Harry "keeps his dirty laundry mostly tucked away" Wang

FiveStarEggRoll

"Ironically, the very transcripts she provided also indicated that she flirted and essentially promised sexual favours via IM before the ever met."

Not an excuse. Totally unconvinced.

"As for why her stuff is there and continues to be there... it oughtta be. She's stepped up and made herself a public figure, and trades on her fame and (specifically) her opinion. Everyone who reads what she writes or sees her spouting on Faux News has the right, possibly even the responsibility, to know about her background. (read this link, for god's sake .. it's a mind-blower)"

Goes back to my original contention which I won't repeat.

"She has learned to play the victim. She has exploited our tendency to sympathize with women and cast the man as the heartless cad."

So they the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

And there are numerous questions and points of mine unanswered, but I'm too sick of this to continue. I've tried, you tried, but I'm not swayed. Mr. Wales should never have had any type of relationship with any woman that he knew from any connection to a Wikipedia article. What would happen if we learned that the editor of the "New York Times" changed what he wrote about Hillary Clinton after sleeping with her. Is the editor of Britannica behaving this way? What would happen if he did?

Too many questions, not enough legitimate answers.

If you leave your lights on, your windows and doors open and take off for the weekend, don't cry foul if you have nothing left when you come back home Is it unfair that you live in a world where you can't leave your doors and windows open? Sure, but that's not the world we live in, so he should've known better.

WilliamMarkFelt

Ltic

@TuesdayCramer makes a lot of my points a little more dispassionately (and thus more eloquently) than I was. Her behaviour is not normal. And one cannot ignore Rachel's past in all of this, however much of a corrupt man-whore Jimmy Wales is or might be.

She would have had to fake very little of those IM transcripts in order to implicate Wales ... there are only a few lines about "modifying", etc. so I don't doubt for a second that they chatted and flirted on IM before ever hooking up.

Ironically, the very transcripts she provided also indicated that she flirted and essentially promised sexual favours via IM before the ever met. Back when I was single I knew this to be common when meeting people online etc. so it's not really that abnormal. But what's abnormal, if the IM sessions are 100% real, is that she is essentially tying the "fixing" of her profile on Wikipedia into the flirtation. Favour for a favour, I guess. Sick.

As for why her stuff is there and continues to be there... it oughtta be. She's stepped up and made herself a public figure, and trades on her fame and (specifically) her opinion. Everyone who reads what she writes or sees her spouting on Faux News has the right, possibly even the responsibility, to know about her background. (read this link, for god's sake .. it's a mind-blower)

@Ltic: These accusations about Jimmy Wales threatening to deport her emanate from... whom, exactly? Oh, yes... Rachel Herself. So I'll treat them with the appropriate amount of skepticism and ignore them completely.

Rachel has in my view embraced and exploited a sort of learned victimhood. It's exactly this modality that she exploited in the 1990s to great effect at Simon Fraser University (then as now a bastion of pro-feminist neo-socialist progressive thinking) and has used to exact revenge on those she feels have harmed her throughout her love life and career.

She has learned to play the victim. She has exploited our tendency to sympathize with women and cast the man as the heartless cad.

She has come to a trouble spot, though. And that's Google (and, because it ranks higher than her own voice on searches for "Rachel Marsden", Wikipedia). She can't play the victim any longer with this track record piling up behind her and being steadily compiled, reported, investigated, and curated by others. She needs to do what she can to bring her past out of the limelight, otherwise the pity party will soon be over -- her credibility will be irreversibly destroyed.

Expunging our collective knowledge of her checkered past is what this is all about. That, and her penchant for revenge against another supposed lover, which conveniently converge on a singular objective: destroy Wikipedia.

Oh, well. She'll fail anyway. On both counts.

colonelpanic

Trust me when I say that I had the same thoughts as you when we first met; my opinion changed when I took a moment to step back and watch. He is not a good guy, he is a user ... of the volunteers of wikipedia, of his current wife, of the various women throughout the world, and probably his previous wife, his family and his friends from the past. When they are no longer convenient, he dumps them.

TuesdayCramer. I'm off of this thread. But I would suggest that you keep up with this stuff, it might be enlightening to you.

Ltic

Guy was a pompus jerk then and now? He's got delusions of god-hood. He's a hood to be sure, but no god.

Troll_2.0

And one reason I do care about this is that I did know Jimmy before wikipedia. I don't know how this would help you, though: he was seriously kind-- as easy going a guy as I've ever met. Friendly to everyone, unpretentious, forgiving, patient and sweetly conscientious, super-funny, and liked by everyone I introduced him to, from my boyfriends to my little sisters.

TuesdayCramer

I wonder what the people who knew him BEFORE wikipedia think of him? Those who knew him when. They are the ones who appear to be silent. They don't appear to have ever come out in support of him. Hmmmm, wonder why?

Ltic

Regardless of the reason for wanting to end the relationship, Jimbo decided that threatening Rachel was the best way to do this. Either he is really stupid or he believes that the kool-aid drinkers from Wikipedia will do what they do best in this situation (character assassination of anybody that speaks up about Jimbo's whoring and sleazy behavior). From my experience, I'm going with the latter. The insidious nature of wikipidiots is bearing this out. Vilify Rachel, but NEVER question Jimbo.)

