikipedia is nothing more than the biggest and most prolific defamation machine that the world has ever known, run by people with varying degrees of personality disorders.
I know what it sounds like, but I swear, my invisible hand never touched her!
Posted by: Aloft
QUOTE
This is not a publishing company, nor is it some kind of altruistic venture for the greater good of humanity. Wikipedia is nothing more than the biggest and most prolific defamation machine that the world has ever known, run by people with varying degrees of personality disorders.
Wow. She pretty much nailed it there.
Posted by: Moulton
I agree. For whatever other faults she may have, she accurately characterized the most disturbing aspect of Wikipedia, namely its passion for bringing the subject of BLPs (as well as fellow editors) into disrepute.