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
Jimbo-Marsden-gate explodes, Rachel releases evidence of Jimbo's COI
Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > News Worth Discussing > Notable WikiScandals > The Rachel Marsden affair
Heat Jimbo-Marsden-gate explodes Sun 2nd March 2008, 11:54pm
Sun 2nd March 2008, 11:54pm
