Jimbo & Rachel Marsden : Scandalous, can you say WP:COItus? Options

[Lar]

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Lar: Sun 2nd March 2008, 11:21pm

[AB]

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.

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.

Well, why not tell Daniel who you think he should talk to?

[Lar]

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 here) 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)

[Heat]

Uh-oh, Jimmy lied !

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

This post has been edited by Heat: Sun 2nd March 2008, 11:48pm

[AB]

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 here) 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.

[Anaheim Flash]

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

[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.

[Lar]

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.

[AB]

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.

[WordBomb]

<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.

[Proabivouac]

Yeah, well, I asked an OTRS member to blank something that outed me, then an arbitrator publicly attacked me for doing so…

Which arbitrator?

[AB]

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.

[AB]

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.

[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. By Jimbo himself!

Now, the link to OTRS is secure. The page is protected (thanks to my best buddy Krimpet). 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

[Milton Roe]

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

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Mon 3rd March 2008, 7:01pm

[Heat]

diff

Obviously you have to do more than fuck somebody to get a decent Wikipedia entry.

[Samurai Commuter]

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?

[Lar]

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.

[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.

[Heat]

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.

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?