![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daniel Brandt |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,473 Joined: Member No.: 77 ![]() |
slimvirgin AT gmail.com
cc: info AT wikimedia.org December 24, 2006 Dear Sarah: I am looking for a Florida-based attorney to negotiate with the Wikimedia Foundation to take down my biography. If this fails, I plan to file an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against the Foundation. Considering the fact that all the Talk pages are also made available to the search engines, I may include a defamation-of-character complaint in the suit. My main interest in litigation is to establish in a Florida court that Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act does not provide immunity to the Foundation, due to the fact that the Foundation's entire structure is designed to moderate the content on Wikipedia. I will argue that because of this, the Foundation functions as a publisher rather than a service provider. Only service providers are immune under Section 230. I appreciate the fact that you supported my request to delete the article in October 2005, after we worked on it for a week and were unable to reach agreement. You warned me that you lacked the power to make the deletion stick, if some other administrators disagreed. This is exactly what happened. I also appreciate your support of Linuxbeak's effort in December 2005 to move the content into other relevant articles on Wikipedia, so that most of the content would still exist, but not be featured in one Wikipedia article under my name. This effort was one that Linuxbeak and I agreed to at the time, but which failed due to a lack of support. I deleted hivemind.html as Linuxbeak made his effort, but then restored it when his effort failed. As you can see, the hivemind.html page is much larger now and also has small photos of most of the perpetrators. The last meaningful AfD on my bio was concluded on April 9, 2006. Now I am asking you to initiate another AfD. This is something only a major administrator can do, because minor administrators will intervene on the grounds of "Speedy Keep." I believe that one last meaningful AfD for my biography is warranted before this issue escalates further, and I hope you agree with me. If the article gets deleted, I will take down the hivemind.html page on www.wikipedia-watch.org (but not the hive2.html page), and will also take down the findchat.html page, the 1,545 chat log files that are linked from there, and the chat search engine. Thank you, Daniel Brandt |
![]() ![]() |
Somey |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 11,816 Joined: From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 ![]() |
So, Brad Patrick is no longer the Interim Executive Director... I guess good ol' Angela is more persuasive than we thought!
And they're going to get an Executive Search Firm to find someone permanent now. Hopefully someone who's actually visited Wikipedia at some point in the past year or two... Where do I send my resume, then? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Meanwhile, back to Talk:Daniel_Brandt. Another admin-wanna-be, User:Colin_Keigher, left an unusually cryptic note on it recently, and I was wondering if anyone could guess what it means? He's addressing this directly to Daniel B, or at least Daniel's IP address: QUOTE(Colin Keigher @ 06:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)) You've contributed to society in a public matter, these people have contributed to society in a private manner. Ironically, the edit summary on this entry (diff) claims this is a "reply to a stupid argument." The argument was, of course, that anonymous WP admins should be publicly exposed because of the impact Wikipedia has on, well, pretty much everything. That isn't a "stupid" argument, is it? It might be an "unpopular" argument, but "stupid"? I should hope not. Presumably "matter" is a typo, and he meant to write "manner," but even then, this makes no sense. If one is contributing to society, isn't Wikipedia's entire argument that it doesn't matter whether one is doing it publicly or privately? It's the extent of the "contribution" that matters, isn't it? In which case, who is contributing to a greater extent - Daniel Brandt, who operates a few websites that are only of interest to people who really like to maintain their privacy, or a high-ranking Wikipedia admin, developing content on one of the ten most popular websites in the world? I'm thinking he's actually referring to the nature of the contributions (to society) themselves, i.e., the "manner" in which the contributions are made. But what's "private" about administering Wikipedia, other than the desire of a particular admin to remain anonymous? Is he trying to suggest that nobody can see what they've done? For that Of course, with my luck, someone will shoot the Queen tomorrow while wearing a Banana Splits costume, various government agencies will read this, and I'll become the subject of some sort of international manhunt. Sheesh.... I can't even tell you how many times this has happened! In fact, I'm thinking about ending my use of Banana-Splits-costume analogies altogether, if it keeps up. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |