Rachel Marsden, pt. infinity Options

[Sceptre]

ANI drama

Throwing this to you because I'm shocked you haven't picked it up already. I find it weird that Marsden isn't banned for comments anyone else would get banned for. (Whether she should is a different matter)

[The Wales Hunter]

I posted in the media section by mistake

Marsden posting to Jimbo. Also note the history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=200307410

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)

[Peter Damian]

Apologies if already posted.

[edit] yes it was already posted but I put this

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.

in bold as it seemed especially poetic.

[edit] also

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.

Oh, I know all about WP:SOAP, dear. You're talking to the woman whose ex-boyfriend (Jimbo) used this very "encyclopedia" as his own personal soapbox to announce his break-up with her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelMarsden (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Caribbean_H.Q."

I have removed that post from your talkpage as it is the same ovrersighted message that was posted on [[User talk:Jwales]] which was oversighted. [[User:AndreNatas|AndreNatas]] ([[User talk:AndreNatas|talk]]) 16:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
+ ::Excellent! Keep up the whitewashing. Please. Great work. It's only giving folks paying attention here in the real world more ammo against Wikipedia. :-)

Edit war
Please do not edit war as on User talk:Jimbo Wales; please try talking to the editor you are in dispute with. GDonato (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, cause that TOTALLY works.
If you try to resolve disputes in a calm manner, others will generally be more willing to listen. I understand your concerns but sarcasm is less helpful and likely to see you blocked from editing if you are not careful. I understand your concerns and am not convinced on-wiki is the best way to solve this. Best wishes, GDonato (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of us have lives, dear. We live/work in the real world and don't have time for this nonse.se Thanks, but I'd rather deal with this in the "real" world. I agree that it's not going to be solved here. But the behaviour of people on this site in reaction to my post proved exactly the point that I was making. And that's all I was looking for, frankly. Cheers.
Please also review the three revert rule. Basically, if you make more than three reverts to/from the same content in a 24hr period, you can be blocked. Wikipedia's also not the place to vent about Jimbo/your treatment (yes I know Jimbo "dumped you" on WP - that was out of order in my opinion and I expect he's been spoken to about it). Perhaps the most appropriate thing I can say is "don't descend to his level". Thanks, Martinp23 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RachelMarsden, you are posting your edits on the wrong site. We are playing the game "Write an encyclopedia" here. The game you wish to play is being played at a site called Wikipedia Review. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that this is nothing more than a game. Indeed, the reaction here to my post perfectly illustrated the very point that I was making with it. That's all I wanted to confirm. Have fun playing "encyclopedia".
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RachelMarsden"

:If you're not here to help the encyclopedia, go away. We regularly ban annoyances like you without a second thought. [[User talk:John Reaves|John Reaves]] 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
+ :::This is the first time in the history of mankind that "encyclopedia" has been synonymous with "cult". I find that highly amusing. BTW, feel free and ban me, dear, for making an honest, constructive critique of this whole operation -- and merly restating the fact that I want to be completely disassociated with this cult and have my "article" on here permanently deleted. Banning me will only serve to prove my point, and give me something else to pass on to the "real world" media in all this. I'm sure you know by now that they're kind of paying a bit of attention.

::Please, John, could you be at least a bit more civil here? --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC) ::Please, John, could you be at least a bit more civil here? --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...alk:Jimbo_Wales

Looks like a clear cut case of trolling to me. If she continues, block here. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not get back at our exes. John Reaves 16:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but in the interests of writing an encyclopaedia, I think it's best to just leave well alone. Do we really want to take on a woman scorned? It won't be pretty. --Tango (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

*More like WP:PROTECTJIMBOSFEELINGS. ;-) [[User_talk:Daveh4h|daveh4h]] 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Iv'e been evicted from the Spanish Wikipedia. How can we ruin this site?
[[User:Damifb|Damifb]] ([[User talk:Damifb|talk]]) 16:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
+ :You won't have to, dear. Much love, Rachel

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 23rd March 2008, 5:13pm

[wikiwhistle]

Iv'e been evicted from the Spanish Wikipedia. How can we ruin this site?
[[User:Damifb|Damifb]] ([[User talk:Damifb|talk]]) 16:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
+ :You won't have to, dear. Much love, Rachel

Lol she's actually quite witty IMHO

[Peter Damian]

Iv'e been evicted from the Spanish Wikipedia. How can we ruin this site?
[[User:Damifb|Damifb]] ([[User talk:Damifb|talk]]) 16:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
+ :You won't have to, dear. Much love, Rachel

Lol she's actually quite witty IMHO

LOL and she's banned.

User:RachelMarsden
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RachelMarsden"

17:14, 23 March 2008 John Reaves (Talk | contribs) blocked "RachelMarsden (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (enough trolling for now, goodbye)

He finally did it. There was a lot of opposition to this on ANI, o/a the obvious publicity backlash.

Rachel
Just do it. The rest are pussyfooting around :/ Sceptre (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

She's had a warning, if I'm around when she starts back up, I'll do it. John Reaves 16:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves has incarcerated Rachel for grand ribbon snippery. Sceptre (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 23rd March 2008, 5:25pm

[Kato]

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,

Hey Marsden, that's my line you've stolen there.

[Daniel Brandt]

They should have deleted her bio. This "stop your trolling Rachel, we're busy writing an encyclopedia" crap won't cut it with Rachel, and banning her is even worse.

