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

[jorge]

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!

Are you insinuating that this might be a publicity stunt?

[The Wales Hunter]

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!

Are you insinuating that this might be a publicity stunt?

It sure looks like one from where I am standing!

It just seems too perfect, and the spread of the story appears too well controlled, too.

Too many people claim to have known about it previously for it not to have slipped out before.

[dogbiscuit]

Too many people claim to have known about it previously for it not to have slipped out before.

That is simply the "I told you so" effect.

All you are seeing is the typical tabloid cycle that we get all the time in the UK.

Person A does something vaguely of note.

Press pick up on A.

A gains credibility because of press.

(a) A becomes successful and press jumps on bandwagon.

A is idolised by apparently uncritical press (which at the same time is salting away juicy titbits for future use).

Press become bored of success, and start moaning.

A starts bemoaning the fickle press.

A eventually commits/rumoured to have committed/framed into a minor/major indiscretion.

Press get bored and decide it is time to press the Big Red Button and surprise, surprise, discover they have all the dirt on last week's Hero That Could Do No Wrong.

At this point, A implodes and becomes no-news and vanishes.

Some time later, A revives, becomes press hero for overcoming previous setback. Go to (a)

Note that very few facts are needed for this loop.

Perhaps those guardians of WP:V and WP:OR (aka the cabal) will realise that they did want some qualification of the mainstream press being a reliable source after all.

[The Wales Hunter]

All you are seeing is the typical tabloid cycle that we get all the time in the UK.

I have worked for tabloids here (UK), so I don't deny it! But it just seems more than that. It has a Labour Party "good day to bury bad news" feel to it, that's all. We'll see.

Something does seem very wise, though. Or is that Weiss?

[dogbiscuit]

It has a Labour Party "good day to bury bad news" feel to it, that's all. We'll see.

Something does seem very wise, though. Or is that Weiss?

That seems a little like Gordon Brown admitting to be a heroin addict just to take the heat off another outbreak of MRSA in hospitals.