Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ General Discussion _ My email to SlimVirgin

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

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

Posted by: JohnA

I think they'll regard this as wikilawyering until the suit is filed and lands on Jimbo's desk.

Posted by: Nathan

Good move. To me, this is more than fair - though Jimbo may disagree wink.gif

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Thanks, I agree that this is a reasonable compromise. I thought so a year ago, and I still think so.

However, I predict that an AfD, regardless of who starts it, will result in a KEEP. The reason is that when I sue the Foundation, the editors and admins who have been persecuting me over the last 14 months will feel relieved. I will be arguing in court that the Foundation is responsible, more than the individual editors and admins. All of a sudden these individuals have absolutely nothing to lose. My biography becomes more of a spectator sport for them at this point, and the video game (or cock fight) becomes more amusing for them. None of these editors or admins care about the future of Wikipedia; they're interested in playing games. That's always been the case at Wikipedia, from what I've seen.

My attempt at a final AfD is what lawyers call "exhausting your administrative remedies." I expect that a jury will be interested to know that I availed myself of every opportunity to correct the situation within the Foundation's own procedures and structure, and still got no relief from the Foundation. In fact, the biography got longer, and the "published" (i.e., available to the search engines) Talk pages got more libelous, as the Foundation failed to respond to my situation. My letters and faxes to Jimmy Wales, Brad Patrick, and Danny Wool were ignored.

So be it. I'm pretty close to convincing a competent Florida-based attorney to take this case on a contingency basis. I believe a http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1920100,00.html to my case based on the recorded facts. I also believe that a judge will be sympathetic to a plaintiff who makes a competent case that the Foundation is not immune under Section 230. (The judge decides questions of law, whereas the jury decides facts and awards damages.)

Personally, I'm more interested in the Section 230 aspect of the case. If I got the judge to let the case go forward, but the jury didn't think I was as compelling as Jimmy, I'd still feel that something was accomplished.

If I end up with the sort of attorney that I'm currently looking for, then it will probably be on a contingency basis. Once I agree to let him represent me, it will primarily be his decision about when to negotiate, when to settle, when to file a lawsuit, and how to proceed in court.

Posted by: poopooball

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#.22Biographies_of_living_persons_for_deletion.22_.28BLPfD.29_policy_proposal.

Posted by: JohnA

There's not a chance of Slimmy prevailing, especially since the point of the proposal is a (or perhaps THE) Wikipedia boogeyman, Daniel Brandt.

As such Slim's proposal that

QUOTE
(2) It's speedy deleted after 72 hours if there are no objections on the talk page;

(3) Any objection would have to be on particular grounds, which our policy would spell out, but which would basically boil down to "this is an important public figure, according to reliable published sources."

(4) Those objecting would file a BLPfD, but there would have to be 75 per cent in favor of retention. Those voting to retain would have to argue that the subject is an important public figure in a particular country. Their public importance would have to be nationwide.


...won't work. It's overbroad, and could conceivably get a large number of living people to apply for their biographies removed because they're not public figures. [On the other hand, it could be fascinating to get Gary Weiss' biography in this process to see the crap fly on his notability]

Besides which, there are large numbers of people who think that any and all information that is already entered in Wikipedia should be retained at all costs, which is easy for them to say because they won't be in the firing line of a lawsuit.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 27th December 2006, 2:40pm) *
It's overbroad, and could conceivably get a large number of living people to apply for their biographies removed because they're not public figures.

I'm not sure I agree... I'd expect that the only people who might actively pursue this option are the relative few who have reasons to believe that there are people on Wikipedia who are deliberately targeting them, for personal or business reasons. It would make Wikipedia much less attractive to such people.

And that's exactly why the Wikipedians won't ever allow anything like this! Because with just a handful of exceptions, they're nearly all like that!

Posted by: blissyu2

QUOTE(poopooball @ Thu 28th December 2006, 5:27am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#.22Biographies_of_living_persons_for_deletion.22_.28BLPfD.29_policy_proposal.


Why would she read this? This is a non-notable web site, that doesn't deserve the time of day. Or so they keep telling us, as we continue to be the most mentioned web site on their IRC chats.

Posted by: guy

QUOTE
Those voting to retain would have to argue that the subject is an important public figure in a particular country. Their public importance would have to be nationwide.

Obviously, that won't work. For example, while the current Governor of California is a national figure on other grounds, most have not been. How many of them should be deleted?

Posted by: thebainer

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 27th December 2006, 2:25am) *

So be it. I'm pretty close to convincing a competent Florida-based attorney to take this case on a contingency basis. I believe a http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1920100,00.html to my case based on the recorded facts. I also believe that a judge will be sympathetic to a plaintiff who makes a competent case that the Foundation is not immune under Section 230. (The judge decides questions of law, whereas the jury decides facts and awards damages.)


I for one would very much welcome a test case on Section 230 and other pertinent questions in the same vein, so hopefully you're actually serious this time and you'll actually go hire a lawyer and construct yourself a real case. I'm being completely serious, this is a very interesting area of law and there would be no better precedent in the area than a case against Wikimedia.

I don't understand why you're linking to that Guardian piece though, the case described there is really very dissimilar to any potential case you would be making (I am presuming of course that you plan to sue the Foundation for whatever cause of action you choose, and not the individual users who wrote your article).

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(thebainer @ Thu 28th December 2006, 7:21am) *
I for one would very much welcome a test case on Section 230 and other pertinent questions in the same vein, so hopefully you're actually serious this time and you'll actually go hire a lawyer and construct yourself a real case.

Stephen, there are already test cases being tried in US courts as we type. Just the other day, I happened to come across http://www.courttv.com/people/2006/0707/dont_date_him_ctv.html?cnn=yes about a man who's suing (and I do mean actually suing, at this very moment) a website for libel where women post stories about bad dates they've been out on, naming the men involved and everything. The website's owner is claiming protection under... you guessed it, Section 230 of the CDA!

The longer Brandt can wait, the better off he is, as far as the legal case is concerned. The more cases that come up over time, the more likely it is that such cases as a group will gain the attention of the legislature. And if any of these cases result in damages against the websites in question, then that just establishes more good precedent.

And meanwhile, Wikipedia continues to look like a gigantic cyber-bully the entire time... which it is!

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(thebainer @ Thu 28th December 2006, 7:21am) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 27th December 2006, 2:25am) *

So be it. I'm pretty close to convincing a competent Florida-based attorney to take this case on a contingency basis. I believe a http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1920100,00.html to my case based on the recorded facts. I also believe that a judge will be sympathetic to a plaintiff who makes a competent case that the Foundation is not immune under Section 230. (The judge decides questions of law, whereas the jury decides facts and awards damages.)


I for one would very much welcome a test case on Section 230 and other pertinent questions in the same vein, so hopefully you're actually serious this time and you'll actually go hire a lawyer and construct yourself a real case. I'm being completely serious, this is a very interesting area of law and there would be no better precedent in the area than a case against Wikimedia.

I don't understand why you're linking to that Guardian piece though, the case described there is really very dissimilar to any potential case you would be making (I am presuming of course that you plan to sue the Foundation for whatever cause of action you choose, and not the individual users who wrote your article).

The Florida jury that awarded $11.3 million in an Internet libel case has nothing to do with Section 230. I was simply hinting that if my case can get past a judge and in front of a jury, the stakes for Wikimedia are significant. Stakes this high might even interest an attorney in taking my case on a contingency basis.

As far as Section 230 goes, there is a good article that was just posted on http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=The_800_Pound_Boobs. It's about Section 2257 record-keeping requirements for porn, but the situation with defamation and invasion-of-privacy and Section 230 is similar. In both cases, any evidence that Wikimedia Foundation is designed to, or in a position to, moderate content, and is aware of content that has legal implications, argues against the Foundation's presumption that it is a mere uninvolved service provider.

I have no idea what you mean when you say, "...hopefully you're actually serious this time and you'll actually go hire a lawyer and construct yourself a real case." It seems to me that I've been serious the entire time, ever since I noticed my bio in October, 2005. For example, the IRC logs that I posted this past summer contain evidence of malicious intent (see the bottom of http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/findchat.html). That's a significant element in my case. If the court should decide that I'm a public person rather than accept my argument that I'm a private person, then I will be required to show malicious intent in order to prevail in a defamation-of-character complaint. If I have convincing evidence of malicious intent, then the public-private issue becomes moot.

