Jimbo-Marsden-gate explodes, Rachel releases evidence of Jimbo's COI Options

[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

[Kato]

Here's the big one. The Times of London. It doesn't get more formal a newspaper source than that. They refer to Mr Wales and Ms Marsden throughout.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle3475722.ece

[The Wales Hunter]

Here's the big one. The Times of London. It doesn't get more formal a newspaper source than that. They refer to Mr Wales and Ms Marsden throughout.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle3475722.ece

If The (London) Times is not considered a reliable source they may as well scrap WP:RS!

But it looks as though the incident is non-notable, in their view.

I like how edit summary "update infobox" means "remove reference of his wife"

He is still married, although separated, right?

Edit: And I reckon Jimbo let this out to cover for Gary Weiss!

This post has been edited by The Wales Hunter: Mon 3rd March 2008, 9:40pm

[AB]

Edit: And I reckon Jimbo let this out to cover for Gary Weiss!

Well, taking a publicity hit for anyone he cared
about would be a compassionate thing to do....

But I'm having difficulty remembering a time
when he's been that selfless?