Wikipedians have no idea how pissed off someone can get when they're treated this way by editors. The fact that Rachel has a bio that she wants deleted gives her the right to escalate the conflict. She's right-wing and I'm left-wing, but no matter which side of the bird we come from, we fly together when it comes to getting our biographies taken down.

Go get 'em, Rachel.

[Sceptre]

I doubt anyone except for the Valleywaggers and Cade Metz will take her seriously even if she sells the story to every newspaper in the world. She's like the Canadian Heather Mills (and that's not a good thing)

They should have deleted her bio. This "stop your trolling Rachel, we're busy writing an encyclopedia" crap won't cut it with Rachel, and banning her is even worse.

Wikipedians have no idea how pissed off someone can get when they're treated this way by editors. The fact that Rachel has a bio that she wants deleted gives her the right to elevate the conflict. She's right-wing and I'm left-wing, but no matter which side of the bird we come from, we're all in this together when it comes to getting our biographies taken down.

Go get 'em, Rachel.

I actually wanted Rachel's biography deleted. I thought it was too much trouble than it was worth and it was really negative against her.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

It must be delightful for the lady to see Jimbo "protected" and her censored by a gang of kiddies. Delightful.

[wikiwhistle]

I doubt anyone except for the Valleywaggers and Cade Metz will take her seriously even if she sells the story to every newspaper in the world. She's like the Canadian Heather Mills (and that's not a good thing)

She's not making anything up as far as Jimbo's concerned though. She may have been able to get in the papers due to the novelty thing of "I was dumped on wikipedia" plus the chat logs and so on proving he'd agreed to her bio being edited in accordance with her wishes- however that one is so last month now after the donations-for-articles allegations which made it onto the BBC news and others.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Sun 23rd March 2008, 5:39pm

[Daniel Brandt]

If you are reading this, Rachel, and if you want to write an article about the problem of biographies of living people on Wikipedia, I'd be interested in putting it on www.wikipedia-watch.org. The last time I featured a Canadian on Wikipedia-Watch she ended up at number one on Google in a search for her name (Linda Mack), and her two dogs are at number two.

[Count DeMonet]

I doubt anyone except for the Valleywaggers and Cade Metz will take her seriously even if she sells the story to every newspaper in the world. She's like the Canadian Heather Mills (and that's not a good thing)

I'd take issue with you on that point, Marsden is a very media savvy attention whore evidenced very well by the way she expertly used eBay to spin her ire at being dumped by the sole co-founder (a story that in itself, as big as Jimbo's ego is, shouldn't really have had the legs to make it much further than the seedier end of the Hello / Heat type gossip rags) up into a story that made it into many of the worlds major broadsheet news-papers.

In this respect your Mills-McCartney simile does both entirely too much discredit (albeit with the nod towards your position that Heather is a lot more bat-shit insane than Marsden), both of 'em are very adept at playing this game. The question still remains, how much steam is left in Marsden's tale for the media given their notoriously short attention spans (yesterdays news = todays chip wrappers) but I still wouldn't discount her chances of dragging this out much further at this early stage.

Never under-estimate the truth in the old adage: Hell hath no fury...

This post has been edited by Count DeMonet: Sun 23rd March 2008, 6:00pm

[BobbyBombastic]

I think that Seth makes a good observation here:

BAD MOVES, folks. You got played :-( -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] ([[User talk:Seth Finkelstein|talk]]) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If the people that took action in reverting Marsden and blocking her were really seeking less drama, then why not allow her to post her message and leave it at that?

Obviously she wanted people to remove it and she wanted to be blocked, so that she can keep the story in the press and embarass Jimbo further. Wikipedians took the bait, hook line and sinker, and in the end it's going to raise more questions about Jimmy and Wikipedia--the same questions that the people reverting Marsden want to avoid.

But, things like this are going to happen when you are the "encyclopedia anyone can edit". I just wonder how much longer Jimbo can handle being a part of it! His community is certainly doing him no favors...

The best course of action would have been to let Rachel's comment sit there and let Jimmy remove it (or whatever). Then the story is "Jimmy removes ex's comments." Now the story is "Wikipedians rally around cult leader."

[Heat]

Nobody ever lost money by betting on the ability of wikiadmins to act stupidly. As you engage and challenge more admins, no matter how logically, the chances that you will be banned rapidly approach 1:1.

Well played, Rachel. You understood that the collectivity of wikiadmins will never pass up the chance to ban someone even if it's against their best interests to do so.

Oh, and I see that she's undergone the wikipedia equivalent of being bound and gagged (blocked, user talk page blanked and protected). I'm sure that will work real well.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Nobody ever lost money by betting on the ability of wikiadmins to act stupidly. As you engage and challenge more admins, no matter how logically, the chances that you will be banned rapidly approach 1:1.

When I started at wikipedia that wasn't the case at all, but now it is. Just ask Giano or Cla. Very sad.

[Milton Roe]

They should have deleted her bio. This "stop your trolling Rachel, we're busy writing an encyclopedia" crap won't cut it with Rachel, and banning her is even worse.

They can't delete her bio. They're all hooked on their own drug , which is the worldview that they're merely automatically writing a neutral encyclopedia. What would it mean to give that idea up? Some fraction of them would have to find another reason to live.