Ltic

TuesdayCramer

Ltic

TuesdayCramer

1. Did you agree to sleep with someone without meeting them first? This is just so hard to relate to. Nothing about his physicality, how you felt around him, mattered?

2. Do you really think your complaints about Wales are going to convince anyone that he deserves punishment from you? I don't mean to sound like I'm asking this rhetorically, I'm genuinely perplexed. I know other single women your age (I'm the same age) who haven't learned this much yet: but a guy not liking you is not really grounds for complaint. And any guy in any demand is, of course, at the start of a relationship, going to have other women around. (I have some still-single friends who also don't seem to understand this, maybe that is a characteristic of those who stay single.) You can't assume exclusivity, I mean, as a practical matter, when you first start dating someone. It's an annoying trial period-- but that is all it is. No one else is going to be angry on your behalf that he was dating other people. And nor, unless Carrie Bradshaw was particularly convincing, are people going to care how you were broken up with. Or maybe this was me: but who cares? I mean, why do you care how he broke up with you? I just don't get this.
I never had this rule book you do for how people ought to comport themselves when dating. And the whole "someone with integrity would break up this way, in person..." seems so hollow. If you are arguing for moral behavior in such detail, wouldn't most of what you've stated about your intentions be wrong, by the same standards? It's just hollow.

3. This is where maybe I just missed something-- but was it your plan to sleep with Jimmy to get your profile changed, was that part of it?

4. Do you always do things as mean as sending on personal IM's after a break-up? Do you know most of us refrain from doing anything nearly this mean after break-ups? Even break-ups where the parties were not honest about who they were dating, believe it or not. Even break-ups not done in person, believe it or not. Wouldn't a better policy be: someone who I once liked enough to sleep with, I will be more kind to than I would be to others-- despite any personal failings on their part? Wouldn't this be the moral way to operate?

I just still don't understand what your dating complaints about Wales has to do with your desire to get your profile off Wikipedia. I can't believe they won't take your profile down yet, now. But it is so confusing how you mix up your dating complaints with other arguments about Wikipedia's policies (because you wanted your entry down before it was edited for you, right?)

TuesdayCramer

Troll_2.0

WilliamMarkFelt

The answer, as stated by Wikimedia Foundation lawyer, Mike Godwin, appears to be "perhaps":

[www.gossamer-threads.com]

Rachel Marsden

In closing -

Why aren't there stories like this on Valleywag about Yahoo, Google, Facebook, etc. The Wikimedia Foundation would have you believe that it's a smear campaign waged by one disgruntled ex-employee. Well, every company has disgruntled ex-employees. Every single one of them. Why then are there so many really strange stories about people in the Wikimedia Foundation? My guess is reckless enough to get themselves involved in debacles such as the Wales/Marsden situation, or Erik Moller pontificating about things on which he should keep quiet, I bet the whole organization is insane from top to bottom.

So I'd say, instead of implying that Valleywag "has it in" for Jimmy Wales, and that "someone" has it in for Erik Moller, I propose that they ask themselves why these things are coming out in the first place.

WilliamMarkFelt

"1) There are a lot of people adding stuff to Rachel's Wikipedia entry that she doesn't like."

OK, what's wrong with not liking it? From what I've read Sinbad the comedian didn't appreciate the world thinking he was dead because of Wikipedia.

"2) She has been waging war with these people for years."

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know at all.

"3) Out of desperation, she contacted Wales (many do) for help and (as she often does) seduced him by making suggestive comments in email, IM, etc. eventually promising to hook up."

If true, then Wales should have politely refused not only the sexual overtures, but even giving the impression that he'd help her with the article.

"4) He probably talked to some editors and got them to intervene for her."

If true, not good.

"5) Because he's apparently a horny toad with no common sense, they hooked up in Washington DC for a couple of nights, the sex was good, but he noticed her strange behaviour."

Well the only people who really know how long this went on is Wales and Marsden. What I do know with 100% certainty is that he should not have been in that DC hotel room to begin with.

"6) Realizing what he'd gotten himself into, he tried to wriggle his way out of seeing her again; coyly dodging her ouvres and flirtations."

How do any of us know this was coy? Maybe it was "get the fuck away from me you crazy fucked-up bitch!" Maybe it was nothing. Either way, that's all academic, because....Wales should not have been there in the first place.

"7) She got mad, he ignored her, she got madder, and then it's off to eBay with the cum-stained shirt (the lazy man's post-coital towel -- it needed a cleaning anyway!)."

There's way more information in this that I'd ever want to know. I'm moving on.

"8) With all the press that was arising, he felt the need to distance himself and posted a dumping notice on his blog on Wikipedia. Class!"

Class? Do you mean this, or are you being sarcastic?
There was no class about it. What Wales should be responding to is why a convicted felon was the COO, why he tells the world he's gracefully stepped down when Valleywag dug up that he's actually still at the top of the organization chart, and most importantly, why the #2 of the company is a pedophilia supporter. Wales has been silent about all these, which are much more relevant to Wikipedia than attempting to get himself out of a personal jam.

