Rachel Marsden (Valleywag May 2008)

On 14 May Valleywag published an article "Is Jimmy Wales getting Wikipedia in legal trouble?" which sparked off a furious debate between Rachel Marsden and some other characters from Wikipedia, one of whom may well have been Jimmy Wales himself. Highlights:

• Rachel: I dated a nerd, he turned out to be a headcase - life goes on.
• Rachel:I did "fuck Jimmy Wales", and repeatedly so - which I admit was a bad error in judgment.
• Colonelpanic: "... why did Jimmy Wales get involved with Rachel Marsden in the first place? What diagnosis would you give him?" 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)
• Troll: Hey, Jimmy, Erik wants to take your daughter and get an ice cream.
• Rachel: let me be the first to out "colonelpanic" as Jimmy Wales. […]Jimmy, you can't say that "Jimmy has at least been dignified enough not to participate in this debate", while posting such a thing under the name "colonelpanic". Nice try, though. [...]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?
• Colonelpanic: Don't like the heat? Shut the fuck up.
• Rachel: Riiiight, Jimmy. Whatever you say, sweetheart.
• Colonelpanic: 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 have to accept the possibility, maybe even the probability that these IM transcripts could very well be an extremely well-conceived fake. […] 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. […] 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!).
• Rachel: Revising history is a lot tougher to pull on me than it was on Larry Sanger, wasn't it, sweetheart?
• Rachel: Oh, sweetie, if I was unstable or prone to outbursts, I certainly would have had one before contending with 150-plus posts of aggressively flung milorganite by anonymous cowards. Instead, I'm enjoying sticking around here to poke and prod the mentally disturbed, kind of like the upper class used to do to the riff-raff at Bedlam in the 1700s. Just as it was then, the practice still remains rather entertaining. Please, keep it up.

15 May

• colonelpanic 15 May 2008 12:57 PM So, let me get this straight: Wales dumps Rachel Marsden after a single two-day tryst in a Washington hotel room, and she gets so bothered by the whole thing that she: 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.

• Rachel Marsden 15 May 2008 10:34 AM This has nothing to do with my past relationship with Jimmy Wales. I couldn't care less if he drops off the face of the earth. I dated a nerd, he turned out to be a headcase - life goes on. To reiterate - the Wikipedia issue long predates my relationship with Jimmy, and continues well beyond its termination. It is very much separate from anything personal, and I'll "let this go" when my name is off of that ridiculous website (Wikipedia). And not a second before. And if anyone here actually thinks that I care about what you think of me personally, you obviously haven't followed my career. I thrive on personal attacks. :)

• Rachel Marsden 15 May 2008 10:41 AM @Dweezil: Actually, I have never "stalked" anyone. But that's a nice ad hominem meme, often used by people who can't argue more important issues or facts. I did "fuck Jimmy Wales", and repeatedly so - which I admit was a bad error in judgment. But if choosing a bad boyfriend is grounds for arguing someone's sanity, then the world is full of likewise insane people. As for "commenting on a blog that has nothing to do with me". Oh yes, you're right. I mean, what was I thinking? It's not like my photo was in the headline of this post and my name was all over it, right? Have a nice day. :)

• colonelpanic 15 May 2008 1:42 PM @WilliamMarkFelt: "This begs the question, why did Jimmy Wales get involved with Rachel Marsden in the first place? What diagnosis would you give him?" 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.

• Troll_2.0 15 May 2008 3:07 PM Hey, Jimmy, Erik wants to take your daughter and get an ice cream.

• Rachel Marsden 15 May 2008 6:12 PM Also, let me be the first to out "colonelpanic" as Jimmy Wales. And say that I have about 99% percent confidence in doing so.

• Rachel Marsden 15 May 2008 6:17 PM @colonelpanic: Jimmy, you can't say that "Jimmy has at least been dignified enough not to participate in this debate", while posting such a thing under the name "colonelpanic". Nice try, though.

• Rachel Marsden 15 May 2008 7:21 PM @[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?

• 15 May 2008 10:24 PM colonelpanic "If I knew Jimmy I'd send him this thread as a joke. 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.

• Rachel Marsden 15 May 2008 10:32 PM @colonelpanic: Riiiight, Jimmy. Whatever you say, sweetheart.

17 May

• colonelpanic 17 May 2008 1:43 AM WilliamMarkFelt: You seem like a really thoughtful person. That's the reason this discussion has been worth returning to..
  • 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).

• Rachel Marsden 17 May 2008 2:15 AM @colonelpanic: 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 relationship 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 17 May 2008 3:34 AM @colonelpanic: "occasionally frauduluent of criminal behaviour" 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 17 May 2008 3:56 AM @colonelpanic: Actually the events are a bit out of order. Here, as someone who obviously is far more of an authority on the events of her life than an anonymous internet "fan", let me give you a hand, dear:
  • 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 17 May 2008 4:13 AM @colonelpanic: Revising history is a lot tougher to pull on me than it was on Larry Sanger, wasn't it, sweetheart?

• Rachel Marsden 17 May 2008 3:49 PM "@Troll_2.0: Oh, sweetie, if I was unstable or prone to outbursts, I certainly would have had one before contending with 150-plus posts of aggressively flung milorganite by anonymous cowards. Instead, I'm enjoying sticking around here to poke and prod the mentally disturbed, kind of like the upper class used to do to the riff-raff at Bedlam in the 1700s. Just as it was then, the practice still remains rather entertaining. Please, keep it up.

18 May

• WilliamMarkFelt 18 May 2008 11:48 AM @CP 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.

21 May

• colonelpanic 21 May 2008 1:09 AM @WilliamMarkFelt: Ha. Can't believe this thread is still going! Have been distracted by living in the real world for a few days... @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.

• WilliamMarkFelt 21 May 2008 11:16 PM @colonel panic "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.