User talk:Jimbo Wales

Clayquot's Marsden Obsession

As you can see here [1] Clayquot has an ongoing obsession with Marsden and anyone who defended her. 64.26.147.18 (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP philosophy

Hey there.

Mind taking a look at E.O. Green School shooting? There is a simmering war about whether it is appropriate or not to include the name of the minor suspect in the article, and while the BLP policy doesn't forbid it specifically I was on the "err on the side of caution" side but I'd like a philosophical double check from you if you have a minute.

I think we could use some Words of Reason on the article talk page and/or on the related AN/I thread. — Coren ^(talk) 13:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey! This is my first Appeal to Jimbo! Do I get a souvenir keychain or something?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 13:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales, I need your opinion

Removing spam. Would an admin please just blank the section altogether?

Wikipedia:Advertisements

The last fund raising campaign did not give the desired result. Neither the unified login nor approved versions are in production use yet. Let alone the WYSIWYG feature or other MediaWiki improvements that could make the life of Wikipedians so much easier. It seems to me that Wikipedia is stuck in a stalemate. On the other hand, if advertisements were radically introduced, Wikipedia would lose many editors; the little advertisement in one of the earlier fund raising campaigns was not received well. But what about a less radical attempt? Perhaps Wikipedia could start with an advertisement only on the main page and gain some experience with that. Such a conservative attempt would not face the NPOV issues that have been put forward as the main argument against ads, at least not in the same way. I know that I am certainly not the first user to suggest this, but given the stagnating state of the project, I think that things need to be reconsidered. I find it strange that the Wikipedia:Advertisements article does not mention such a moderate, tentative solution but only radical attempts to introduce advertisements in all articles (be it optional or not). Also, it doesn't give crucial arguments such as the possibility to use parts of the money to buy copyrights and put the associated works into the public domain. If people see that they get something back for the advertisements, tolerance would perhaps increase even for putting them into regular articles. --rtc (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Invitation

Hi Jimbo. Would you mind joining Homeschooling WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with Homeschooling? We are a new WikiProject and are in need of members. We would all love to have you!!! Cheers! DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 19:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy.

Dear Mr Wales, I would like to draw your attention to some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy posted that I posted today at the WMF site: [2]. Since the WMF Board of Trustees actually decides on any changes in the privacy policy, I hope that you, as a Board member, will take a look at these suggestions. The main gist of the suggested changes is to require some form of notification of those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Wikipedia Village Pump (Policy) page [3] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. Of course, anyone else reading this is also welcome to participate in the discussion on this proposal. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules." What does it mean?

Could you please clarify, for the sake of building consensus at WP:IAR and various debates in several different languages, what exactly does "ignore all rules," really mean?

There's a long-term edit war in the English version of WP:IAR. In French Wikipedia, the rule is very detailed and very strongly worded, saying that the rule is actually unchangeable. Is that possible in a wiki? In Italian Wikipedia, again, it's more clear than the concise English version. In Portugese, the rule doesn't exist at all and a user who tried to introduce it was actually accused of disruptive editing!

For examples of clarification of this rule, there is:

• WP:WIARM by User:GTBacchus and varius other editors
• WP:WIARRM by me, something I wrote, which I thought was a bit more clear.

And what did you mean when you supposedly said that IAR has "always been" a rule on Wikipedia? By that, do you mean that it is somehow transcendental? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just read what you wrote here. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Per [4]...

“ One of our oldest traditions, absolutely unquestioned across the entire history of Wikipedia, is that I have the right to ban users who violate our social norms. [...] --Jimbo Wales 23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC) ”

I imagine that's what IAR means.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No story!

I hope no one reverts me here because this is very pertinent to Wikipedia's current affairs, and I'm posting as I want this to be widely read,both inside and outside Wikipedia. I think I am the person with the Wiki-knowledge and standing to say this. I have been asked by the press for my views, so I thought it would be honest, and correct, to publish them here.

Over the last few days like many others I have smiled at J Wales discomfort, and as you all know I don't have a huge amount of respect for him, so bearing that in mind, I hope you will all take to heart what I'm about to say, I have read all the gossip both the titilatious and the libellous - and in my opinion: There is no story. I first heard the rumours concerning his marriage and finances before Christmas, and the fact I dismissed them should tell you all something. I also have heard that many close to him would like to stick a knife in his back, so perhaps that should be born in mind too. An awful lot of emails do seem to go astray don't they? In fact, I have never seen such a badly organized, ham fisted and amateur assassination attempt in my life, and I've seen a few. Let's look at the facts:

He's been caught with his trousers down looking stupid, if that was an impeachable and serious offence the world would be devoid of half its leaders. In my opinion it's a huge pity she is not selling all his clothes, he's a scruffy looking bastard, and the prestige of Wikipedia would be improved if he invested in a couple of Italian suits, and you see, it is the prestige of Wikipedia that brings me to the details of the expense account - again no impeachable story. For the benefit of those who don't have huge expense accounts let me spell out a few unsavoury truths.

When on company business, if your expenditure improves (in your opinion) the prestige and value of the company - you can spend what you like, if your dining with an important client you give him Montrachet to drink not Australian, or Californian, chardonnay. Similarly, if on tour and you have back pain, one can justify a massage on company expenses to keep the tour going. It matters not, that some of us may think he could have been more frugal, and that massage has connotations, if he says the expenses were justified that is the end of the story. You can spend what you like, so long as you believe that expenditure will benefit in some way the company. That is all he has to say - and he will say that. He has not been caught with his fingers in the cash box.

There is not an Chief Executive alive, of any major company, who has not been berated by the Finance Secretary for losing receipts, when you are busy you shove them in pockets, then the suit (or those scruffy jeans) goes to the dry cleaners etc. etc. etc. - you get out of a taxi in a hurry and don't even pick the receipt up - for some daft reason I store them in hotel ash trays and then the chambermaid throws them away... this whole business is ludicrous.

Has he influenced the content of the Marsden page, in my opinion, yes, he probably has. However, I don't see any concrete evidence of it. and even if he has, it is not a serious enough crime for the torrents of abuse and publicity he is receiving - a warning from the Arbcom on his page is sufficient if that is ever proved.

I have not read or heard of one word, that would stand up in any court against him. If people want to get rid of Jimbo, they are going to have to find something more concrete than this - being a very poor judge of character is all he is guilty of, and that is not enough. The many millions of words written on this subject amount to nothing. Those that seek to be rid of him, have overplayed their cards - they did not even have enough points for an opening bid.

He may feel he has to resign over this, if he does not, and in my view, he need not, and people still want to be rid of J Wales, or curb his powers, it has to be done in an open, honest and frank way. The current state of affairs demeans the whole encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, Giano, you are too good for ArbCom... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Who knew I'd be agreeing with Giano? Fortunately embarrassment is a non-fatal illness. Chin up. AKAF (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that makes no sense at all. Whoever said there was, or had to be, something "that would stand up in any court against him"? Any unethical behaviour is fine so long as it's legal? There are many issues here that need more, not less, discussion. "You can spend what you like" may be accepted practice at big companies, but surely not for a donation-funded foundation. Given that people may well ask what Jimbo's expensive travelling is supposed to be good for in the first place, donors will surely not like him to buy $300 bottles of wine and try to pass the cost to the foundation - which, apparently, he didn't get away with but tried (if this accusation wasn't true, he could, and probably would, sue Danny for libel, but his deafening silence on the whole affair speaks for itself). The COI on Marsden is another issue. He didn't edit the article himself, but told her how he usually has other people fix things for him and sure enough he notified (through a secret mailing list) people who he knows will do his bidding. In isolation, any of those things might be forgivable, especially if he were admitting to it. But if you consider his entire history of dishonesty - from the "sole founder" nonsense to the bizarre contradictions about his own birth date - you just get a pattern. As Florence Devouard told him: "I find (it) tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past... Get a grip!" Yes, this should all be discussed in an open, honest and frank way - I don't know who you're accusing of doing it in a dishonest way. I think it's Jimbo himself, not the discussion about him, that's demeaning the whole project. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The OTRS mailing list is not a "secret mailing list". It's discussed openly on numerous pages including on the OTRS pages. [5] Just because you don't know about something or haven't bothered to investigate it does not make it "secret". People on OTRS have very wide-ranging opinions about Jimmy, same as on Wikipedia, and your claim that they are people he knows will do his "bidding" is really insulting. Sarah 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The existence of the OTRS list is not secret, but its contents are secret. What Jimbo tells people there is not on the public record but has a strong influence because no one will dare go against Jimbo (given that he can ban, and has banned, people without being accountable to anyone). It's enough that some will do his bidding; the others will simply do nothing. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The contents are not public due to the privacy policy and the banning argument is a straw man, what would he do, ban the whole OTRS team if no one responded the way he liked? Mr.Z-man 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone will always respond, there are plenty who treat him like a cult leader. He doesn't ban those who do nothing, but he might well ban those who'd do the opposite of what he says. The whole privacy and BLP policy was largely pushed by Wales and shows his priorities. The overall accuracy problem of Wikipedia is not an issue for him. And it's OK to slander dead people - they can't sue. But there has to be a special policy for living people - for the sole reason of avoiding lawsuits, while otherwise maintaining the fiction of Wikipedia's splendidly-working "openness". Strange how biographies of living people need a special policy to remain free of major bullshit, whereas all other articles somehow by themselves, according to "studies" Wales will happily tout, remain as accurate as Britannica's. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to one instance where he's banned someone for not doing what he said. I would hope he would ban someone for doing the opposite though in this case. If he asked it to be cleaned up per WP:BLP, the opposite would be to make it more defamatory, again, your argument about him using his power as leverage does not hold water. Heaven forbid his priorities should be protecting people's privacy, protecting the foundation from lawsuits, and protecting people from defamation - that's far too un-internet. I would suggest you actually read Wikipedia's policies before trying to use them in arguments like this. It's not okay to slander anyone and all facts in articles must be verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. Which type of article subject is more likely to be the victim of actual defamation (and yes, sue people): a living celebrity, a dead celebrity, or an inanimate object? Mr.Z-man 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you just assume when he says there's a BLP issue, that there must be actual defamation, as opposed to some perfectly true and well-sourced facts which just happen to reflect negatively on a person, as is often the case when some people cry "BLP!" So the opposite I referred to would be to reinstate such material when Wales called for its removal. Usually it doesn't come to a ban, because people know the game. Even if he just "politely requests" something, people understand that it is an order. Once when some people, including admins, refused to do what he wanted, he was wheel-warring with them and finally desysopped them - for "wheel warring" no less. Accused of hypocrisy, he explained that "it is simply not possible for me to wheel war" presumably because his unique power allows him always to prevail. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bramlet Abercrombie, has he been unethical? Is there any proof, he has been unethical? - I think not. He can be a serial adulterer and philanderer, but quite frankly that's none of our business, our concern is what he does with Wikipedia not his willy. It's his expense account, he gets to choose how to expend. The source of the company's income is inconsequental, so long as his expenditure is for the benefit of the company. You may think the way he spends is odd, I don't, if you are wining and dining clients, especially in Europe, it has to be done with style and panache. Regarding Danny, I think you have to read what Danny said exactly and precisely, Danny was merely detailing fact, I am explaining how those facts, I suspect, came to be, and putting them in context. And yes, we do seem to know a lot about all these internal emails don't we. This is all looking like a boardroom squabble, and power game. If someone thinks it's time for us to have a new leader, then let's see an honest selection process, not a new leader emerging from the boardroom already on suspicion of underhand and devious behaviour.Giano (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about his philandering, but to say "it's his expense account" is ridiculous and obviously Florence and others at the Foundation disagreed with the notion that he can choose how to expend. I certainly don't think his expenditures benefit the "company". And I would like to see an honest selection process, but that would require Jimbo to abdicate the role first - or be deposed. The very problem here is that he never took an adequate title, instead making it seem that his authority was just one naturally flowing from being "the founder" - when in fact it was based for the longest time on the hard legal authority he had by controlling the Board which he had stacked with his business partners. Only when his position seemed entrenched enough, he allowed the Board to get somewhat more representative. But even Florence will probably resist the idea of declaring the leadership position vacant, fearing the bad PR. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is very much his expense account, the board are perfectly entitled to question his expenses, but when he is away on business he legitimately decides how to use that account. I have seen no proof that he used that account for any non-legitimate purposes - have you? The fact that you would have used the account in a different fashion is neither here nor there. What you think of his expenditure is equally meaningless, you were not there. I expect that someone somewhere is clearly hoping Jimbo will abdicate/resign over all this, and then they can step neatly into his shoes. I'm afraid, stacking a board with allies is very common business practice, and often good sense, his mistake seems to have been feeling entrenched enough to let others in. whatever you and others think, Jimbo has done nothing wrong legally or ethically wrong - That is a fact, and no amount of word play, or puritanical philosophy is going to alter that. Giano (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not a fact. Ethics are debatable. Obviously you think he did nothing wrong ethically; well, I think he did. I don't think "common business practice" (i.e. pursuing one's self-interest to the legal limit, without any ethical constraints except where they coincide with PR concerns) should be the yardstick for nonprofit foundations. Your argument boils down to "he was the founder, he could do what he wanted." Perhaps you even want to repeat the curious argument I've seen Erik make - commending Wales for even setting up the Foundation, as if he could just have kept Wikipedia running under Bomis. The fact is it was losing him money, no one would have donated to a private company, and ads would have prompted an early fork. So what he did is set up the foundation, get relieved of the financial burden, but still keep authority and then convert his Wikipedia clout into financial gain elsewhere (speaking fees, Wikia, and, apparently, trying to dip into foundation funds when he needed a new washing machine). It is plain to me that Wales' main driving force (obvious enough for a Randian) is pure self-interest (which his ideology allows him to somehow define as "enlightened" and good etc. and so pass by his conscience). I for one don't think that's the appropriate mindset for a leader of something that calls itself a charity. But that may well be just my "puritanical philosophy" - so you are free to disagree. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Giano is clearly correct in his arguments here. Happy editing, SqueakBox 17:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this profound contribution, SqueakBox. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Only made after reading the whole thread, Bramlet. Happy editing, SqueakBox 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy editing! Because of Jimbo and the Arbonauts I'm not editing. However, I am clarifying a few obvious facts that nobobody else seems to be capable of doing here. I'm quite happy for people to get a good kicking, but only when it's justified. Giano (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano, you mention "I have not read or heard of one word, that would stand up in any court against him". This is about quality of leadership, not courts of law. But sure, this story is "no story at all" and is getting play outside of Wikipedia only because of its titillating nature.

But here, on the wiki, there is a fair question of leadership. Neutrality is one of our core principals, so influencing the RM article in an unseemly way by our leader is a big thing to me, much as using the admin-only irc chat room to run down Larry Sanger, behind his back, and influencing that article for what seemed to be petty, selfish reasons. Jimbo, are these logs accurate? [6], [7]

Danny claims that $7,000 of reimbursement was re-labeled as "donations". Jimbo, is that accurate and did you deduct that $7,000 on your income tax as a Donation? That could be very serious for the Foundation.

Giano, you mention "assassination". In my experience character assassinations are done behind a persons back, so they don't get a chance to defend themselves or even hear the charges, at which point grains of truth become wildly exaggerated and outright lies begin. The current circus may be a ham fisted hatchet job, but it's in the open and Jimbo is part of the discussion, not excluded from it. There are legitimate questions here. --Duk 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is so healthy to have this conversation here on Wikipedia, and it's long overdue. To Duk - No, assassinations are often carried out in full public view, it is the assassin who is cloaked, in fact often the man who pulls the trigger is the hired help. For all we know, that may be the case here. I'm no great admirer of J Wales, but (a) fiddling with his mistresses biography has not been proved, and even of it were, in the great scheme of things, it only demands a slapped wrist, I do think he has done more good for the project than harm. He's hardly likely to repeat the error - is he? (b) More importantly, never get rid of something, until you have decided what to put in its place. Giano (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

