Daniel Brandt blocked again (by JoshuaZ) Options

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Daniel_Brandt

By JoshuaZ, no less!

Apologies if this topic has already been discussed or Mr. Brandt disapproves. I just noticed that Hivemind was back up and checked his account. JoshuaZ has reblocked him for having an outing site.

Oh dear.

This should get interesting.

Well, it has been a week. It was done so covertly, I just noticed it. Since some administrators read this forum, perhaps things will be set right... or become much more complicated? I'm not going on JoshuaZ's talkpage and risk having my account blocked to call him to task.

Gee whiz, I didn't know it myself until I read this forum. Like I've told anyone who has ever asked, I'm really not interested in being a Wikipedia editor when I grow up.

Still, Joshua Zelinsky, age 23, Yale class of 2007, is an ass. And just to prove that I can bray along in harmony, in 24 hours I'll put SlimVirgin and Durova back up on hivemind. If S and D don't like this, they should unblock me and block JoshuaZ instead. Then maybe I'll reconsider (maybe). By the way, S, you're now linked on Cryptome, which should be good for about one or two thousand extra readers for those two links (scroll down and look under "Offsite").

Yikes! Another BADSITE. Better get busy, Joshua.

By the way, I think we need a discussion about Somey's redactions. Doesn't it seem embarrassing to have a stimulating news article on Wikipedia that mentions WR also, only to see that the article also mentions that WR has redacted certain crucial information?

And what was that item that Blissyu2 mentioned the other day about some sort of legal threat from Katefan0 way back when? I was never told about this, and as far as I know, Katefan0 never made any threats to anyone. I certainly never heard from her. If she made such a threat, I might be able to help turn it into an interesting situation. But if I'm not informed that it happened, then I can't do anything, obviously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Daniel_Brandt

By JoshuaZ, no less!

Apologies if this topic has already been discussed or Mr. Brandt disapproves. I just noticed that Hivemind was back up and checked his account. JoshuaZ has reblocked him for having an outing site.

Oh dear.

HiveMind has been back up for a while now. I have left a note letting Jimbo, who unblocked him, know

Kudos to SqueakBox!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=147349111

My guess is a response like "I believe in forgiveness and everyone will edit in perfect harmony." Which means "I ain't get involved in this no longer! Y'all are on your own!" Admonishing JoshuaZ though would bring some credibility back to the GodKing. And his reputation would be further uplifted by admonishing Slim Virgin for reblocking Zordrac despite his time being served (I wouldn't touch this issue with a 10-foot pole though, SqueakBox. JoshuaZ, possibly, but Slim Virgin will not allow it and you are too valuable a Wikipedian to have your career marred by a SV indef block).

I know that Daniel wasn't really interested in editing, but the block I think is more of a revenge tactic and goes against the whole peace deal after the AFD.

Would this notice from Durova constitute the plot thickening?

Mr. Brandt

I'm very disappointed to read your recent offline post. Mr. Brandt, you wield no power over me; you cannot leverage an unblock depending on what you do or don't post to your website.

Last month I nominated your article for deletion because I had already offered to do so of my own free will, not because of any pressure you thought you were exerting. I believed you had a legitimate point about the WP:BLP policy. I nearly changed my mind and withdrew that offer because, when you finally accepted it, I thought your tactics were abhorrent.

My usual offer to banned users is that I'll support a reinstatement of editing privileges after six months if the editor does three things: refrains from violating WP:SOCK, refrains from maligning Wikipedia offsite, and pledges to respect site policies in the future. These aren't hard things to do. My offer to you is different now: pledge never to attempt inappropriate pressure on a Wikipedia site administrator again. Until you make that pledge I will heartily endorse your ban indefinitely. DurovaCharge! 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

More demands from Durova in "her" encyclopedia.

Greg

Would this notice from Durova constitute the plot thickening?

What gives this person any authority over users' conduct off wiki? Doesn't that imply a level of intrusion, monitoring and verification that if reciprocated would be found unacceptable.

Would this notice from Durova constitute the plot thickening?

Not really. Just another would-be net nanny having a rant.