I'm not working on Web 2.0 time. I'm building a case within the confines of the statute of limitations for defamation-of-character in Florida, which is two years. The longer I hold out, the stronger my case, because it appears that time is on my side.

Posted by: anon1234

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 28th December 2006, 5:47pm) *


The Florida jury that awarded $11.3 million in an Internet libel case has nothing to do with Section 230. I was simply hinting that if my case can get past a judge and in front of a jury, the stakes for Wikimedia are significant. Stakes this high might even interest an attorney in taking my case on a contingency basis.


Can I invest in your lawsuit too? If I pony of say X% of your legal fees can I collect X% of your winnings? Just joking, such arrangements are probably not legal.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(anon1234 @ Thu 28th December 2006, 12:26pm) *
Can I invest in your lawsuit too? If I pony of say X% of your legal fees can I collect X% of your winnings? Just joking, such arrangements are probably not legal.

Actually, this is known as "champerty" - and the trend is actually away from localities prohibiting private financing of lawsuits, and towards allowing it, at least on a limited basis. Here's a semi-interesting article about it:

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2004/feature_brook_sepoct04.msp

The law is also much less strict when it comes to non-private financing. If you felt it was worth the risk, you could theoretically set up your own litigation finance company to handle specific kinds of cases, such as Section 230 cases, and it would all be perfectly legal in just about every US state, AFAIK. But as a business, you'd have some liability issues to deal with, needless to say.

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE
As far as Section 230 goes, there is a good article that was just posted on Wikitruth. It's about Section 2257 record-keeping requirements for porn, but the situation with defamation and invasion-of-privacy and Section 230 is similar. In both cases, any evidence that Wikimedia Foundation is designed to, or in a position to, moderate content, and is aware of content that has legal implications, argues against the Foundation's presumption that it is a mere uninvolved service provider.


Any competent lawyer would then look at the actions under WP:OFFICE and ask rhetorically: if the Foundation is merely an uninvolved service provider then why does an employee (Danny Wool) have God-like powers to delete content (and use them)?

The evidence that the Foundation is actively involved in defending itself against possible legal action by actively editing the Encyclopedia demonstrates that it acknowledges its culpability to charges of libel or slander.

I'm sure that the Foundation would be found liable for the content it publishes. I'm not sure that Daniel Brandt would benefit financially very much, largely because it would seem incongruous to a jury for a "privacy advocate" to devote so much energy to take away the privacy of Wikipedia's admins.

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 28th December 2006, 6:35pm) *

QUOTE(anon1234 @ Thu 28th December 2006, 12:26pm) *
Can I invest in your lawsuit too? If I pony of say X% of your legal fees can I collect X% of your winnings? Just joking, such arrangements are probably not legal.

Actually, this is known as "champerty" - and the trend is actually away from localities prohibiting private financing of lawsuits, and towards allowing it, at least on a limited basis. Here's a semi-interesting article about it:

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2004/feature_brook_sepoct04.msp

The law is also much less strict when it comes to non-private financing. If you felt it was worth the risk, you could theoretically set up your own litigation finance company to handle specific kinds of cases, such as Section 230 cases, and it would all be perfectly legal in just about every US state, AFAIK. But as a business, you'd have some liability issues to deal with, needless to say.


Champerty is totally illegal in the UK, and an MP (Jonathan Aitken) had a legal case against him dismissed because of champerty. Aitken eventually got caught telling lies when he sued The Guardian for libel and got jailed for perjery.

Posted by: guy

QUOTE(JohnA @ Thu 28th December 2006, 11:13pm) *

I'm not sure that Daniel Brandt would benefit financially very much, largely because it would seem incongruous to a jury for a "privacy advocate" to devote so much energy to take away the privacy of Wikipedia's admins.

But Daniel Brandt will swear on oath that he is not and never has been a "privacy advocate", and that Wikipedia editors were malicious for insisting that he was. That must be part of his case.


My 800th posting. smile.gif

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(guy @ Fri 29th December 2006, 10:14am) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Thu 28th December 2006, 11:13pm) *

I'm not sure that Daniel Brandt would benefit financially very much, largely because it would seem incongruous to a jury for a "privacy advocate" to devote so much energy to take away the privacy of Wikipedia's admins.

But Daniel Brandt will swear on oath that he is not and never has been a "privacy advocate", and that Wikipedia editors were malicious for insisting that he was. That must be part of his case.


My 800th posting. smile.gif


Then I'd direct the judge to the fifth paragraph of this webpage: http://www.scroogle.org/donatesc.html

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

I am an accountability activist, and have been since 1967. From 1982 until today my main project has been NameBase, which is a database that is designed to make individuals, corporations, and groups more accountable by recording where names appear in selected books and magazine/newspaper clippings, and making the data searchable. I began collecting books and clippings in 1973.

This is not comparable to a biography on Wikipedia. It's only a list of citations, and it takes time and effort to follow up and obtain a copy of what is said in the material cited. It's not like keying a name into Google and getting the full text of a biography in the first link. The time and effort needed to follow up on NameBase citations provides the proper balance between privacy for the person cited, and public accountability for that person.

My issue with Google is that Google should be accountable and more responsive to important social issues. They should not store all the information they collect on users indefinitely. Instead, they should have data retention limits. I also have other issues with Google. I believe that PageRank amounts to the tyranny of the majority. And later, I think they sold out and AdSense is ruining the web. I believe that Google is utterly arrogant and has no social conscience whatsoever. I resent all the hype that comes out of Silicon Valley about Google. I am anti-Google, and have been since 2000. In 2002 I started an anti-Google site. The first essay was about PageRank. Later I added material about privacy.

If I was a privacy advocate, I would have started a site about cookies. Instead I started a site about Google, and included information about Google's cookie. I'm much more interested in making Google accountable than I am interested in protecting individual privacy. But with Google, the two issues are closely meshed.

The problem I had with starting the anti-Google site is that I was the first Google critic. I made a lot of enemies because everyone thought that anyone who was anti-Google had to either be nuts, or had to fit into some preconceived box, like "privacy advocate," so that they could be understood more easily. If a reporter was interested in Google, and called me, I talked to that reporter about all the issues. If he then pegged me as a "privacy advocate" in the article, I have no control over that. In the context of an article on Google, it's not important how I get labeled by a reporter, or even how I describe Scroogle. In the context of a biography on the web, which should be a balanced presentation of the whole person, it's misleading and almost malicious to call me a "privacy advocate."

The fact that I have continued to identify some Wikipedia editors and administrators will not be held against me by a jury. This is exactly what the Wikimedia Foundation feels that I should be doing, because its position is that all editors are responsible for their own edits. This means I have to identify these people. The Foundation won't help me do this. I'm http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/lawyer2.html as requesting the IP addresses those who have edited my bio, in order to facilitate their identities. I received no response.

How do you hold someone accountable if you cannot identify them?

If I criticize Wikipedia for violating my own privacy by posting a biography of me, does that make me a privacy activist? No, it makes me an accountability activist. I'm trying to hold Wikipedia, or the editors of Wikipedia, or both, accountable.

If a concern for your own privacy makes you a privacy activist, and if being a privacy activist makes you a public figure, and if being a public figure means you are no longer entitled to privacy, then this is catch-22 crap, and my reaction is that you should be held accountable for promoting crap like this.

I'm an accountability activist. It's all a question of balance. The more accountability there is, the less privacy. Society seeks to achieve this balance. One common-sense principle is that those who have more power to affect the lives of others deserve less privacy by virtue of the power that they hold. Otherwise, democracy cannot exist.

Wikipedia's editors and administrators hold power over biographies of living persons. At the same time, many of them are anonymous. When you are anonymous, you are not accountable. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is undemocratic.

By the way, I use my real name on this board, and on Wikipedia before I was banned as a user. I expect to be held accountable for what I do on Wikipedia-Watch. That's more than I can say for Wikipedians and Wikipedia.

A bio that has detail on a person going back 39 years is hardly comparable to the name, location, and photo from the web that I'm showing on hivemind. What I'm showing on Wikipedia-Watch is about the same information that is shown on your driver's license. When you are driving a car down the road, you are accountable for your driving. When a cop pulls you over, he doesn't see "SlimVirgin" or "Jayjg" on your license in place of your name, and if he did, he'd haul you off to jail. When you tell the judge that you did it to preserve your privacy, he will either keep you in jail or order a psychiatric examination.

When you are driving on Wikipedia by editing a living person's biography, you should be just as accountable as a person driving on a public road.