often the man who pulls the trigger is the hired help Good point, but I suppose this isn't the place to speculate about the hatchet man's motives, who's behind him and what deals might have been cut. Maybe the future will tell. --Duk 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is not did Jimbo do something illegal, but instead what does all this say about Wikipedia governance. The issues raised are not merely illegality and immorality; but also the issues of trustworthiness and leadership based on competence and truthfulness. Secrecy/openness ; lies/truthfulness ; competent/incompetent ; trustworthy/untrustworthy ; good leadership/poor leadership . Jimbo's behavior has generated the belief in some that he is part of the governance problem that the English language Wikipedia has. Are other language Wikipedias better governed? Better Wikipedia governance is the goal here. How do we get there? WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jimbo, has been operating in a tough world. On of the hardest facts of life is realising that big businesses are not donating money to charitable foundations because they want to help poor little black kiddies in the third world - they are donating their companies profits because it gives them a huge tax break, and makes them look good. Those in charge of donations are not giving away their own money, but they like to be wined and dined and encouraged. I have heard of prospective donors being taken to lap dancing clubs on expenses, as an incentive to donate - and that makes Jimbo's tactics look quite mild, so don't judge him without understanding a little the circus in which he is expected to perform. It's a cruel place, and charity is often the last thing on people's minds, as far as the charity is concerned (Wikipedia) he gets the money in, we have no right to criticise him for the way he has to do it. Giano (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He gets the money in? The bulk of the money comes from small donations. I wonder if he even raises more money from big businesses than he spends on his travels. Are there any numbers about donations attributable to Wales? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thing is, sometimes it takes time to cultivate the relationships with big companies to encourage them to spend that money with you. In my line of work, that's how it goes - my boss wines and dines lavishly on the company card while always trying to entice those big corporations to spend their money with us. It's his company, so it's fine for him to do it, but if we're in a position to shmooze someone into a big buy of some sort, we've got carte blanche to do the same thing. That's how the upper levels of corporate life operate, and if Jimbo wants to bring that kind of money in, he's got to work on the same level as the people being shmoozed. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How many years is it supposed to take? So far, he doesn't seem to have been very successful. I can hardly imagine anyone being worse at it. With a leader of a different moral and intellectual caliber, Wikipedia could be in a vastly better position in every respect. But for Wales the measure of success is if the site is ranked high on Alexa, not if it's actually accurate or respected intellectually. He has no credibility whatsoever when he talks about "the child in Africa". In private he is more honest about what he really cares about: "creating a Google killing search engine so I can buy a jet". Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That kind of information is simply not quantifiable, though given his recognition worldwide as the founder and leader of wikipedia I imagine it will far outweigh what appear to be minor expenses. The NYT said Jimbo was staying in a fleapit in New York while working for the foundation/wikipedia (and was almost certainly the only Time magazine Top 100 influencers who would be seen dead in such a place. I found this far more disturbing than any expenses controversy here. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wil you please stop saying: "happy editing" it's deeply irritating. Giano (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Err its in my automatic signature but I have changed it as you asked so nicely. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What matters is pattern, not single incidents: If Mr. Wales has once spent money for wine at an expensive place or getting massage on company expenses, it proves nothing, because you don't really know what the circumstances were at that one time. If however it becomes a pattern and many instances of it are found, it would start telling something about the person. If someone is not competent about his responsibilities, over time, this must show itself again and again. For example, if I am not in general good in finding my way, I get lost often enough. On the other hand, if I get lost once, it does not say anything... Regarding Madrasan matter, I don't know the details so I can not make a judgment. But I'd like to mention some things one has to bear in mind when discussing this: 1. One should not interpret an event at a certain time in the light of later developments. 2. In my personal life, I may casually say things to another person just to be cool. Many discussions, by their nature, are not serious and people say things within the framework defined by that conversation. This does not mean that when the matter becomes serious they would behave the same. If you go out and have a cup of tea with an scholar about his research, he might even exaggerate about it but when it comes to writing the paper, the person will try to be more careful and more serious. 3. Since BLP is an important issue, Jimbo's advice in this instance should be compared with that of his in other instances rather than taken in isolation and criticized. What we are looking here for is double standards rather than correctness. --Be happy!! (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

every free website has an owner. the owner by definition has the keys, the codes, the program access, etc, etc, meaning he can basically do whatever he pleases. if the website does follow some lines of equitability, that is a tribute to the owener's diligence. so in this case, we should not make a big set of rolling critiques, but just let things be. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

_{removed BLP concerns --Fredrick day (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)}--MONGO 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano makes some excellent points here (particularly some of his thoughts on expense accounts and his call for openness regarding the issues), however I do not think there is "no story" from our perspective at the encyclopedia. The press is almost certainly making far too much of this on scant evidence as Giano implies, but that is only to be expected. The world is not fair, and unfortunately for Wikipedia in this case the appearance of impropriety matters nearly as much as any actual impropriety. Fair or not, these press reports make Mr. Wales, and by extension the encyclopedia with which he is so directly associated, look a bit ridiculous. It is entirely possible that they could even have a negative effect on future fundraising efforts both on and off wiki (let's hope not, but it is a possibility - I would also note that the response of Wales and the Foundation to all of this negative press has been inadequate in my opinion, and that needs to change).

Even if there are some strong elements of unfairness and outright inaccuracy in these press reports (and though the facts remain very sketchy at this point that strikes me as incredibly likely), I think it is indisputable that Jimmy made certain choices which directly contributed to this whole brouhaha. He exhibited poor judgment on one or more occasions. Now we all make poor judgments all the time (particularly when it comes to sex and relationships, though for most of us those kind of mistakes thankfully remain fairly private as they should) and as Giano rightly points out "Jimbo has been operating in a tough world." However he is essentially the face of this encyclopedia and as a result must be held to a higher standard in terms of behavior as would any leader (again there might be an element of unfairness to that, but with public notoriety comes much unfairness, among other things).

