This image was lost some time after publication, but you can still view it here.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and Fox News personality Rachel Marsden have broken up — and Jimmy is learning a harsh lesson: hell has no fury like a woman scorned. Here's the goodbye email from Rachel to Jimmy and an IM conversation that strongly suggests Wales violated Wikipedia's rules to encourage favorable changes to Marsden's Wikipedia profile. and therefore not appropriate for me to directly edit the article with a conflict of interest the truth is of course a much worse conflict of interest than that :) but that will do

Click to viewI only have one thing to say to you: You are the sleazebag I always suspected you were, and should have listened more carefully to my gut instincts — and to my friends . No, in fact, you are much, much worse than I ever expected. You are an absolute creep, and it was a colossal mistake on my part to have gotten involved with you. Now, my suspicions about you have been proven dead-on. I never again want anything to do with you, and though I have every intention of putting all of this behind me ASAP (which will be VERY easy to do, given the disgusting reality), I am happy to tell anyone who happens to ask precisely what I think of you. There is nothing good left to say whatsoever. Goodbye Jimmy, and good riddance.…

And, incidentally, your comments, contained in your classy "dumping" statement on Wikipedia, denying your conflict of interest with respect to my Wikipedia bio, are proven to be yet another one of your lies by this particular online discussion of ours. But then again, what else is new. 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. 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 right so the way it is told now, hang on a second

let's actually do this right now

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 :) "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. but the correct timeline is

(1) wrote about him on the blog

me: hahhahaha (2) he files harassment charges

(3) you post email messages to show how his harassment charges are bullshit

me: you're a sh*tdisturber. :)


I only posted the emails after he went public trtying to create trouble.

NOT before that. nod

so we can get that sorted

and then this makes the story clearer

me: that's good of you to do. really. 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". :) 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 the truth is of course a much worse conflict of interest than that :) but that will do

me: aaaaaaaaahahaha. lol 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? oh, huh

I have no idea.

me: hahaha so you told them the half-truth. :p depends on what the meaning of "is" is

me: ahahahahahha