"9) She got madder, and it was war. Fake up an IM transcript, ship it off to Owen, and begin camping on all the reporting on Valleywag and god knows where else to try to rub salt in the wound."

Wales should have anticipated this could be a possible consequence of getting together with Marsden in the first place.

"10) With Jimbo no longer riding shotgun for her on the 'Pedia and all the Marsden haters reading about her in the media yet again, they all "jump in" on the Marsden bio on Wikipedia and it's back to square 1)."

Thus showing how a powerful clique can get together and rule the content on Wikipedia in the name of an agenda. Just think of what the #2 can do to articles like "pedophilia activism."

"Repeat. Rinse. Lather.

History seems to show that once you engage Rachel Marsden in this cycle, there's no way to escape or distance yourself from it. He was screwed at stage 5)."

If I got robbed blind after discovering that I left all the windows and the front door open, I personally completely condemn the people who robbed me. I didn't show common sense, so I'm partly to blame. Same logic goes for Wales.

I'm really trying, but I'm not buying the things that are theoretical, and I don't see Wales as a victim in this case. I don't see the proprietors of Valleywag publishing lies, being the mouthpiece of scorned women's agendas, or wanting the bad publicity for wrongfully damaging the reputations of internet leaders.

WilliamMarkFelt

"It's not Owen's problem whether these are fake or not."

Absolutely wrong. Would any of us read this site if we thought everything was made up? OT does NOT check for veracity, check sources? Come on.....

"She gave Gawker a great story (and has been a darling of this site ever since) and he has every reason to run with it. He did provide limited context about her past, perhaps not as much as people like me would prefer to see, but that's why there are comments. I think her responses and incessant posting probably confirm the assertion of armchair psychologists like me that she might be a sociopath suffering from delusional, obsessive, and occasionally frauduluent of criminal behaviour."

Wow, then much of the internet should be arrested, because grudge matches abound on the net.

"That should cast enough suspicion to throw the transcripts into some doubt (they're easy to fake). That they had a relationship seems plausible. That it was long-term is doubtful (two months is long term? -- I guess for those two)."

Yes, the transcripts takes require a gut-feel judgment. My
instinct is that they're genuine. We don't know the nature of their relationship. My guess is this - obviously RM has
some very hurt feelings. There's an old saying coined by a great playwright telling us about hell, women, and scorn. Say what you will about Marsden, I simply don't think she'd be so scornful by a sex tryst. And, if we look at the chats, there's discussion about the Time 100, etc. How do we know that Wales didn't tell her that he loved her, got what he wanted, and moved on. Illegal, no. Commonplace, abundantly. Requiring this big a deal made out of it, no, unless you're a public figure, and it can be argued that Wales is a public figure. Which then goes to my argument that he shouldn't have gotten involved in this in the first place, and that's the real problem here.

Then again, as I've said before, this is all personal behavior, and I feel like I'm peeking in the bedroom window while standing on a ladder. It feels greasy. But I cant' stop, so I'll continue the discussion....

It will be in three parts now, instead of two.

WilliamMarkFelt

@Colonel Panic, I see your response in two parts, and will respond in two parts.

"1) I think we have mostly circumstantial evidence to support the notion that Wales is modifying Wikipedia profiles for all the wrong reasons (ego, donations, sexual favours, etc.). In my estimation, as this goes, where there's smoke there's fire. He needs to be investigated by a dispassionate panel of... someone (whom? any ideas?) and the Foundation needs to act responsibly."

A dispassionate panel of people over whom Wales has no control, whether Wikipedians, or employees, with the panel led by Jason Calacanis. That's my suggestion. OK, so you at least recognize there are legitimate reasons to believe that Wales may have serious issues with regard to integrity? Let's look at it this way. The dead-tree media is dying. Wikipedia, perhaps, is at the vanguard of killing them. Old-school dinosaurs or not, the dead-tree media has some professionalism and integrity. Can you imagine the scandal if Bill Keller at the NYT were doing the same thing?

"2) I think that Instant Messaging transcripts are an unreliable source. They can only be confirmed to be true if both parties concur with the content. Unless Wales himself admits to the content of Marsden's IM transcripts we'll never really know the truth. Nothing wrong with Gawker publishing them, even... we're smart people and we can judge their validity for ourselves."

In a court of law, yes, both have to agree to them. In this circumstance, it's Mardsden's word over Wales's. If I had to give an opinion about this I'd say that if those transcripts arent' genuine, then Marsden should be a fiction writer, because she has the greatest sense of tone, nuance, since.....Jane Austen? Furthermore, I simply don't believe that Owen Thomas, Nick Denton, et. al, would print IM transcripts that weren't genuine, nor would they allow themselves to be the puppets for Rachel Marsden's personal agenda.

"3) Marsden has a history of increasingly desperate and vindictive behaviour when she's rejected by a supposed "lover". In 2006/07 she tried to turn a cop in Toronto into the Feds in Canada and the US for allegedly leaking homeland security secrets -- amounting to nothing. The fallout from her breakups has increased in shrillness, cunning, and stature with each new failed romance."

I know next to nothing about this, so I won't comment except to say that if we throw out the transcripts, then we throw out this fact too.