I could not care less about JW's personal peccadillos in and of them self. We all have them and I'm hardly one to cast the first stone. They only matter inasmuch as they affect the project. In this case there appears to have been at least some short term harm to the project and we need to be honest about that. Jimmy Wales did a wonderful thing by laying the groundwork for Wikipedia and then helping to bring it to where it is today - I think few of us would dispute that. But it is perfectly reasonable for the community to ask questions about his role here given recent events because of course the project is bigger than any of us. We need a lot more concrete information first, but it is possible (indeed likely) that we will need to talk about this more in the immediate and perhaps more distant future. If so we should, as Giano suggests, do so "in an open, honest and frank way," but also in a way which shows at least as much respect for Jimmy Wales and his privacy as we would hope others would show for us in a similar situation. There's no need to personalize any of this or linger on salacious details, all that matters is the good of the encyclopedia going forward.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano is correct that there appears to be no story here regarding Jimmy Wales. The only story is that regarding the Wikipedia community. We have seen, largely: (a) editors working themselves into a tizz of excitement in their enthusiasm for descending into the gutter of tabloid sensationalism; (b) editors thrashing about in the water with the taste of blood in their mouths; (c) faux gnashing of teeth about "governance" and related matters. This is not a comment on individual editors, but on the generally poor reaction of the community insofar as they have responded to this "issue." It would be totally understandable were Mr Wales tempted to throw in the towel in such circumstances: who would wish to subject themselves to this kind of unpleasantness? But such an outcome would be the worst possible for Wikipedia. BCST2001 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Giano - this is not a story..... about Jimbo. Since the audit came out, there has been a discussion on WikBack about the surprisingly large amount that the foundation has spent on travel. I think this points to a problem with the foundation's culture, more than to a problem with Jimbo personally. —Random832 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Large travel expenses are not themselves to be the source of controversy especially if they are only using business class flights etc, ie not going first class and staying only in the best suites in the plushest hotels. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, I think the board's problem was lack of professional knowledge; which is now being solved with the hiring of Sue etc. Also remember that Wikipedia is an innovative new thing, an unexpected huge success. It was supposed to be just an experiment, a white-board for stuff that would go on Nupedia. This has been a wild unexpected ride from the start. It is not surprising that it has taken time to get things squared away. That Wikipedia works at all is what is so surprising. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is a lot of sense in what Was is saying. From what I can see, and I'm getting tired of telling them this, they need better public relations people, this whole non-story could have, and should have, been solved before it hit the press big time. It's time to kick out the amateurs and hire some professionals, the project seems to function on the premise that because it relies on charitable donations it has to act in a parsimonious way, this is crap. It may impress the little people, but the big donors will not be impressed by Jimbo arriving on a bicycle wearing that disgusting soiled T-shirt, (thank God she's sold it) and looking "ever so humble." I think there a lot of lessons to be learn from the last few days, but there's a great deal of truth in the expression "better the devil you know" people here would do well to remember that, especially when looking at the way the "alternatives" have behaved recently. Giano (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WAS has long called for a higher level of professionalism and I heartily endorse this. WAS suggested once Jimbo get paid advisers re his reputation and while Jimbo rejected the idea if my memory serves me correctly I still think it is an excellent idea. "Jimbo's reputation affects the encyclopedia" is unquestionably a truism, more now than ever. I would like to see WF money spent on this kind of thing, professionalism is essential when you are running something as successful as wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Paid advisers re his reputation" to whitewash his defects? How about, instead, having a leader who is beyond reproach in the first place? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he really was a God-King then perhaps. I am not talking about whitewashing and I realise that as humans we are limited. But I would add that IMO Jimbo has created a wonderfvul project using his own cash and we should in no way punish him for this by demanding impossible to meet standards. Your idea smacks to me of the kind of amateurishness that is simply no longer acceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The limited amount of cash he put in (so long as he paid, there was only a single server) he has recouped many times over, by the means I mentioned above. There is no debt of gratitude for anything. And if the standards that can be expected of his position are impossible for him to meet, he should just make way for someone else, I don't see any "punishment" there (nor do I see what "amateurishness" you talk about). Since he wasn't chosen by anyone, pretty much anyone who would be deliberately selected for the post would be better. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bramlet, when I was young I was idealistic too, but sadly that aint he way the world works, Wikipedia is big international business, if it lags in this department it will undoubtedly fail. All big companies need a little help with their image, and ours is no exception. There have been too many mistakes lately, all of which were avoidable, it's easy to blame the most visible person, but that is not often the fairest option. In my experience someone only allows themselves to be made a fool of once. Time to move on. Giano (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bramlet, people of whom the highest standards are expected right now are McCain, Clinton and Obama. And they are surrounded by advisers, to be perfect and have no advisers is simply unrealistic. I couldn't advise Jimbo professionally but I know what being professional means in the context of wikipedia and now is the time to move up a gear and get more professional. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT the United States. We don't need someone who's perfect, but to suggest that with anyone other than Wales there would be the same issues is a cynical view that I don't share. A decent leader can make honest mistakes, and those won't be a problem, but certain other things just won't happen. I don't see why Wikipedia would "undoubtedly fail" without image advisers. This would just add more to the secrecy and dishonesty which there is already too much of. Just think of the ridiculous embarrassment caused by Florence's attempt to whitewash the money issue toward the AP, only to proceed to berate Wales in private (and tell how she persuaded the AP that "the money story was a no story"), which of course was leaked back to AP. This way you don't get a good reputation. You can't "PR" yourself out of everything. Have decent people in charge, and then there won't be such issues in the first place and you can be open and honest about everything. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano extinguished this thread when he started it. No story. It's up to the board, per the three comments immediately above (by DTM stamp). Franamax (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• What Giano said. Only louder, of course, being me. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Echoing Giano, JzG and others, I think we should reserve judgement on Jimbo for now and see how he and the rest of the board handles this, i.e. what lessons they learn from it and how they correct anything that needs correcting. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite that simple! I want to know who is leaking the dirt, Florence's emails etc. and then they need firing! Jimbo has been a fool, but the incontinent one has deliberatly tried to cause trouble and bring the project into disrepute - and with some success. That was a deliberate act of malice, they need the boot and they need it fast, they will always have their simering resentment looking for the next opportunity. Giano (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, on that issue there has been some commentary about it in someone's blog: [8] (scroll down to "On Leaks"). Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to corporate life. The knives will always be flashing in the background. This is a board responsibility. Us shareholders can only decide whether to hold or sell. We can also make our views loudly known, as we are doing here. This is the place to make the board aware of the dissatisfaction, I'm sure by now they have gotten the message. Franamax (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, this is something Jimbo has to sort out for himself, first rule of business is know your enemies, if after all this has not sussed them, and determined to be rid of them, there is little anyone can do for him. This story should now die a death very soon, it has now been thoroughly aired here, where it should have been in the first place. No doubt Madame Marsden will ramble on an around the internet with some more lurid details for a few more days, but we are a cosmopolitan bunch, I'm sure we won't be shocked - the rest of the story is just hype, misunderstanding and ignorance. Now I'm gong to bed - to sleep! Giano (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Don't you think discussing someone's sex life on their own talk page is incredibly rude? What are you expecting to achieve, that they join in and discuss their sex life with you?
• If someone is accused of misuse of expenses, why don't you go and formally ask the board or the person that deals with expenses to investigate it, rather than having a long discussion about it on their talk page. That would be the fair thing to do wouldn't it, both for the people that donated the money and the person being accused?
• If someone has been accused of exerting their influence on an article when they have a conflict of interest, why don't you just use the policies that were designed to deal with that? If you believe the policies are there for a reason shouldn't you make sure they are used to investigated the alleged conflict of interest in the appropriate forum so they can be dismissed as just an allegation or accepted as a genuine conflict of interest. Wouldn't that be fairer than having long conversations on the person's talk page? AntHolnes (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hey! I have an idea. Instead of blathering on and on about the "ethics" or "legality" or "story" surrounding this, why don't we just let the donors decide? Later this year, there will be another annual fund campaign. Let's see if the 14 of you who think that this was no big deal can pony up the $1.4 million to match last year's campaign, because there sure as hell won't be any donors among the millions of people who are coming to a different conclusion about this. And then we can all get some shut-eye? - SHeEpIsHlY i NaP (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This section, being started and populated by Jimbo's most vocal critics, is little more than cheap shots and trolling under the guise of "community concern." The feigned lack of interest shown by its source is belied by its the rush to create this section, its length and the palpable schadenfreude oozing out here. The discussion serves no legitimate purpose; there is nothing it can resolve or cast new light upon. This being so, I'm archiving it and notifying the responsible parties here to move along and limit their discussion on this topic to fora off the project and not stir up any more drama here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what, FeloniousMonk - I find your statement quite absurd. This is a matter that affects Wikipedia, and it should indeed be discussed on Wikipedia rather than some indirectly related forum. When the people you refer to as "Jimbo's most vocal critics" are willing to show good faith to the man, even more good faith than many of the people who have been closely associated with him for many years, perhaps it is a sign that even his critics know when it is time to put aside the hurtful words and to stand with him when he's having mud thrown at him unjustifiably. It is telling that this is the single most supportive thread on Wikipedia, Wikback or wiki-en-L, and recognizes Jimbo's contributions for what they are. It is a lot harder for Jimbo's critics to write in support of Jimbo than it has been for many people to take potshots at him over the last few days. Risker (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• There has been far too much off site activity. Lets have this in the open. It is genuine attempt to clear the air, and also show things are never as bad when properly aired as when fragmented to a 100 off wiki sites of varying reliability. Giano (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To FeloniousMonk. Above I asked a question with a couple of links. Do you agree that that question is a serious one? an important one? If that question had been asked a year ago by a new user, do you think it would have immediately been removed as 'trolling'? Do you think this example helps explain the 'burst dam' nature of editor's feelings on this page?