This post has been edited by Cedric: Fri 27th July 2007, 6:50am

By the way, I think we need a discussion about Somey's redactions. Doesn't it seem embarrassing to have a stimulating news article on Wikipedia that mentions WR also, only to see that the article also mentions that WR has redacted certain crucial information?

Yes, I thought about this yesterday with the news article posted here. I wonder if there should be a prominent "press contact" link here at WR so that it can be explained what the information is and why it was taken down. Seems like a compromise.

By the way, I think we need a discussion about Somey's redactions. Doesn't it seem embarrassing to have a stimulating news article on Wikipedia that mentions WR also, only to see that the article also mentions that WR has redacted certain crucial information?

I find that a bit embarassing too. I have suggested that we have a separate board for any "outing", so that we can reach a compromise. However, about 50% of people who use this board disagree with "outing" admins, so we need to go with a compromise.

And what was that item that Blissyu2 mentioned the other day about some sort of legal threat from Katefan0 way back when? I was never told about this, and as far as I know, Katefan0 never made any threats to anyone. I certainly never heard from her. If she made such a threat, I might be able to help turn it into an interesting situation. But if I'm not informed that it happened, then I can't do anything, obviously.

She made a request in relation to Amorrow's posts (I don't know if you ever noticed them). At one point Amorrow said pretty explicitly that he was going to stalk Katefan0, that he knew where she lived etc. This came on the heels of his writing a lot about "female Wikipedia users". She requested that we get rid of his material, and that we ban him. It didn't take a lot of discussion before we agreed to this one. I guess technically it wasn't a legal threat, although she did hint that she would have taken legal action if we didn't comply. In that case at least, I think she was in the right. Had we allowed Amorrow to keep doing what he was doing, I think that we would have been in some legal trouble.

By the way, I think we need a discussion about Somey's redactions. Doesn't it seem embarrassing to have a stimulating news article on Wikipedia that mentions WR also, only to see that the article also mentions that WR has redacted certain crucial information?

I'm confused. I thought that the redactions were part of a deal cut to start your AFD Daniel, with Slimvirgin driving, and receiving payoff in that her name was deleted. As such, I would have thought that you actually requested that they be made.

I'm confused. I thought that the redactions were part of a deal cut to start your AFD Daniel, with Slimvirgin driving, and receiving payoff in that her name was deleted. As such, I would have thought that you actually requested that they be made.

There were no deals with me. There were brief spurts of implicit good faith between me and SlimVirgin, and me and Durova, when it seemed to be in our mutual interest during the past few months. But now that S and D are all over the web, it seems silly to leave them off of hivemind. At this point it would make hivemind look like I'm trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube. It's too late for that, just as it's too late to hope that my bio will ever get deleted from all those Wikipedia scraper sites out there. I've now put those two back on hivemind. I also added recent hires Cary Bass, Sue Gardner, and Mike Godwin.

The redactions were Somey's project. He seemed to think that it would result in a more kindly attitude toward WR on the part of certain Wikipedians. He should know by now that if you present a gift to Wikipedians, they will beat you over the head with it, and then claim that CheckUser proves that first you threatened them with it, and later beat yourself over the head with it, by which time they weren't even in the building, according to CheckUser. There's no accountability, no reciprocity, and no possible way to deal with Wikipedia. You have to aim for Wikipedia's extinction (or at least the extinction of anonymous editing), because nothing else makes any sense.

My feeling at the time was that the names that Somey redacted were already available on other sites for any half-capable researcher, and Somey should do what he wants. I don't run this board — I'm just a member.

Well, it seems there's a face-paced discussion up on the Administrator's Noticeboard on this now. Seems to be strongly against unblocking Brandt, but who knows? Out of curiousity, anyone know when/why the Hivemind went back up?

In general, I'm also curious about why there's apparent value in "outing" admins who are essentially nobodies - maybe to encourage the kind of harrassment that lead to the departure of some admins historically, though I'm not sure.