"4) Therefore, you have to accept the possibility, maybe even the probability that these IM transcripts could very well be an extremely well-conceived fake. I think she's intelligent (and sociopathic) enough to pull it off believably, and I believe she has. Read through the first (reported) incidence of this behaviour from her at SFU... a case that lasted more than FOUR years. The levels she will stoop/climb to are pretty damned amazing. Almost impressive."

OK, I'll grant you this. However, I have this to say in response. I've said before that all people really have in the world is their reputation, and it's something you guard with your life. I don't think I'm telling you or anyone anything new here. The only conclusion I can reach with this debacle is that Wales thinks he's above reputation assassination, or has so much hubris that it could never happen to him. It simply seems to me an act of monumental stupidity for which I have very little, some but very little, sympathy.

To sum all this up - very well stated, but I'm simply not buying it.

WilliamMarkFelt

BobDope

Troll_2.0

Rachel Marsden

SethinSD

Yep, having fun with that myself, especially colonpanic aka Jimmy Wales, and his feeble, yet long winded, pseudo-intellectual arguments.

Troll_2.0

Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

Couldn't you have just blown your load on the sheets, your hand, a Kleenex, her eye, etc?

Harry "tobacco stains ruin clothing" Wang

FiveStarEggRoll

And you say we have no class, Mr. Phallic worshiping misogynist?

Troll_2.0

Tip for Rachel: Eat more fish! Those Omega-3 fatty acids that fish contain can reduce verbal and physical outbursts among women with BPD by as much as 75%

Tip for ColonPanic: Carry Chocolate dipped Omega-3 pills with you and give them to your harem of Jim's-Hoes like candy. And be sure to send a box a day to your ex-gf's ex-wives etc.

Troll_2.0

Blow your wad, honeypie.

* PS - You owe me big time, Owen. ;)

colonelpanic

Rachel Marsden

colonelpanic

Rachel Marsden

1) Rachel and Jimmy start fighting over his admission, well into the relationship, that he's a practitioner of polygamy and prefers multiple sex partners.

2) Rachel admits to Jimmy that she's not sure how much longer she can take being in a relationshp with a lying, sleazy, sack of shit that will happily screw anything and everything on two legs.

3) As a power-trip, Jimmy threatens Rachel with deportation if she ever breathes a word of their relationship to the point where the rest of his floozies find out he's been cheating on them with at least one other woman (in reality, he cheats on several women simultaneously, and is admittedly proud of it). Rachel tells him to go f himself.

4) Within a day, Jimmy posts breakup notice for the world to see on Wikipedia.

5) Rachel tells him she'll be responding to media inquiries about his breakup announcement in kind - by auctioning off his reeking clothes on eBay

Rachel Marsden

Might want to watch how far overboard you go with those lies, dear - we're now entering criminal complaint territory. Your targeted persistence, coupled with calling someone a "fraud" and calling someone a "criminal" when they have never had a criminal record, could be of interest to some of my close friends working in law enforcement. And for such intents and purposes, you're not anonymous here, or on any other Internet website.

Please, keep it up. I'm feeding you all the rope you need.

Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

ScalaWag

The officer in question is no longer in a position of being entrusted with top secret classified documents, and I was thanked.

Rachel Marsden

Why? Because you've been openly busted here, Jimmy? Or was it because of a recently received notice to cease and desist?

Rachel Marsden

"History seems to show that once you engage Rachel Marsden in this cycle, there's no way to escape or distance yourself from it."

Oh sweetie, you aren't being held hostage by me. You can just turn off the computer, any time you want, and be free from those Rachel Marsden imposed shackles. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

Rachel Marsden

Hi Jimmy:

1) As you well know, the transcripts are 100% real, and there are many, many more where they came from. And you know that, Jimmy. Shall I release the rest, too, to drive the point home?

2) As you are well aware, Jimmy, our relationshp was a hell of a lot longer than 2 days.

3) I'm sane. Certifiably so. In fact, I'm the kind of sanity you aspire to - or at least ought to.

4) Shall I sign you up as a "regional leader" for the Rachel Marsden Fan Club? This kind of intense interest and focus on me and my life really ought to be rewarded.

Rachel Marsden

1) I think we have mostly circumstantial evidence to support the notion that Wales is modifying Wikipedia profiles for all the wrong reasons (ego, donations, sexual favours, etc.). In my estimation, as this goes, where there's smoke there's fire. He needs to be investigated by a dispassionate panel of... someone (whom? any ideas?) and the Foundation needs to act responsibly.

2) I think that Instant Messaging transcripts are an unreliable source. They can only be confirmed to be true if both parties concur with the content. Unless Wales himself admits to the content of Marsden's IM transcripts we'll never really know the truth. Nothing wrong with Gawker publishing them, even... we're smart people and we can judge their validity for ourselves.

3) Marsden has a history of increasingly desperate and vindictive behaviour when she's rejected by a supposed "lover". In 2006/07 she tried to turn a cop in Toronto into the Feds in Canada and the US for allegedly leaking homeland security secrets -- amounting to nothing. The fallout from her breakups has increased in shrillness, cunning, and stature with each new failed romance.