Sure, the news stories about RM are a media circus and not much more. But a lot of serious and important complaints have been impounded for a long time, waiting to be aired. More times than I can count, when Jimbo was asked an important but tough question, the answer was 'quit trolling me'. Well, here's the consequence. --Duk 14:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

what are we arguing about ? that the world was denied information on this whole little episode? so what. that an entry on Wikipedia was edited to take out some personal details, by the person who owns the whole website? so what? big deal. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, the media wants to have a field day because Wikipedia is a fun target. And the media loves sex scandals. So we have a sort of perfect storm of attention here. That doesn't mean there's any serious issues here at all. Giano is spot on. Now, I suggest that people return to editing and instead of bugging Jimbo about a non-issue deal with much more pertinent things like how to cover this at Rachel Marsden and Jimbo Wales. Or even better if you are unable to remain calm and focused, go work on something else. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree: No story. All this is just a media frenzy with the right ingredients for bad journalism that sells papers (or increase on-line ad impressions). And based on what? An affair with a woman with a recurring pattern of certain strange behaviors, and some innuendo by a a disgruntled ex-employee.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"In so many cases, these well-connected folk are free to use the site as a means of pushing their own point of view. And that includes Jimmy Wales. Forget Rachel Marsden tossing his dirty washing onto eBay. The point of the Willypedia Affair is that he ordered his minions to edit her online bio. They pull favors for him. And he pulls favors for them."

Tit for tat?--70.185.113.212 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. And the reason this has not been covered in most newspapers (or, in a few cases, has not remained, after one brief article) such as the new york times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Newsweek and ABC News is...what, exactly? Is it because Wales controls them too? could it be that this story isn;t that important, and the only reason it was even placed here at Wikipedia to begin with is that he is the one who runs the site? So he removed something, using his higher role, which was only here because of his role here in the first place. just my opinion, but that's sort of how I see this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

From my dealings with Jimmy, this accusation of untoward editing of Marsden's biography is particularly absurd. He has always demanded great care that WP:BLP is followed with care, and when a subject of an article has raised concerns has gone out of his way to make sure that everything is correct and above board. It's unfortunate that he had this brief involvement with her, and I'm sad to hear of it, but it's essentially a non-issue and no excuse for dragging old grievances out again. .. dave souza, talk 23:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Response To Giano

Giano, with all due respect to your legal knowledge and experience, this is not a court of law. The only court that matters here is the court of public opinion, and in this venue Mr. Wales is guilty by his own admission. The "Sex" aspect should not be dismissed so lightly as Moral prudery, Salacious hype or Jimbo's private life. If nothing else it shows poor judgment and character flaws which raise questions about his leadership abilities. Worse still, it adversely effects his repuation and thus his ability as a fundraiser. Especially among the many small donors who can ill afford $400 flashlights[9], $300 bottles of wine, the finest hotel suites in DC and massages in Moscow.