Frankly, as an admin, I wouldn't mind giving my identity out if every other editor was forced to do the same (The Citizendium Model) but I'm not sure I want to be handing it out to a bunch of anonymus trolls, as it were. Truthfully, it's not very exciting - I'm an unremarkable 25 year old graduate student - but I'm not sure I'd enjoy an unflattering photo of me on WW, and I'd probably like it less when I got harrassing phonecalls or visits at work because I deleted some terrible article about random hackers.

Gee whiz, I didn't know it myself until I read this forum. Like I've told anyone who has ever asked, I'm really not interested in being a Wikipedia editor when I grow up.

Still, Joshua Zelinsky, age 23, Yale class of 2007, is an ass. And just to prove that I can bray along in harmony, in 24 hours I'll put SlimVirgin and Durova back up on hivemind. If S and D don't like this, they should unblock me and block JoshuaZ instead. Then maybe I'll reconsider (maybe). By the way, S, you're now linked on Cryptome, which should be good for about one or two thousand extra readers for those two links (scroll down and look under "Offsite").

Yikes! Another BADSITE. Better get busy, Joshua.

By the way, I think we need a discussion about Somey's redactions. Doesn't it seem embarrassing to have a stimulating news article on Wikipedia that mentions WR also, only to see that the article also mentions that WR has redacted certain crucial information?

And what was that item that Blissyu2 mentioned the other day about some sort of legal threat from Katefan0 way back when? I was never told about this, and as far as I know, Katefan0 never made any threats to anyone. I certainly never heard from her. If she made such a threat, I might be able to help turn it into an interesting situation. But if I'm not informed that it happened, then I can't do anything, obviously.

Regardless of whether your initial block was jusified, Mr. Brandt, how could you possibly think that blackmailing admins into unblocking you, of all things, would do anything but make the situation much, much worse?

... I'm not sure I want to be handing it out to a bunch of anonymus trolls, as it were. Truthfully, it's not very exciting - I'm an unremarkable 25 year old graduate student - but I'm not sure I'd enjoy an unflattering photo of me on WW, and I'd probably like it less when I got harrassing phonecalls or visits at work because I deleted some terrible article about random hackers.

How about your very own biography that requires 20 months of hard work to get deleted? I might be able to arrange that if you don't want to be on Wikipedia-Watch. You'll instantly be number one on Google, whereas Wikipedia-Watch had one hell of a time even getting noticed by Google for the first 16 months of its existence.

The redactions were Somey's project. He seemed to think that it would result in a more kindly attitude toward WR on the part of certain Wikipedians. He should know by now that if you present a gift to Wikipedians, they will beat you over the head with it, and then claim that CheckUser proves that first you threatened them with it, and later beat yourself over the head with it, by which time they weren't even in the building, according to CheckUser.

... I'm not sure I want to be handing it out to a bunch of anonymus trolls, as it were. Truthfully, it's not very exciting - I'm an unremarkable 25 year old graduate student - but I'm not sure I'd enjoy an unflattering photo of me on WW, and I'd probably like it less when I got harrassing phonecalls or visits at work because I deleted some terrible article about random hackers.

How about your very own biography that requires 20 months of hard work to get deleted? I might be able to arrange that if you don't want to be on Wikipedia-Watch. You'll instantly be number one on Google, whereas Wikipedia-Watch had one hell of a time even getting noticed by Google for the first 16 months of its existence.

I'm not sure what this second sentence actually means, but I'll try and answer the thrust.

I'm not sure it'd bother me particularly much. This may be because our circumstances differ - I don't really know much about you. Although I haven't quite reached that stage yet, someday I know little bios will be floating around about me that I'll have far less access to or control of than any Wikipedia entry (unless I flunk out). And far less flattering comments will be added to my entry at ratemyprof.com than could ever stick in a Wikipedia article. This doesn't worry me now - maybe someday it will. I've written a couple of living people biographies on Wikipedia, and in at least one case I know that the subject looked at it and found it acceptable.

Do you mind if I ask if you've suffered any actual damages or hardships from your former biography, or if it's just the principle of the thing?

Jimbo has just weighed in, endorsing the block.

Jimbo has just weighed in, endorsing the block.

I liked Seth Finkelstein's follow-up