4) Therefore, you have to accept the possibility, maybe even the probability that these IM transcripts could very well be an extremely well-conceived fake. I think she's intelligent (and sociopathic) enough to pull it off believably, and I believe she has. Read through the first (reported) incidence of this behaviour from her at SFU... a case that lasted more than FOUR years. The levels she will stoop/climb to are pretty damned amazing. Almost impressive.

Summary:

It's not Owen's problem whether these are fake or not. She gave Gawker a great story (and has been a darling of this site ever since) and he has every reason to run with it. He did provide limited context about her past, perhaps not as much as people like me would prefer to see, but that's why there are comments. I think her responses and incessant posting probably confirm the assertion of armchair psychologists like me that she might be a sociopath suffering from delusional, obsessive, and occasionally frauduluent of criminal behaviour. That should cast enough suspicion to throw the transcripts into some doubt (they're easy to fake). That they had a relationship seems plausible. That it was long-term is doubtful (two months is long term? -- I guess for those two).

Here's what I think happened (and this will be the end of my thoughts on the matter):

1) There are a lot of people adding stuff to Rachel's Wikipedia entry that she doesn't like.
2) She has been waging war with these people for years.
3) Out of desperation, she contacted Wales (many do) for help and (as she often does) seduced him by making suggestive comments in email, IM, etc. eventually promising to hook up.
4) He probably talked to some editors and got them to intervene for her.
5) Because he's apparently a horny toad with no common sense, they hooked up in Washington DC for a couple of nights, the sex was good, but he noticed her strange behaviour.
6) Realizing what he'd gotten himself into, he tried to wriggle his way out of seeing her again; coyly dodging her ouvres and flirtations.
7) She got mad, he ignored her, she got madder, and then it's off to eBay with the cum-stained shirt (the lazy man's post-coital towel -- it needed a cleaning anyway!).
8) With all the press that was arising, he felt the need to distance himself and posted a dumping notice on his blog on Wikipedia. Class!
9) She got madder, and it was war. Fake up an IM transcript, ship it off to Owen, and begin camping on all the reporting on Valleywag and god knows where else to try to rub salt in the wound.
10) With Jimbo no longer riding shotgun for her on the 'Pedia and all the Marsden haters reading about her in the media yet again, they all "jump in" on the Marsden bio on Wikipedia and it's back to square 1).

Repeat. Rinse. Lather.

History seems to show that once you engage Rachel Marsden in this cycle, there's no way to escape or distance yourself from it. He was screwed at stage 5).

colonelpanic

+ Watch video

Rachel sings JimbHo's part. Like we knew you would, we knew you were no good.

Troll_2.0

Troll_2.0

Troll_2.0

@mediawhoremeow - MWM, you say some really outlandish stuff, and I tell you, I hope you're never ever mad at me, because I'd never be able to keep up with you. But I tell you, you've made me split my sides laughing a few times.

@AtwaterDius - sums things up pretty well.

WilliamMarkFelt

What was that story that got Valleywag its big start - something about Google execs and running around? Lots of sword rattling, but ultimately nothing? My point is here, VW/Gawker writes stories that are interesting to all of humanity, and just because its interesting doesn't mean its untrue, as some claim.

Of course, as with everything, you have to take it with the grain of salt. However, Owen Thomas has a pretty impressive journalistic pedigree, so that makes me think that Nick Denton actually cares about interest *and* accuracy. There are some big named advertisers on Gawker media, and big names like eyeballs too, but they don't like reputations for BS.

So I'd say Valleywag is "People" magazine for geeks - not the Weekly World News. If they started printing stories about Erik Moller with Big Foot cubs (or whatever you call big foot babies), then I'd be skeptical - a bit anyway....

ON another

WilliamMarkFelt

Troll_2.0

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

cyc

CyndyA

AtwaterDius

[flickr.com]

Rachel Marsden knocked JimbHO up with her massive cock. He looks like he's 5 months along.

mediawhoremeow

AtwaterDius

So are you saying the chat transcripts that RM published here are forgeries? Are you also denying what other commentators have said on VW that Mr. Wales fairly often makes changes to the articles of public figures?

"she thinks she's anything but a colossal joke to the rest of us is yet further evidence of her life-long grand delusion."

I don't think you can dismiss her so easily. Do you think that Owen Thomas is so gullible that he'd spend two months writing everything based upon the word of a "colossal joke?" Give the guy credit for some brains. Or there may be others who see RM as a catalyst who initiated what's turned out to be a torrent of negativity to come out about Wales, and the Wikimedia Foundation.

"really suing him... rejection is a bitter pill to swallow. Despite her having swallowed that particular medication very, very often."

How do you know it's rejection? You're the only one whose made this claim other than Wales himself. Personally I don't know what happened, I wasn't there. Every time the "New York Times" and any other major press outlet refers to Jimmy Wales as the CO-founder of Wikipedia, they are implying they don't believe his version of who what happened. On the other hand, Colonel if you care to point out why I should believe otherwise, I will respectfully and objectively read what you have to say.

"This despite the great preponderance of evidence that exist to support anyone's assertion that she is a sociopath. Who needs the hassle?"