Not least of all, it is also a severe public embarrassment to the foundation, the project and the community. As Wikipedia's very visible public face, "sole" founder and self-proclaimed spiritual leader, what he does reflects upon the whole wide Wikiworld for better or, in this case, worse. So he owes, at least, a sincere apology to all Wikimedians, even to those who think he should not be held accountable.

The other, more serious, charges of financial impropriety and Conflict of Interest (or COItus as some wags have dubbed it), may or may not stick depending on how credible one thinks Ms Marsden and Mr Wool are (or whether Mr Wool has saved copies of those receipts). But irregardless, they also raise serious doubts about the man's leadership. Nor are they isolated incidents, but part of a long, well established pattern. I need not provide a laundry list of this to you, as a long established Wikipedian you are well aware of the history. At one time, yes, Wales was an asset to the project, but now he has become a liability.

Giacomo, you are Wikipedia's good conscious. As I have stated[10], so many follies could be avoided by heeding your sage words. That you would come to Wales' defense now, after all the abuse he and his minions have publically heaped upon you, tells volumes of your charachter...and theirs. I'm sure you are familiar with the original Italian story of Pinocchio by Carlo Lorenzini Collodi? [11] You know what happens to the cricket, who represents Pinocchio's conscious, in that version, right? Such, I fear, will be your reward for coming to Wales' defense. If you think not, then it is you, my friend, who is guilty of being an idealist here too.

But there is nothing wrong with that! Wikipedia, at its core, is about ideas and idealists. It is about boldly changing the world for the better rather than meekly accepting it as is. It is about openness and transparency...or at least it SHOULD be (sunlight is the best disinfectant even for dirty laundry:) . The world is indeed a cruel place, which is why, Sir, we must endeavour to improve upon it. And a big step in doing so is by demanding better accountability from our leaders. By demanding that they lead us by example and not simply by word or fiat. By demanding that they walk the walk and not simply talk the talk (while netting exorbitant speaking fees in the process). This devil we know argument no longer holds. We MUST do better, we can do better, but only if we, first, demand better....not only of our leaders but of ourselves.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have lead a very sheltered life Ghost, no one seems particularly embarrassed. Jimbo's sexual reputation is his problem certainly not mine or yours - all this "walk the walk " is complete crap, we shall Durova's proverbial moccasins thrown at us next, he needs to walk nowhere, and not many people seem to want him to, apart from the predictable few.

Regarding the laundry you mention, the most horrendous new charge I read today, I'm surprised your not quoting it, delicate readers avert your eyes and ears now, is that he left a hired dinner jacket in a hotel room! That really is a sin, in my book a serious crime - what sort of man wears a hired dinner jacket? I'm sure the crime will be compounded soon with the evidence that he also wore a wing collar and clip on bow tie with it. Poor Jimbo, he really has to learn that one of the reasons men travel with their wives (usually on expenses), is that they know how to tie a bow, and pack clothes, and not leave them behind. Wales is a complete shit to have hired a jacket, and then left it behind. I certainly have never left anything behind in a hotel room. We shall be told next that he take his boxers off off, screws them up and throws them into a corner of the bathroom and forgets them, or leaves them for someone else to pick up. I'm just horrified. You are right to have your concerns Ghost. I expect, as you say, it is a well established pattern, but please not the laundry list, let us use our imaginations.

As you say, Wales and I have had our moments, but are you seriously suggesting we leave an innocent man to hang, because he was rude to me three months ago? Half the traffic wardens in London seem to have an obvious agenda where I'm concerned, but so far I have resisted the temptation to go out and machine gun them, although there is one with a horrible little moustache...but I digress.

Regarding these bloody boring expenses, people seem to have a problem with the cost of wine etc. Let me give you an example: You and I decide to give a fund raising ball in Palermo to raise $1 million for Wikipedia, we invite the cream of Palermo Society at $750 a ticket (yes, they will pay this - some will even fly in from NY) so we organize our ball - the obvious place is the Palazzo Gangii, but it's expensive to hire, so we'll go to a hall in the suburbs, we need a band, we could fly in La Scala, but again it's expensive, and it is for charity, so lets have the local school orchestra - they are good, they have been playing together for three months, and they are free. we need the Italian national anthem to be sung and the American (for those from NY) the Cathedral choir are good, but well my son, once was a chorister, his voice is in the throws of breaking, but he and his mates are not doing anything that evening. Now to the food. Lobster is what the guests will expect but tinned tuna is much cheaper (we are a charity) and as for the Dom Perignon 94 (normally served at such functions) well there is some nice carbonated Australian chardonnay on special offer (yes there is such a thing) - so our guests arrive, tiaras glittering, tailcoats gleaming (we don't hire in Palermo - Jimbo take note) so Ghost! How much are these people now going to donate, what will their impression of the Wikipedia Ball be? I will tell you what, they will want their money back and will donate nothing. If you are entertaining people with money, you have to spend money, if you can't see that, then don't ever try to raise any.