The only reason I was originally pegged as a privacy activist on Wikipedia (it took me five months of effort to change that) is because it allows Wikipedians to mock me as they point to the hivemind pages. All of a sudden I become a "hypocrite" or worse, a "stalker." It's just another self-serving stupidity from Wikipedia, and I don't think a jury will fall for it.

Posted by: Poetlister

QUOTE(JohnA @ Fri 29th December 2006, 11:01am) *

Then I'd direct the judge to the fifth paragraph of this webpage: http://www.scroogle.org/donatesc.html

Never mind John - even WR contributors aren't infallible.

Posted by: a view from the hive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#.22Biographies_of_living_persons_for_deletion.22_.28BLPfD.29_policy_proposal actually is quite interesting, it looks like there is at least some movement towards a new policy there. I might even go so far to say that the "hive" isn't acting like a "hive" anymore (at least on this issue). At least there was no block on 68.90.179.196 which I'm assuming belonged to Mr Brandt for at least a few minutes.

Posted by: Hamedog

Got a reply yet from Wikipedia? Would like to hear it!

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Wow, look here, on Day 3, I'm a http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Cyberlaw_Syllabus!

Oops, does that mean I'm more notable now, or would it be self-referential for any Wikipedian to make such a catch-22 claim?

Dumb question. What I should be asking is, "How many hours will it be before some teenage editor cites this as evidence of my notability?"

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 4th January 2007, 12:58pm) *

Wow, look here, on Day 3, I'm a http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Cyberlaw_Syllabus!

Oops, does that mean I'm more notable now, or would it be self-referential for any Wikipedian to make such a catch-22 claim?

Dumb question. What I should be asking is, "How many hours will it be before some teenage editor cites this as evidence of my notability?"

Question:

Does WP:NPA apply against Registered users with indefinite blocks or bans?

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Cyberlaw_Syllabus#Day_3._A_Potential_Solution:_Intermediary_Liability

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 24th December 2006, 2:08pm) *
Dear Sarah:

I am looking for a Florida-based attorney to negotiate with the Wikimedia Foundation...

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.


before this issue escalates further, and time permitting, I could propose a http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stipulation solution (which may of course require an attorney at this point) between Brandt & the Foundation. This proposal may be somewhat lengthy and would require a separate thread. For now, let's look at an ArbCom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Proposed_decision#Willmcw_admonished

QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote#Will_Beback admonished
4) Willmcw is admonished to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Nskinsella (Stephan Kinsella) who share the burden of being notable enough to have articles regarding them be included in Wikipedia.

Identitical language was proposed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision&diff=29801181&oldid=29801092, yet for some reason removed, perhaps due to the fact WP:BLP was in its infant stages just then. The same Arbitration case did, however, have this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others#Harassment_of_controversial_experts,
QUOTE
Harassment of controversial experts
6) The policy expressed in Wikipedia:Harassment as applied to controversial experts forbids violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground by undue focus on Wikipedia articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them, or on their editing activities.

So the question is, what WP "policies" apply to Registered users who are banned?

Synopsis of proposal: if Daniel Brandt (through an attorney) can stipulate to no more legal threats and get his ban lifted, and Wikipedia agrees to actually provide Administrative enforcement of (A ) it's own policies (B ) it's own ArbCom rulings, then much of the material Daniel Brandt regards as defamatory could be removed. This may be acceptable to both parties rather than costly litigation.

Posted by: Somey

Nobs, I'm sure your heart's in the right place, but I'm not sure this necessarily helps. As I understand it, it isn't so much that Brandt considers portions of the article defamatory - though I suppose he does, generally speaking - it's more that he objects to the inclusion of that page on the website as a matter of principle, given the attendant usurpation of control over his personal reputation and image by anonymous, non-accountable wikithugs.

Moreover, it's wrong, if not ridiculous, to suggest that Brandt should have to stipulate "no more legal threats." Even if they do delete the thing, what will they do afterwards? Reinstate the article two days later, and say "nyaah, nyaah, nyaah, you agreed not to sue, so now we can do whatever we want?" The point is that they're behaving maliciously, spitefully, and vengefully, over an issue that they both created and (initially, at least) escalated.

As for Brandt's being banned, they couldn't follow their own self-serving "rules" and lift that ban as long as the hivemind pages remain available on his website. Meanwhile, does he really care about being banned? I doubt it! Other than the fact that it strengthens his case, from a legal perspective.

Once again, this is a problem that Wikipedia could solve easily, cheaply, and quickly, by enacting a simple change in policy. Most judges are fairly sensible, even in Florida, and will see that immediately - and in all likelihood, will instantly dismiss the case in Brandt's favor, based on the sheer simplicity of the solution. US judges don't want to make extra work for themselves any more than anyone else does... given the choice between getting themselves and their courtrooms involved in a long-term legal morass that could take months or even years to iron out, vs. ordering Wikipedia to delete one little article out of 1.6 million on the website, what do you think they're gonna do?

To me, the issue at this point isn't whether or not Brandt can get the article deleted. Once the case reaches the courts, that's a foregone conclusion, IMO... the big question now is how much he can make in terms of monetary damages, should he wish to push it that far.

Posted by: the fieryangel

I think that the main problem with Nobs' solution is that he's thinking through this in terms of Wikipedia....um...."law", even citing ARB-COM (too bad that Philip K. Dick is dead; he woulda loved that one) cases and policy.

The point is: Wikipedia policy is not binding, nor is it law. It's just the same as the TOS on pretty much every website. In other words, it just says "if you do these things, you can keep coming back here and play with the other kids". It is not "law".

The point of taking the case to court is to make Wikipedia accountable under the laws of the State of Florida, which they seem to think don't apply to them because of the GREAT PROJECT that they're undertaking. It seems to me that the solution would involve refusing to discuss anything according to Wikipedia policy and only discuss things in terms of the REAL laws, not something dreamt up on IRC one night.

....and since Madame the Chairperson lives in France, where privacy laws are much more protective of individuals and since she is ultimately responsable under French law for this organisation, and since you can see Mr. Brandt's biography in France from the web, I'm wondering if this might be an interesting avenue for Mr. Brandt to explore....

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Marsden&diff=prev&oldid=98406426

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

The main thing for me is to get Section 230 past a Florida judge, so that the case can go forward. It could turn out that the Foundation will appeal up the federal courts if a Florida judge agrees with me that Section 230 doesn't apply. That could mean that the Florida judge's hands are tied until the federal appeals are exhausted. That's okay -- we need a good airing of why the Foundation should or should not be considered a "publisher" as opposed to a "service provider." If the case encourages discussion in the press on this issue, that would be helpful. Congress will soon realize from such a confused discussion that Section 230 needs revision.

If Congress realizes this, they will certainly revise the law by using language that applies to Wikipedia in ways that Jimmy and Brad won't like. That's how I read the current political climate regarding cyberlaw. When Section 230 of the CDA was passed in 1996, the Internet was much smaller, there were no blogs, and anonymity on the Internet was less threatening to politicians and corporations.

If Jimmy and Brad feel that it's too risky to argue on Section 230, given the fact that Jimmy has already intervened in numerous cases of marginal Wikipedia content, then the question becomes one of Florida's laws. I can claim defamation of character if the judge agrees that the Talk pages are "published" by virtue of their availability to search engines and scrapers. Otherwise it would be restricted to a "false light" and/or "invasion of privacy" case.

Damages are primarily interesting to me insofar as I get my expenses covered. At this point, that means I'm interested in whether a prospective attorney thinks my case is strong enough to take it on contingency. When the attorney is considering this, naturally he is also considering whether he will be able to collect if he wins the case.

That's why I'm encouraging the Foundation trustees to purchase liability insurance. Insurance companies will not insure directors and officers against cases that have already been filed, so I hope they get insurance soon. I've asked them but they won't tell me if they're insured.

Even if they aren't insured, that little donations bar on every Wikipedia page is helpful as I try to interest attorneys in Florida. It's now at $877,729 and rising.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(nobs @ Thu 4th January 2007, 9:54pm) *

QUOTE
Harassment of controversial experts
6) The policy expressed in Wikipedia:Harassment as applied to controversial experts forbids violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground by undue focus on Wikipedia articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them, or on their editing activities.

So the question is, what WP "policies" apply to Registered users who are banned?