Tell us who asserts this and I'll give it more credence.

"so don't be surprised or cry foul when others dredge up your father's sexual predation and your uncannily similar behaviour at the close of past relationships and expose that to criticism."

Well you've got a point here. But by this logic, shouldn't
any Wales supporter also not cry foul when he exercises such reckless judgment then gets some grief for it?

"Don't like the heat? Shut the fuck up."

Now now now, where' the wiki-love in this statement? You start off rationally enough, then it degenerates into this.
You can obviously do better.

Then again, I'll be the broken record here. My problem really is not personal behavior. My problem is pedophile sympathizers. I have a big problem with them. I've seen too many lives ruined by them. I simply find this discussion interesting.

WilliamMarkFelt

KyleShank

Harry "I'm sure I'll be picked apart for them - thusly ensuring I am not by saying this - isn't psychology grand" Wang

FiveStarEggRoll

Also, I'm not angry at my mother. I pity her and miss that I cannot be with her in her state of mind. It just does not pay to get involved with her and her delusions. I see quite a bit of her in you thus my statements earlier. This is not some transposed reach-out to my mother either as I have already made peace with that situation and she knows how I feel. I also do not hate women. You could infer that from some of my statements but they are entirely for show and leading up to a public project and persona I am working on.

Finally, you did not win any argument with me as we were not really arguing as that previous post was my first. Maybe you confused me with someone else. You did reply and I am counter-replying now so technically you could now count it as an "argument" but I'm not bent out of shape in any way. I don't feel like you have slighted me or "shown me who's boss".

It seems like you are at peace with yourself which is fine. There are articles about who you are out there on the web (and now all these entries on Valleywag). Rational folks will hopefully have an idea of how they should deal with you if they ever encounter you.

I do like your wit and you are not too bad looking but as I stated, you come off like my mother did to people and family. I feel pity for you as I do her. Pity I am sure you will cast off - as you should.

@Anyone: So who is Troll_2.0 in all this then?

Harry "dishing out some rare honesty" Wang

FiveStarEggRoll

+ Watch video

MarkLancaster

"I ABANDONED MY CHILD!!!!!!! I ABANDONED MY CHILD!!!!! FOR SOME POOOOOOOOOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I ABANDONED MY CHIIIIIIIIILD FOR SOME POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOO...!!!!"

[www.popmatters.com]

mediawhoremeow

Troll_2.0

Troll_2.0

+ Watch video

Troll_2.0

+ Watch video

Troll_2.0

Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

The real irony here is that @Rachel is threatening to sue Wikipedia on the grounds that Jimho actually modified her Wikipedia entry in her favour. He should be fired / released / whatever for having done that in the first place ... a stupid thing to do for an unworthy person but strangely it doesn't appear to have been proven, yet? And nothing to support her allegations?

That she thinks this is somehow grounds to sue the entire foundation and try to "bring it down", that she thinks I am some shadow Jimmy Wales alter ego, and that she thinks she's anything but a colossal joke to the rest of us is yet further evidence of her life-long grand delusion.

But we all know why she's really suing him... rejection is a bitter pill to swallow. Despite her having swallowed that particular medication very, very often.

The only reason I'm not stepping up to identify myself is because I'm positive I'd be on the receiving end of a baseless letter from Marsden, or someone pretending to be her lawyer, threatening to sue me in the Supreme Court of for having dared to question the sanctity of her Grand Vision. This despite the great preponderance of evidence that exist to support anyone's assertion that she is a sociopath. Who needs the hassle?

As for @Rachel, you've dragged your whole love-affair/fling soap opera into the limelight and made it everybody else's issue (if you had concern for discretion, is eBay a good way to communicate with former flings?) -- so don't be surprised or cry foul when others dredge up your father's sexual predation and your uncannily similar behaviour at the close of past relationships and expose that to criticism.

Don't like the heat? Shut the fuck up.

colonelpanic

Troll_2.0

Troll_2.0

Miss Rachel's Miss-Diagnosis is nothing new.

Troll_2.0

Troll_2.0

For the record, if you want to place those characters, its a simple method of

Start > Run > Charmap.exe > Copy the character you want > Paste

Oh wait... no, it cant be that simple, I must be Jimmy Wales as well!

We're all various alter ego's of Jimmy Wales if we defend anything that anyone else is saying. We're obviously all out to get you.

You're not paranoid at all are you? Completely normal. Sane. The Canadian head-doctor said so.

MarkLancaster

cyc

[valleywag.com]

And good of you to finally inform everyone that our 2-day adventure in that Washington, DC, hotel was, indeed 2 days - and not a single day as you initially announced on Wikipedia. Ooops. :)

Shall I continue?

Rachel Marsden

ROTFLMAO! You sure are the landslide winner of the Whore Off

ScalaWag

I'm off to a black tie gala at the Waldorf Astoria. Have fun in your basements eating Cheetos and grumbling about how much you hate me. G'nite.

Rachel Marsden

cyc

Nice try, though.

Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

I'd suggest perhaps it would be wise not to transfer your admitted anger towards your mother to women like me. I'm not your mamma, sweetie.