Reading your comments, I think I'll stick with the devil I know, I suspect your devil will be a parsimonious little shit who will bankrupt the encyclopedia in five minutes,while encouraging us to lead good clean wholesome lives. Life's too short, Wales has his faults, but he also has the experience and the know how. Believe it or not, this whole business may be the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia and him (yeah, he probably isn't to sure about that one, right now) he's had a good kicking from a lot of people, now lets put some trust and faith in him, and let him get on with bringing the money in Giano (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is silly stuff, I never thought that Jimmy Wales was here as a saintly monk. He's used his gifts to make this whole remarkable phenomenon happen, the community is here to act responsibly and keep making it better. When he's in the news, a disgruntled nobody brings out two year old accusations that he wasn't parsimonious enough for them, and had expenses claims refused. Big deal. As Giano says, that can be a normal part of doing business successfully, and Jimmy's success in business was a necessary part of making all this happen. Different standards apply to a charity, within reason, and the expenses have been rightly dealt with and put on a proper basis. They'll continue to be properly scrutinised, and where spending is needed to bring in funding that can be justified. I'm sure that Jimmy and the foundation will do all that's needed, and hope they'll continue to enable the community to make this all happen. .. dave souza, talk 23:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Wales

Dear friend After reading this [12] story I am very sad and have lost faith in you as a father figure and role model. Good wikipedians dont use such WP:BAD language and would value editing wikipedia over any kind of other social activity what so ever. An inspirational wikipedian wouldnt want anything more then to make wikipedia as great as possible instead of getting a jet. As the role model and figurehead you are, I am deeply disappointed and don't know what to believe in anymore.

Mr wales remember that many people look up to you as the wikipope. Culverin? 08:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how much the link you provided [13] is reliable. At least not the sentence "In response to Wales's statement denying their relationship, Marsden began placing his clothes..." --Be happy!! (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I must admit Jimbo has such great fashion sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Culverin (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(after 2 ecs)He's not the "wikipope" or your "father figure" - he's a man, a regular man. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with using the word "fuck" in what he considered was the context of a private conversation. Please get a life. Seriously, of all the things people have to be upset with Jimmy over, his using the word "fuck" in private is nothing. Also, I think you should check what WP:BAD links to as I suspect it isn't what you think it is. At the end of the day this is just a website, it's not meant to be the greatest thing any of us ever do in our lives and it should not take precedence over "any other social activity". Sarah 09:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The private conversation is none of our business. One thing that bothers me though is where the author of the article says "In an alleged conversation between the pair leaked to Silicon Valley gossip blog Valleywag, Wales suggested they work together on editing the entry before having sex."

But of course the reliability of this link is questionable. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that looks bad but I don't think it really is as it appears. I still have the OTRS emails from that period and what they were discussing on that chat transcript with regard to the article content were things that Jimmy was passing back to OTRS as her complaints about the article - with the clear statement that he was acting as a friend of a BLP and not as "Jimbo" and his emails should be read accordingly. He also told us at least twice that he had developed a personal relationship with her and that he considered himself to now have a COI with regard to that article. I think Jimmy was foolish to even meet her knowing her background and to be honest, I thought that when he emailed to say he was going to meet her to discuss her website but it's his life and he's a grown man so he can do as he wants. Sarah 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But his the figurehead of wikipedia. It tarnishes our image. Culverin? 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy is the founder of a project that we all love but the reality is he has little to do with the day to day running of Wikipedia. Most of his Wikipedia work is at the Foundation level. If you love this project then you should thank the people who made it what it is - the thousands of admins and editors around the world who have built this site. Personally I think this idea that Jimmy is some kind of "Pope" or "Godking" is the root of most of the current problems he is facing. It's a shame that so much of the community, even Jimmy himself, have bought into it for so long. If there's any good that comes from this I hope it is a universal realisation that Jimmy is just a man, no better, no more inspired and no more of a spiritual leader than anyone else. Sarah 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

mAN I wish I got half as much lovin as he does. Culverin? 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please grow up. If you can't discuss this maturely then please don't discuss it. Sarah 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe your image of him not mine. I respect Jimmy for his role in creation of Wikipedia, that's a fact. Much of what that link says are probably heresies, not facts. Marsden has motivation to allege whatever she wants to Jimmy. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

I can't claim to know you, but I want to let you know that I feel recent events are being blown out of all proportion. I hope things calm down soon and I do not think you have anything to answer for. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. Any gay man will have at least one story to match yours, either of their own or a friend's situation. Best of luck! Bearian (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang in there, Jimmy. It'll be okay. The nightmare will be over soon.

Now, you see, why obscurity is so much better than fame.

Also, I have to say: In western culture, male promiscuity is practically considered a virtue, while female promiscuity is considered a vice. In the process of trying to mess with you, Rachel makes herself look like a crazy trollop.

Oh well. Live and learn. Never date another Fox news employee again.

In the end, the lawsuit should be fun and Rachel will fade away into obscurity, and find it difficult to find a serious job because her mental instability is now public knowledge. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor review?

I was wanting to check in and see if you have had a chance to see my editor review yet, or do you read your talk page? Just wondering! Dusti^{talk to me} 18:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to Jimbo regarding articles on JW and RM

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I believe the material relating to RM and yourself which has been included in the respective Wikipedia articles on these two subjects violates several Wikipedia policies, including WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. I consider the matter trivial, sensationalistic, and non-encylopaedic. I don't believe inclusion of this material represents conservative, neutral, responsible editing of entries about living people. I believe it invades privacy and does not respect the living people it involves. I have raised these concerns on the talk pages of these articles, however I appear to be in the distinct minority in believing this material should be expunged from the articles in question. In such circumstances, it is not possible for me to take the lead and remove the material, but I wanted to let you know I think inclusion of this material is very unfortunate, and if the matter could be remedied, it would be to Wikipedia's benefit I am sure, not to mention the people involved in this matter. BCST2001 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you just want him to know. It's inconcievable that you're petitioning for him to come in and forcibly change his own article, because that'd be a clearly stupid move. -Amarkov moo! 03:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)