Ah, yes, the famous Chip Berlet Exception. Except that there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtext as there often is with any Wikipedia policy pronouncement, and that is that the enforcement of this precedent is entirely contingent on whether the POV of the controversial expert in question is congenial to that of the Wikipedia IPOV (Institutional Point of View.)

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 5th January 2007, 6:21am) *

...If the case encourages discussion in the press on this issue, that would be helpful. Congress will soon realize from such a confused discussion that Section 230 needs revision.

If Congress realizes this, they will certainly revise the law by using language that applies to Wikipedia in ways that Jimmy and Brad won't like. That's how I read the current political climate regarding cyberlaw. When Section 230 of the CDA was passed in 1996, the Internet was much smaller, there were no blogs, and anonymity on the Internet was less threatening to politicians and corporations.

If Jimmy and Brad feel that it's too risky to argue on Section 230, given the fact that Jimmy has already intervened in numerous cases of marginal Wikipedia content, then the question becomes one of Florida's laws. I can claim defamation of character if the judge agrees that the Talk pages are "published" by virtue of their availability to search engines and scrapers. Otherwise it would be restricted to a "false light" and/or "invasion of privacy" case.



Yes, this addresses specifically what I am talking about. Mr. Brandt recognizes the risk of not gaining much because of current law. So "If Congress realizes this, they will certainly revise the law", but that hypothetical reaction can not be applied retroactively.

Mr. Brandt must determine if his primary objective is

(A ) to gain redress and enforcement (because Talk pages are "published" by virtue of their availability to search engines and scrapers) which he considers defamatory, and probably can prove real damages, or

(B ) the Principal of the matter--i.e. that Wikipedia is out of control--inwhich case Mr. Brandt merely becomes a martyr for a cause, if he looses.

Here is another http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others#Disruption_by_Nobs01

QUOTE

...postings to the talk page of an article about a Wikipedia user constitute harassment.

Mr. Brandt is a Registered user.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others#Removal_of_personal_attacks

QUOTE

The material ...may be removed by any user

Here Bauder, SlimVirgin, David Gerard and JKelly discuss

QUOTE
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-November/032793.html

Here Bauder says the material is

QUOTE
... laid out in full on the talk page.... That criticism might belong
in the article, but Nob is "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point."

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-November/032876.html
We might consider shielding our talk pages from Google as folks are
gaming us in this way.

Mr. Bauder says Wikipedia:NPA overrides WP:Attribution policy for Registered users who are the subject of a mainspace article
after I protest for the umteenth time,
QUOTE

I am probably the first user banned for personal attacks who provided http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-January/036993.html for his personal attacks.

Also, the Stephen Schwartz case somewhat parallels Daniel Brandt's, which reading between the lines may have partially resulted
QUOTE
...in favor of the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5386
in a foreign jurisdiction.

Analysis of what's presented above:

There is a way for Mr. Brandt to have the material removed he deems defamatory from Talk pages, based upon his status as a Registered user. It would be helpful to be unbanned and a "user in good standing", so to speak, but that would probably require an out of court stipulated settlement at this point.

What is at issue is, (A ) does Brandt actually want the material removed, or (B ) is this more an effort to influence judicial interpretation, legislative action, and public understanding of the various issues?

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(nobs @ Fri 5th January 2007, 2:58pm) *

What is at issue is, (A ) does Brandt actually want the material removed, or (B ) is this more an effort to influence judicial interpretation, legislative action, and public understanding of the various issues?

I'm assuming that I'll be able to do both in the long run, because Jimmy and Brad will fail to cut me off at the pass, and SlimVirgin's new policy probably won't fly either. If I'm wrong, and my bio and all related Talk pages come down, I'll basically be much happier. I'll trim back wikipedia-watch.org like I promised.

But if I already have an attorney by the time that happens, this attorney may feel that the 15 months of my pain and suffering, and the scraper pages that will take another 15 months to track down and threaten with a C&D, may warrant a lawsuit by me nonetheless. Otherwise, my attorney won't get adequately compensated for the work he's already invested in the case. If that's what my attorney thinks, I'll probably find his arguments convincing.

If I don't have an attorney by the time the bio comes down, I won't need one. I'll track down the scraper sites myself, and send them C&D letters.

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 5th January 2007, 2:47pm) *

QUOTE(nobs @ Fri 5th January 2007, 2:58pm) *

What is at issue is, (A ) does Brandt actually want the material removed, or (B ) is this more an effort to influence judicial interpretation, legislative action, and public understanding of the various issues?

I'm assuming that I'll be able to do both in the long run, because Jimmy and Brad will fail to cut me off at the pass, and SlimVirgin's new policy probably won't fly either. If I'm wrong, and my bio and all related Talk pages come down, I'll basically be much happier. I'll trim back wikipedia-watch.org like I promised.


Well, as I demonstrated above, the internal policies are already in place which protect a Registered user who is the subject of a mainspace article, even from properly sourced information. The problem, like a non-custodial parent who wins visitation rights, is getting enforcement of his rights. By stipulation, you could demand that Wikipedia put in writing its pledge to police and remove defamatory material from Talk pages, (i.e., enforce its own polices and precedents like they do in the various Chip Berlet cases). In exchange for you ceasing to make legal threats, an end to your ban, and a pledge to abide by stated policies (probably would require some sort of hold harmless agreement). Whether or how much of an active contributor you seek to be is immaterial.

The reason you get so much sympathy here in Wikipedia Review is, cause this may be the landmark case where Wikipedia is forced to abide by its own internal policies. That is what, when everything gets weighed, seems to be the BIG problem.

In otherwords, enforcement can be gained, not because they like you, but because it is an actual policy agreement the Foundation made with a notable user. "Policy", not in the fluid sense that Wikipedia reinvented which destroys cooperation and goodwill between human beings, but in its pre-Wiki English language meaning. The rest of us can only hope that if the Foundation actually discovers the meaning of the word "policy", with an external user, it will trickle down into the internal policies of the organization.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

SlimVirgin has just informed me that she is unable to help me. There is no indication in her email whether she lacks the power to help me, or whether she lacks the will to help me. Either way, this is no surprise for me.

If she lacks the power to help me, this means that she started something that she is unable to stop. If that's the case, then I think she should do the honorable thing and leave Wikipedia.

Don't hold your breath.

Posted by: anon1234

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 6th January 2007, 5:58am) *

If she lacks the power to help me, this means that she started something that she is unable to stop. If that's the case, then I think she should do the honorable thing and leave Wikipedia.


It would be best to follow through on your threat to file a lawsuit. Besides just Wikipedia Foundation, it may be beneficial, if legally possible, to list as defendants the specific editors responsible (such as SlimVirgin.) While the overall goal should be to get a judgment in your favor, a secondary effect is that it will result in significant publicity for all involved and it may result in SlimVirgin becoming notable enough (via media coverage of your lawsuit and the defendants listed) that she meets the criteria of notability for her own Wikipedia article. In fact, you'll probably be interviewed by news agencies as to your quest to identify those who were responsible for your article and your attempts to hold them accountable.

There is significant evidence that Wikipedia Foundation will not be able to claim that it falls under the CDA exceptions for service providers in that there are significant WP:OFFICE interventions in content disputes (I am pretty sure the interventions go past just simply deleting posts -- or maybe not, it depends how hands off the ArbCom is from the board, but I think that any competent lawyer could establish the connection since Jimbo does appoint the ArbCom members, the elections are only "recommendations" to an extent.) Because of the WP:OFFICE interventions, Wikipedia knows that it is potentially liable and because of its self-interest immediately settles such matters out of court by just conceding -- not because it judges the facts of the case but just because fighting any of these issues in court is a huge waste of time and resources and the very top of Wikipedia has no real care about these minor content issues. In fact, I think there is a lot of evidence that Wikipedia folds like a wet cardboard box in response to actual filed lawsuits that name the foundation as a defendant. If this theory is correct, you will get rid of your bio by filing the lawsuit and there will be no media coverage of the event -- thus you win in this scenario.

You may, from your standpoint, want to file the lawsuit and contact the media at the same time -- thus purposely making a media splash that raises the profile in the mainstream media of your your long-term grievances with Wikipedia. If you had funds available, it may be advisable to ask your lawyer to recommend a PR firm to help with the media campaign -- some law firms are aware of how to use the media to their advantage when dealing with high profile clients and class action lawsuits. (In fact, your may even want to file your lawsuit as a class action -- this will ensure significant media coverage and a huge threat to Wikipedia.) Thus achieving the all benefits (from your point of view) of both scenarios described above.