Perhaps you might benefit from some therapy to deal with your anger (as admitted by you, not as perceived by me)? Good luck.

Rachel Marsden

This is what happens, always, when I've won a debate and people start getting frustrated.

Knock yourselves out. None of it bothers me. Just know that you're delusional, as I've already clearly demostrated by virtue of painstakingly outlining various *facts* throughout this thread.

Rachel Marsden

I find, from the news report about RM, a bit that may explain some of it:

"...Her father, Claude, was a high school teacher who in 2000 had his teaching license suspended after admitting to an inappropriate relationship with a 16-year-old student..."

I wonder what else may have transpired to maker her hell bent on controlling relationships, punishing others and acting the way she does.

She sounds like a parallel universe version of my mother (whom a shrink said was "sane" yet all who knew her knew her to be anything but). My mother was a smart, ballsy cookie too. It was that which made her believable and likeable to outsiders when she did put on airs - including the shrink. She should have worked for the CIA or a PR firm.

So who are these "mystery" posters in the long, drawn out comment thread? Stand up and be counted...

Harry "keep deluding yourself RM - no, I don't know or even have an opinion about JW other than he seems a bit of an ass" Wang

FiveStarEggRoll

Rachel Marsden

As for this particular post - it's 100% wrong, starting from the "two day tryst" part. It was a heck of a lot longer than that, dear - which negates the factual relevance of everything else you have to say.

Cheers.

Rachel Marsden

Troll_2.0

I'm 94 years old Jimbo. I can
croak like a frog in mid-sentence here. I'll have my caretaker give you a gratuity for your help after my estate has been taken care of.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Can you please put something like this in there:

"Felt was on a first name basis with all of the President's men, including the President himself. He would meet with Nixon, Agnew, Mitchell, Kissinger, Dean Haldeman, Erlichman, all of them. He sat across the table from them, discussed their business, laughed at their jokes, drank with them after hours, complimented the beauty of their wives, expressed wonder at their brilliance by dropping bombs on those kids in Cambodia but keeping this from the American people, but no one could ever figure out who Deep Throat was until he finally admitted it himself over 30 years later. Some would say because no one looks for people or things they think are in hiding, that are right in front of their faces. By then it was too late to ask Deep Throat the one question they all wondered - why?"

I hope that's not too POV there buddy.

WilliamMarkFelt

Troll_2.0

Hope you are thirsty as it's gonna get worse if possible.

Ltic

"As all of us are external parties this is really just armchair quarterbacking. The foundation should investigate the claims (presumably it's trackable) and if they're true he should be dismissed. End of story."

Hmmm, maybe I'm wrong about you. In that case, apologies.

WilliamMarkFelt

"Actually the one good thing we can say about JimbHo is that thus far he's been too dignified to participate in this debate ... which is more than I can say for myself and the rest of us."

It would probably clear a lot of things up if he would participate in the debate.

"It would be ironic if the entire notion of freedom of self-expression on the web was stunted because of a fling in a hotel room somewhere."

Nope, Jimbo's not that important. A pedophilia sympathizer, who writes pedophilia activism propaganda on a website that's supposed to be neutral, is contributing to the death of the print media, and the Foundation that provides his employment says nothing to help us understand what his views really are - THAT's what will stun the notion of freedom of self-expression on the internet.

HarboUr. Nice touch. Jimbo.

WilliamMarkFelt

Big. Dumb. Male.

Clearly he's not too sharp for entangling himself with Marsden, getting himself to a place where the IM transcripts are at least plausible (if not true), and for directly intervening in her profile (and those of others). These are all bad things, for which he should probably resign if they're real.

Probably the editing of articles and the sleeping-with-the-tainted-trollop... thing are related. Ego. Vanity. Poor self-esteem... who knows?

As all of us are external parties this is really just armchair quarterbacking. The foundation should investigate the claims (presumably it's trackable) and if they're true he should be dismissed. End of story.

colonelpanic

Troll_2.0

"He also wrote a book that was inspired by her 1997 stalking of the SFU swim team coach. It was also during this period that, evidently unaware of her own irony, @Rachel apparently stalked and harassed the SFU Harrassment Policy Co-ordinator."

And you, Jimmy, were dumb and/or hubris filled enough to date her while still married. Dude, she's got a history! Guess you were thinking with the, "Branch," office. Hope your soon-to-be Ex's lawyer reads this site.

Troll_2.0

michaellamb

Perhaps I'm just offended that @Rachel has now invaded the interweb, poisoning it with her malignancy. If she's actually successful in overturning the safe harbour provisions of the CDA, which I frankly doubt, we will *ALL* be significantly the worse for it.

It would be ironic if the entire notion of freedom of self-expression on the web was stunted because of a fling in a hotel room somewhere.

colonelpanic

Like I've said, I don't care about anyone's personal life. I do however care about claims that don't seem right.

"So, let me get this straight: Wales dumps Rachel Marsden after a single two-day tryst in a Washington hotel room"

Or, so Wales claims. Ever listened to what Jason Calacanis has to say about Wales and his commitment, or lack thereof, to the truth

"A) Auctions his semen-stained T-shirt on eBay"

Is that what that was? I'm glad you know, because I thought it was mayo, something much more likely to be on his own shirt that semen, by jove!

"B) Fakes up some IM transcripts to implicate him of tampering"

Hmmmm, sounds like Jay Walsh speak. And you know what I mean Colonel.

"C) Threatens (and publicizes) a lawsuit against the Wikipedia Foundation itself"

Nothing new here. Plus she needs to stand in a Soviet bread line to await her turn.

"Holy cow! Has @Rachel just beat out Glenn Close as the Über-Stalker? If JimbHo has a pet I hope it's in a safe-house somewhere."

You sound too sympathetic to Jimbo to use the insult JimbHo. Suspicious. If Marsden has done one thing not on line, I'll put my own rabbit in the pot.

"Based on more than a decade of observed behaviour, I think it's safe to say that Rachel is not a psycho. More specifically, she has a Personality Disorder. Thankfully, Wikipedia (oh the irony!) sheds some light on the subject:"

BehavioUr? I don't buy that one. You simply don't sound like a British subject.

I don't know really anything for sure. 2+2=4 yes, but that's the only certain thing in life. But if I had to bet, Colonel Panic here is way high up in the echelons of the Wikimedia Foundation, maybe the very top.

Well Colonel Panic, whoever you are, let's just assume everything you say is 100% true. This begs the question, why did Jimmy Wales get involved with Rachel Marsden in the first place? What diagnosis would you give him?

WilliamMarkFelt

Troll_2.0

Say what??? From everything I've seen, you spend hours a day patrolling the internet to make sure you or your sockpuppets rebut any kind of allegation made about you...

nobuggin

Nice try. Post the originals and let's compare.

jackparsons

@colonpanic: tell us the story of how you got divorced the first time, those IM's weren't faked. BTW, How's the PhD going?

Have fun explaining your neutral POV on molestation to "Bubba" in the Federal Pen. I am dialing 800-829-0433 right now and you sure have a pretty mouth.

Troll_2.0

Troll_2.0

A) Auctions his semen-stained T-shirt on eBay
B) Fakes up some IM transcripts to implicate him of tampering
C) Threatens (and publicizes) a lawsuit against the Wikipedia Foundation itself

Holy cow! Has @Rachel just beat out Glenn Close as the Über-Stalker? If JimbHo has a pet I hope it's in a safe-house somewhere.

Based on more than a decade of observed behaviour, I think it's safe to say that Rachel is not a psycho. More specifically, she has a Personality Disorder. Thankfully, Wikipedia (oh the irony!) sheds some light on the subject:

"Personality disorder ... is a class of mental disorders characterized by rigid and on-going patterns of thought and action. The underlying belief systems informing these patterns are referred to as fixed fantasies. The inflexibility and pervasiveness of these behavioral patterns often cause serious personal and social difficulties, as well as a general impairment of functioning."

As for @Rachel having sought therapy from the "top forensic psychologist in Canada" his name is SFU Criminology Professor Neil Boyd, and she allegedly stalked him as well (as mentioned in the Tyee). He never treated her professionally, for obvious reasons, though she did worm her way into one of his classes (thus beginning the stalking). He also wrote a book that was inspired by her 1997 stalking of the SFU swim team coach. It was also during this period that, evidently unaware of her own irony, @Rachel apparently stalked and harassed the SFU Harrassment Policy Co-ordinator.

Nice touch.

colonelpanic

cyc

Well let me tell everyone here about our last conversation:

Me: Mr. Wales?
Jimbo: Yeah, what? Bono, hold on, some asshole wants something.
Me: My Wikipedia article is wrong.
Jimbo: How much money you got?
Me: Excuse me?
Jimbo: OK, no money...got any hot daughters or granddaughters between the ages of 18 and you know, whatever?
Me: speechless...
Jimbo: and I mean 18. If any younger give my buddy Erik Moller a call.
Me: what about my Wikipedia article?
Jimbo: Hold on Bono, Queen Elizabeth is on line two. Beth, how are you, you look fabulous the days....
Me: Mr. Wales?
Jimbo: You're still here? No money, no chicks - have a nice day!

Dial tone...

So are you ready now to go over the factual inaccuracies of my article?

WilliamMarkFelt

Troll_2.0

Troll_2.0

WilliamMarkFelt

I'd contend too that the age of consent laws in Mr. Moller's home country are more than liberal enough. It's right at the edge of pubescence. And Mr. Moller seems to argue to me that children, not adolescents, but children should be able to have sex too. And that's what I find disturbing.

8 year olds showing their stuff to each other is normal curiosity. It's not sexuality though, its curiosity about what the other kid has. Children don't understand sex, unless they've viewed pornography, or they've been molested. This is what I find disturbing about EM's writings.

WilliamMarkFelt

Troll_2.0

On a strictly appearance level, if any of us were walking down the street with Rachel Marsden, everyone would be thinking - what is *she* doing with *him*

OK Dweezil, other than this issue, I have nothing against you, I like your comments, and I just don't have the time or inclination to draw this out.
So let's live and let live, internet style.

WilliamMarkFelt

Oh, and in true Wikikrack fashion, all of her detractors here are anonymous while she uses her real name. Funny, that.

jackparsons