In the long term, I see no way around Wikipedia having a clear opt-out policy for all people and companies and so forth as a result of Wikipedia Foundations' ultimate responsibility for the content since its policy of allowing anonymous contributors removes individuals from their otherwise legal accountability -- Wikipedia can't have it both ways. To be more specific, if you were to file a class action lawsuit, you will likely end what will be remembered by some as the "wild west era" and to others as the "golden-era" of Wikipedia.

Postscript thoughts:

If you go the class action lawsuit route, you'll have to restrict yourself to just Wikipedia Foundation and its direct officers/directors as the defendants (as opposed to any anonymous editors) because it would be impossible to keep adding new individual editor defendants as others join the class action lawsuit with regards to other articles. One can't keep amending the list of defendants. The class action lawsuit route is likely to be the most effective route towards motivating Wikipedia to change its policies, although I still recommend that you take your case to the media in parallel in order to actually cause Wikipedia to change its policies and not just accommodate your situation in a one off behind-closed-doors exception (which is how they currently react to such matters.) Also, you'll need the media coverage to attract co-litigants to your class action lawsuit.

Post-postscript thoughts:

I wrote the above late last night and I was tired. The biggest issue is what is your case about? The defamation of character what was present early on in your biography? The mental anguish of having to fight the anonymous and uncaring editors at Wikipedia to try and get it corrected? The loss of privacy? The time and energy you now have to expend to always monitor your very prominent biography from the whims of anonymous and possibly grudge holding editors? Your situation I fear is actually one of the better one's on Wikipedia in that you are able to fight back in a way that most people can not -- you are on their radar. Many individuals with biographies on Wikipedia have been subject to slanted editing from people with ideological or professional issues and unless they have the ability to make an issue out of it via an OpEd, they simply can't do anything, especially if they are up against something with a lot of time and knowledge of how to play Wikipedia's rules. This is a long-term problem, the lack of accountability with regards to smearing others on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Somey

Agreed, and those are some very good points. The only thing I might add, of course, is that the smart move on the foundation's part would be to impose an opt-out policy now, before the courts or even Congress end up doing it for them. One has to assume that a policy imposed by the courts, or by statute, would encompass a wider range of content than something the foundation imposed by itself, just to get past this one issue...

In other words, an externally-mandated policy could end up covering not just individuals, but also companies, nonprofit organizations, political parties, religious groups, cities, or even entire countries. Whereas the opt-out policy as currently envisioned might realistically result in the removal of maybe a hundred articles over the course of the next year (including the two dozen or so that would be removed up front), a court-mandated version could result in the removal of thousands of articles, in a wide variety of categories.

Not that I think Wikipedia would be any worse off for it, mind you. (And I do mean that sincerely!)

Posted by: bonron

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 24th December 2006, 9:08pm) *

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

If this fails, I plan to file an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against the Foundation.
You should consider a class action law suit. You are not alone!

Posted by: nobs

From reading all this it appears Mr. Brandt's intentions are not primarily directed at removing the alleged defamatory material, which weakens the case.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 24th December 2006, 2:08pm) *

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.
appears to be blackmail, which further can be used as evidence Mr. Brandt is not asking a Court of Law for redress in good faith.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 5th January 2007, 10:58pm) *
...There is no indication in her email whether she lacks the power to help me, or whether she lacks the will to help me. Either way, this is no surprise for me.

If she lacks the power to help me, this means that she started something that she is unable to stop. ...

SlimVirgin clearly has the power to enforce both purported "policies" and precedents. SlimVirgin recently gave this explaination,

QUOTE
BLP applies to every page on the website. I'm putting a stop to what's been happening on that talk page. It is for discussing the article only, and it must be done respectfully. Please review WP:BLP very carefully and note that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NathanDW&diff=prev&oldid=89048637, for obvious reasons, and that violations are blockable offenses.

This was in response to a question on a mainspace article talk page, which also was deleted,
QUOTE
SlimVirgin, normally when a talk page is archived, the older parts are archived and the newer parts are retained. You took everything. It also appears that in your archived version, the recent discussion was deleted altogether. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=89048228 Remember that BLP applies to the article, not the talk page.

Other visitors to this page should look at the history to see whether these actions were appropriate

What was the deleted material in question that the Foundation takes seriously?, material accessible to Google of a defamatory nature?
It was the subject of the article's own words,
QUOTE

I have indeed suggested that a handful of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=88851031&oldid=88847699 or have adopted some ideological features of those political ideologies
an admission to using Wikipedia as a soapbox to defame living persons. And he (a ) gets away with it (b ) does so with ArbCom, and it appears now possibly the Foundation, turning a blind eye.

QUOTE(anon1234 @ Sat 6th January 2007, 12:05am) *
...a secondary effect is that it will result in significant publicity for all involved and it may result in SlimVirgin becoming notable enough (via media coverage of your lawsuit and the defendants listed) that she meets the criteria of notability for her own Wikipedia article. In fact, you'll probably be interviewed by news agencies as to your quest to identify those who were responsible for your article and your attempts to hold them accountable.

You may, from your standpoint, want to file the lawsuit and contact the media at the same time -- thus purposely making a media splash that raises the profile in the mainstream media of your your long-term grievances with Wikipedia. If you had funds available, it may be advisable to ask your lawyer to recommend a PR firm to help with the media campaign -- some law firms are aware of how to use the media to their advantage when dealing with high profile clients and class action lawsuits. (In fact, your may even want to file your lawsuit as a class action -- this will ensure significant media coverage and a huge threat to Wikipedia.) Thus achieving the all benefits (from your point of view) of both scenarios described above.

The notorious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia#Seigenthaler_incident (downgraded from "hoax" to "controversy" and now "incident'), this unjust and embarassing affair is actually reviewed as a triumph with a dramatic increase in page views. One can imagine how worthwhile it may be to engineer and manage future "incidents", "hoaxes", or "controversies", if they are this beneficial to the project.




Posted by: anon1234

QUOTE(nobs @ Sat 6th January 2007, 7:16pm) *

appears to be blackmail, which further can be used as evidence Mr. Brandt is not asking a Court of Law for redress in good faith.


It's not blackmail by any formal definition since he has already posted the information and all of it was legally disclosed.

QUOTE(nobs @ Sat 6th January 2007, 7:16pm) *

The notorious Siegenthaler incident (downgraded from "hoax" to "controversy" and now "incident'), this unjust and embarassing affair is actually reviewed as a triumph with a dramatic increase in page views. One can imagine how worthwhile it may be to engineer and manage future "incidents", "hoaxes", or "controversies", if they are this beneficial to the project.


If a legal precedent is established that changes how Wikipedia works then it is effective. The goal should not be the destruction of Wikipedia or to stop its rise to popularity, just make it more accountable and more integrated into the norms of the established society within which it is supposed to operate.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(nobs @ Sat 6th January 2007, 1:16pm) *
The notorious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia#Seigenthaler_incident (downgraded from "hoax" to "controversy" and now "incident'), this unjust and embarassing affair is actually reviewed as a triumph with a dramatic increase in page views. One can imagine how worthwhile it may be to engineer and manage future "incidents", "hoaxes", or "controversies", if they are this beneficial to the project.

I have never understood why many admins point to the Seigenthaler case as a triumph for Wikipedia, and never get tired of showing off their increase in traffic:

FORUM Image

Let's extrapolate from the assumption that whenever a squeaky-clean, prominent, influential, highly-respected person such as Seigenthaler denounces Wikipedia as a fraud, Wikipedia's traffic doubles. Does anyone think the quality of this traffic bodes well for Wikipedia's long-term survival? Or is the effect of this traffic similar to giving someone just enough rope to hang themselves?

On the other hand, why should I assume that anyone on Wikipedia, admin or editor, has any interest whatsoever in the long-term future of Wikipedia? Web 2.0 is all about real-time, short-term gratification. Unfortunately, most of the high-tech media pundits are required to pump out real-time, short-term crap to keep their jobs, which reinforces Wikipedia's editors as they convince themselves that what they're doing is real and significant. But it won't last.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 7th January 2007, 11:13am) *

I have never understood why many admins point to the Seigenthaler case as a triumph for Wikipedia, and never get tired of showing off their increase in traffic:


For the same reason that Ripofflicans point to the ascensions of people like Ford and Bush 2.0 to the throne of Non-Elective Rex Officio (NERO) and advertize that pair of non-righteous successions as "Proofs that the Constitution works".

What else are they going to say?

The Truth?

Too Damn Scary ...

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(anon1234 @ Sat 6th January 2007, 9:08pm) *

The goal should not be the destruction of Wikipedia or to stop its rise to popularity, just make it more accountable and more integrated into the norms of the established society within which it is supposed to operate.

I Agree. And a stipulated settlement between the Foundation and a Registered user who agrees to abide by policies inexchange for the Foundation agreeing to actually enforce its own policies is more likely to achieve this.

The only loophole for Wikipedia I see, as a neutral observer, is this policy,
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Circumventing_policy

A stipulated settlement should be stated in such a way that binds the Foundation to enforce policies Community wide, not just in a private settlement with Mr. Daniel Brandt, aka User:Daniel Brandt.




Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 7th January 2007, 4:06pm) *

QUOTE(anon1234 @ Sat 6th January 2007, 9:08pm) *

The goal should not be the destruction of Wikipedia or to stop its rise to popularity, just make it more accountable and more integrated into the norms of the established society within which it is supposed to operate.


I Agree. And a stipulated settlement between the Foundation and a Registered user who agrees to abide by policies inexchange for the Foundation agreeing to actually enforce its own policies is more likely to achieve this.

The only loophole for Wikipedia I see, as a neutral observer, is this policy,
QUOTE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Circumventing_policy


A stipulated settlement should be stated in such a way that binds the Foundation to enforce policies Community wide, not just in a private settlement with Mr. Daniel Brandt, aka User:Daniel Brandt.


As far as the Norms Of The Established Society (NOTES) go, Wikipedia's allowance of anonyms puts it outside those bounds from the start and undermines every attempt to make it accountable, or even to paint it as a reasonable facsimile of normal society.

The idea that you can pull the rug out from under personal responsibility at the outset, and keep insisting that enforcement of Wikipedia policy does not depend on knowing the real world identities of those who open user accounts, simply bankrupts every post hoc attempt to patch up its biggest gaping loophole.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 9th January 2007, 12:06pm) *

As far as the Norms Of The Established Society (NOTES) go, Wikipedia's allowance of anonyms puts it outside those bounds from the start and undermines every attempt to make it accountable, or even to paint it as a reasonable facsimile of normal society.

The idea that you can pull the rug out from under personal responsibility at the outset, and keep insisting that enforcement of Wikipedia policy does not depend on knowing the real world identities of those who open user accounts, simply bankrupts every post hoc attempt to patch up its biggest gaping loophole.

Amen to that.

Jonny, can I steal your "Dr. Jimbo and Mr. Hive" to replace the "What is the point of this page?" title in the middle of http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 9th January 2007, 2:33pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 9th January 2007, 12:06pm) *

As far as the Norms Of The Established Society (NOTES) go, Wikipedia's allowance of anonyms puts it outside those bounds from the start and undermines every attempt to make it accountable, or even to paint it as a reasonable facsimile of normal society.

The idea that you can pull the rug out from under personal responsibility at the outset, and keep insisting that enforcement of Wikipedia policy does not depend on knowing the real world identities of those who open user accounts, simply bankrupts every post hoc attempt to patch up its biggest gaping loophole.


Amen to that.

Jonny, can I steal your "Dr. Jimbo and Mr. Hive" to replace the "What is the point of this page?" title in the middle of http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html?


O G, I dunno what our local licenc/se is -- whatever it is, we sure have a lot of it -- but since this one is twice-stolen already, from Robert Louis Stevenson and The Fieryangel, I reckon it's NOR enuff to suit even WP.

So be my geist ...

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: nobs

Part I -- Navigating flame wars of the Daniel Brandt controversy

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 7th December 2006, 1:08am) *
SlimVirgin started the bio on me before I ever became a user on Wikipedia. ...
QUOTE(nobs @ Sat 13th January 2007, 11:04am) *
... Slim does not act randomly... Let's walk the dog backwards....
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 13th January 2007, 12:11pm) *
So are you looking for something that predates even that? There probably isn't anything, IMO. Remember, we're talking about Slimmy here - she doesn't need a reason to go on the attack, overtly or covertly. She just does it - that's how she is. You're right that she doesn't act randomly,
The sequence of events that led to SlimVirgin's creation of the Daniel Brandt bio can be found using these Google search terms:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Rangerdude%2BBrandt&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Help%21+Giant+Blob+of+Horowitz+hit+my+page%2BRangerdude&btnG=Search

Rangerdude was working on the Chip Berlet mainspace:
QUOTE
Some critics of Berlet consider his actions during the 1990s to have been unfair to left-wing activists in America. In 1991, Berlet mostly limited his criticism to groups on the left who were prepared to form alliances with organizations considered to be anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi, or fascist, such as Liberty Lobby and the Populist Party.

.... Berlet strongly argues that left-wing activists in such coalitions need to maintain a position of principled self-criticism and refrain from sweeping away or understating issues of bigotry. This arguably hardline stance has attracted criticism from a number of individuals.

Daniel Brandt, a left-wing activist who maintains the Googlewatch and Namebase websites, [http://www.google-watch.org/] [http://www.namebase.org/] writes of Berlet:

He isn't critical of conspiracy thinking on the basis of the evidence, but waits until the theorist can be shown to have incorrect political associations. Berlet doesn't fit anywhere on our spectrum; he's running his own show. [http://www.namebase.org/news01.html]

03:39, 3 August 2005 Berlet posts edit summary, "Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page"

00:45, 5 August 2005 SlimVirgin enters fray, posts

QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=next&oldid=20189889

Protracted edit war and two Arbitration cases follow.

18:46, 28 September 2005 SlimVirgin creates Daniel Brandt page.

Posted by: Somey

You're not trying to imply that Berlet put her up to it somehow, are you? I think we have to assume that at the time, there was no guarantee that Brandt would object so strenuously to the article... If anything, Berlet would have wanted to avoid getting Brandt involved in Wikipedia affairs, if only to avoid future embarassment potential. I wasn't around when it happened, of course, so maybe I'm wrong. But why would Berlet want to risk making that kind of trouble for himself? He may be ill-tempered, but he seems a bit smarter than that.

I mean, AFAIK we have no reason to assume that Slimmy didn't create the stub simply because Brandt was mentioned in a few places on Wikipedia, and she just wanted to "improve coverage," so to speak. (Her actions after that were one botched damage-control move after another, of course!)

Posted by: nobs

Part II -- Chris Arabia uses "fellow left-wingers"

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 14th January 2007, 1:56pm) *
You're not trying to imply that Berlet put her up to it somehow, are you? I think we have to assume that at the time, there was no guarantee that Brandt would object so strenuously to the article... If anything, Berlet would have wanted to avoid getting Brandt involved in Wikipedia affairs, if only to avoid future embarassment potential.
Rangerdude makes the case clearly in both ArbCom cases, and SlimVirgins' actions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rangerdude#Daniel_Brandt and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SlimVirgin2#Statement_of_the_dispute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Violations_by_SlimVirgin Rangerdude (RD) said,

QUOTE
3) ...Cberlet's ... called the material I added "a giant wad of Horowitz screed on my Wiki entry" and asks that they be reduced to a link. [108] I responded to this request with a defense of my edits on NPOV grounds that was straightforward and certainly not abusive as SlimVirgin has alleged [109]. SlimVirgin responded the next day by carrying out Cberlet's request and chopped off the majority of the Horowitz material I had added. Cberlet's repeated references to Chip Berlet as "my" article and his requests aimed at controlling and removing critical content seem to violate WP:OWN's prohibition of this, as do SlimVirgin's edits aimed at carrying out his requests.

What sourced, NPOV material did SlimVirgin chop off? this portion, for example:
QUOTE
Arabia writes that "Berlet’s favored technique is to describe fascist and/or hate movements in detail and then brazenly link them to anyone who does not tow his party line." ... According to Front Page Magazine, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=next&oldid=20302331 politically. According to Arabia, his approach has had the effect of squashing "vigorous debate and discourse" both within the political left and in general. [21]

On 28 September 2005 the sourced NPOV material was still in the Chip Berlet mainspace. This is when the attacks on Mr. Brandt's credibility started. Compare the Berlet bio today with the NPOV version RD (Rangerdude) wrote, tells much of the whole story.

Posted by: Nathan

This reminds me of something a lawyer told me "If the content is available in Canada, you can sue under Canadian law" (that's about my own ..uhm..issues..and if I had the money to do that, it'd be done..)

So if the content is available in France and he had a good enough reason to sue in France, he could do it.
(But I'd tend to lean more toward American law in this case, whereever Wikimedia is really based in)

Posted by: guy

QUOTE(Nathan @ Tue 16th January 2007, 2:23am) *

This reminds me of something a lawyer told me "If the content is available in Canada, you can sue under Canadian law" (that's about my own ..uhm..issues..and if I had the money to do that, it'd be done..)

So if the content is available in France and he had a good enough reason to sue in France, he could do it.
(But I'd tend to lean more toward American law in this case, whereever Wikimedia is really based in)

Yes, it's a question of enforceability. Sue me in Canada and win - what can you do? I have no assets there and no plans to visit. Try enforcing a Canadian judgment against me in England.

Posted by: Nathan

That's another good point.

QUOTE(guy @ Tue 16th January 2007, 7:35am) *

Yes, it's a question of enforceability. Sue me in Canada and win - what can you do? I have no assets there and no plans to visit. Try enforcing a Canadian judgment against me in England.


Posted by: nobs

This paper, http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf says,

In Zeran v. America Online Inc., U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 97-1523 (Nov. 12, 1997) the Appeals Court noted,

QUOTE
"...lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions — such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content” are barred by Section 230. The court declared that Congress enacted Section 230 precisely because it recognized the threat that lawsuits pose to freedom of speech on the Internet: Interactive computer services have millions of users. The amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is therefore staggering. The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obvious chilling effect. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems.
and that Section 230 was to encourage service providers to
QUOTE
“self-regulate the dissemination of offensive material over their servers.”

In rereading http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 which led to the creation of the Brandt bio, Slim says,
QUOTE
I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something.
Yes the "published criticism" was excised and the problem users hounded off. Brandt was the victim of a drive-by smear, probably engineered by Berlet, executed by SV, aimed at limitting and removing criticism of Berlet contributed by Rangerdude and Nobs01 which conformed to Wikipedia Attribution policies. See, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6014&st=0&p=20797&#entry20797

The problem seems to be Wikipedia's definition of "source". Reviewing those pages, SlimVirgin persistently referred to the host as "source" in discussions with me, and it was as if we were talking past each another. I don't know if it was deliberate, just strecthing the rules, or careless. I assumed in good faith WP:DR and Arbitration would resolve this. And I certainly didn't agree to submit to Arbitration with the intention of being defamed in the process.

And of course she, like Berlet, attempts to link and tie Berlet critics to the LaRouche movement.

Posted by: nobs

Part V ( A ) -- "We have discussed this problem at PRA"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics&oldid=24231249

An RfC was filed on Political Research Associates (PRA) the same day the Daniel Brandt bio was created. This is illustrative of the fact that Berlet, et al were frustrated over the inability to excise properly sourced criticism from the PRA article. Berlet says,

QUOTE
Talk:Political Research Associates Vocal critics of this organization (where I work) have added much negative criticism. There are no lists of publications or accomplishments, quotes from supporters are gone, quotes from critics abound; and now criticism dominates the page. Is this fair and NPOV?13:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
On the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_Research_Associates#Fairness_and_Balance page, Berlet announces the RfC
QUOTE
This page is now totally unfair and unbalanced. The majority of text is based on critics. None of the publications of PRA are listed. The actual quotes from our supporters have been deleted, in favor of quotes from critics. We have discussed this problem at PRA, and we feel this situation needs to be addressed, so we are asking Wiki editors to look at this page and make comments.--Cberlet 13:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Rangerdude engages Berlet
QUOTE
That PRA personally doesn't like its critics or what they say about it is simply not our concern on wikipedia
Berlet rejoins
QUOTE
So far we have had this page taken over by fans of convicted felon and neo fascist lunatic Lyndon LaRouche; and fans of a small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The critics of PRA quoted include Dan Brandt, a noted conspiracy theorist who has complained in print that PRA seems to be run by women (horrors!), and David Horowitz, who acts as the carnival geek of the ultraconservative political right.
Let me make a personal observation: Brandt was spared that day some of the more vicious comments directed at others. We have provided the motives to smear Brandt's credibilty, we've have provided the evidence Berlet asked others to intervene, we have provided proof Berlet thought Brandt's criticism unfair. All that was lacking was the foundation to discredit Brandt, "a noted conspiracy theorist".

Posted by: nobs

Part V ( B ) -- "Please refute that you put kittens into dryers!!! "

In response to the "Giant Blob of Horowitz", aka "Red-baiting Lie Article", Berlet responded to a question from a user who, coincidentally was the subject of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude#Mercy ruling, which is now part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:blp#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article.

From the Horowitz "hit piece" (written by Chris Arabia), Berlet quoted this section,

QUOTE
“Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet “may try to undermine your work and isolate you.”
Then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21 whom Chris Arabia quoted anonymously in the FrontPage Magazine article, and proceeded to link him to Holocaust denial:
QUOTE
This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt, who I criticized because he was urging people on the left to read the anti-Semitic Spotlight newspaper (at the time published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.) I left the board of a group Brandt ran when he refused to discuss my concerns over his increasing tolerance of conspiracy theories and antisemitism. He was mad.
Elsewhere on the same Archived page, User:El_C displays one of the earliest "special privileges" I've found afforded to Mr. Berlet, asking for his approval of the then current version of his mainspace article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#copyedit_.26_such);
QUOTE
I noticed that the criticism section isn't entirely symmetrical at the moment, missing a response from yourself on Daniel Brandt's criticism as well as that of The New American. In the interests of consistency and fairness, I think these are due
Truthfully, I am not all that an experienced editor in Wikipedia, having spent the vast majority of time in dispute resolution rather than editing. But I really don't know how common or accepted a practice this is. I wonder if in the "interests of consistency and fairness", this special treatment has been offered to other editors who "share the burden of notability".

And the actual text of the "Mercy" ruling should also be considered here as well, since it arose directly out of the Rangerdude case,
QUOTE
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.
Again the question, has this policy been applied uniformly and consistently?

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Chip Berlet wormed his way into the Wikipedia power structure, and this happened before I had ever looked at any Wikipedia page. I was simply uninterested in Wikipedia. I never assumed that Wikipedia was worth my time and effort until SlimVirgin started that stub on me 16 months ago.

Her stub on me, which I discovered by accident on Clusty, had two citations for me that I found objectionable. These evolved out of my anti-Google site that I started in 2002. That site created enemies for me. No one except me was anti-Google in 2002. This may be hard to believe more than four years later, but it's a fact. In addition to the Google name-bombing by professional AdSense spammers and search engine optimizers, which came within two years, I was an early target by Salon magazine. Reporter Farhad Manjoo made up some examples in his article that I never mentioned in the interview, and spun me as some sort of nut case. After all, who could possibly have any objection to Google, Inc.? Slashdot picked up the ball and ran with it, and I've been Cyberspace Enemy Number 1 ever since.

SlimVirgin's original stub was very short. She included those two citations because she needed something and those were available. She may have planned to expand it later under Berlet's guidance -- the evidence for this is circumstantial and speculative. I sent her an email and objected to the stub. I also sent one to Jimbo, plus a fax and letter. Slim and I worked together for a week. Any information about myself that I volunteered over the next month or so on the article Talk page ended up getting spun against me. One editor, Jokestress, started stubs on a dozen proper names that were associated with me. At no point should I have assumed good faith by Wikipedia. It took me a couple of months to realize this fully, and I made mistakes during those two months by revealing information about myself.

For example, there was an autobiographical article I wrote that saw print in 1992. There is nothing I'm trying to hide now that appeared in that article. I have no objection if 99.99 percent of the planet reads that article. However, when Wikipedians read it they are looking for items that can be extracted and used in my bio to depict me in a negative light.

When I was working with SlimVirgin in good faith in October 2005, I soon discovered that she had slimed me in defense of Chip Berlet several months earlier. By the middle of October 2005, I was beginning to realize that this wasn't a fair fight. I took down the copy of that 1992 autobiographical article from my own site so that no one from Wikipedia could use it in a citation. Months later I had to get it taken down from a public library site in Ohio, and from the Wayback Machine, and from Google Groups. That's because every time I got one copy taken down, some Wikipedian -- more often than not some administrator -- would find another copy. Today there aren't any copies on the web that I'm aware of. Nevertheless, Berlet cites this obscure 1992 publication anyway, even though no one except him can read the original. All I've managed to do is prevent other Wikipedians from using it for additional spin.

When Berlet objected to Fletcher Prouty as an advisor in 1991, I didn't discuss it with him and simply took Berlet off of the advisory board. Then he contacted other advisors and directors and tried to get them to resign. Three other advisors resigned because of this. Since they were just names on the letterhead, it made little difference to me. Berlet is vicious when he targets someone. When it became clear to me that SlimVirgin was Berlet's meatpuppet on Wikipedia, and that Jimbo would not review SlimVirgin's behavior, I realized that I had no other option apart from a take-down of the biography.

Initially it was about the two links from my anti-Google activities and the curious fact that I had no real voice in the matter. I knew that if Wikipedia sustained those links, they would last for another 100 years at the top of Google's results. However, I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this thanks to SlimVirgin and her meatpuppets.

It is so strange how social issues get utterly distorted by Wikipedians. Take the issue of privacy, for example. I fight for the privacy of users when it comes to using search engines. Google and Yahoo are the worst privacy violators. I also have other issues with Google, and yes, I think PageRank sucks on principle.

How does one reconcile this privacy interest of mine with the fact that I did research on Wikipedia editors that I posted on hivemind.html? It's very easy. Searching on the Internet by using a search engine is a passive, private matter. Editing a biography on Wikipedia is an active intrusion into the social sphere. Passive players deserve privacy, whereas active players must be held accountable for their actions. No one at Wikipedia has ever acknowledged a distinction such as this, even though it is plain common sense, and is fundamental to every legal and ethical system outside of Wikipedia.

I still don't understand why no one at Wikipedia has figured this out. Part of the problem must be Jimbo himself. His personal philosophy is self-serving, and he won't consider larger issues unless he's forced to. Combine Ayn Rand with Chicago options trading, and add Bomis to that, and you can see why Wikipedia is in the mess it's in today.

There's no fixing Wikipedia at this point. It probably has to be taken down.

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *
When I was working with SlimVirgin in good faith in October 2005, I soon discovered that she had slimed me in defense of Chip Berlet several months earlier.
Can you say when this is, or provide a diff?
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *
Chip Berlet wormed his way into the Wikipedia power structure, and this happened before I had ever looked at any Wikipedia page.
This is obvious in an RfM Freudian slip,
QUOTE
Rangerdude and nobs have almost taken over http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&diff=20212092&oldid=20205570#Cberlet_in_dispute_with_Rangerdude_and_nobs

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *
[SlimVirgin] may have planned to expand it later under Berlet's guidance -- the evidence for this is circumstantial and speculative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cberlet_%26_Willmcw&diff=19814622&oldid=19813992, six days before the Blob of Horowitz, SlimVirgin told Rangerdude,
QUOTE
The reason I'm supportive of Will [Beback] and Chip [Berlet] is that they're both very good editors. I trust their judgment on issues. I've learned from watching them both edit. ... I've watched them both go off in search of reputable sources that others can't be bothered to look for, or haven't been able to find. I've seen them go to great lengths to track down obscure bits of information and verify it. ...
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *
...when Wikipedians read [an autobiographical article I wrote] they are looking for items that can be extracted and used in my bio to depict me in a negative light.
Yes indeed. And with Mr. Berlet as thier guide.

I told Mr. Berlet numerous times,
QUOTE
...beginning an historical examination with a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01&diff=24530215&oldid=24516149 is a flawed method...
and have countless repetitions of him picking which “facts” he likes, discarding inconvenient facts, and going so far as to actually alter text of primary source documents. I have seen it with my own two eyes and have the evidence.

NPOV policy states: “Readers are left to form their own opinions.” This should mean an independent and neutral reading of any text, let the chips fall where they may. Berlet’s flawed methodology of not letting proven facts, proven facts he admits to, deter his POV (he just alters his arguement) gives undue weight to a host of critical areas vital to Wikipedia’s reputation as a valid research tool.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *

By the middle of October 2005, I was beginning to realize that this wasn't a fair fight.
There was a lot more going on by mid October 2005, I was in the midst of Mediation with Berlet (I estimate he & I spent 500 man hours that month). The Mediation pages still have not been restored, despite (1) an admission by Fred Bauder disallowing them as ArbCom evidence was in error; (2) the Mediator (now Arbitrator’s) promise to restore them over a year ago.

Why?

Those pages document Berlet’s flawed research methods, and it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia, who extended Berlet special privileges as a sort of “gatekeeper” to judge content.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *
Berlet is vicious when he targets someone.
All quotes from critics in this series, “Navigating the flame wars of the Daniel Brandt controversy”, all, I can personally attest to having experienced (and show diffs). Many of your quotes, Mr. Brandt, are indeed prophetic in this regard.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *

When it became clear to me that SlimVirgin was Berlet's meatpuppet on Wikipedia, and that Jimbo would not review SlimVirgin's behavior….I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this
Well, I think I have demonstrated, Berlet was willing to leave you alone up until the time the Giant Blob of Horowitz hit “his” page. The cat was out of the bag. Then he became defensive, and in doing so, set out to destroy his enemies. As Wilcox summarized his report,
QUOTE
Some Watchdog programs are valuable and important, especially as they help to promote real understanding and dispel antagonism and hatred between groups of people. In entering into a program of political warfare against their enemies, real or imagined, they [PRA] have compromised this goal.
As I told Fred Bauder, I count myself among Berlet’s imagined enemies, but I don’t think Bauder ever bothered to read the report.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *
It is so strange how social issues get utterly distorted by Wikipedians.
So true. Despite NPOV policy, there is an automatic assumption everybody has a POV. Take me for example: no goddamn law on earth requires me to hold an opinion on, say, abortion. I am free to choose not to give a crap one way or the other. Yet the hint of a political bias, one way or the other, automatically “links & ties” you to all sorts of other crap you are then expected to shoulder. This groupthink violates not only the spirit of NPOV, but AGF as well.


My heart goes out to you, my friend. I can see how this has affected you.

Posted by: nobs

Looks like the Jimbo slam at Brandt has been excised from the bio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=104935334

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(nobs @ Thu 1st February 2007, 9:32pm) *

Looks like the Jimbo slam at Brandt has been excised from the bio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=104935334

Squeaky reverted, so now it's back. On the Talk page, Squeaky compares me to Jesus. This is great! On December 26, 2005 he merely compared me to Britney Spears. This means that I'm making progress. I wish he'd send me some of that stuff he's smoking.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 2nd February 2007, 10:16am) *
On the Talk page, Squeaky compares me to Jesus. This is great! On December 26, 2005 he merely compared me to Britney Spears. This means that I'm making progress...

Just think, in a few months you'll be as big as John Lennon!

Who is this User:Badharlick, then? He seems to have become http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=73371082 over there, along with User:Sbharris (indirectly)... Of course, every time he starts making noise, someone decides, "Hey! It's time to archive the talk page, isn't it? Why, yes it is," and the whole thing starts all over again.

Posted by: nobs

Part IV ( C ) -- Questionable sources

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 29th January 2007, 8:04am) *

Is Jayjg a sockpoodle of SlimVirgin's? It seems like lately he's about two minutes behind her with a rubber stamp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_10#Tag-team_POV Two minutes after the blob of Horowitz. Of course now we know,

( a ) the slanders in PIR wiki entry are cited to a self published source, Chip Berlet, Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo- Fascist Overtures to Progressives, and Why They Must Be Rejected, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Political Research Associates, December 16, 1991.

( b ) the genesis of Right Woos Left was Chip Berlet, Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left, The http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9.html (NY), http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/hulet.html, p. 3.

( c ) the Guardian is the subject of Chap. 9, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58647856 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis%2C_Communists%2C_Klansmen%2C_and_Others_on_the_Fringe, John George and Laird Wilcox, Prometheus Books (Buffalo, New York), 1992, ISBN 0-87975-680-2.

( d ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ATT#Questionable_or_self-published_sources states,
QUOTE
Questionable or self-published sources
Some sources pose special difficulties: Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s).

( e ) SlimVirgin said Rangerdude wanted "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jnc&diff=next&oldid=20497284#Chip_Berlet" and she was "thinking of taking the matter further" to Jimbo Wales, and she didn't regard Danial Brandt as "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554."

( f ) Jimbo Wales echoed SlimVirgin's sentiments and added, "I don't consider him a credible source about anything at all", based upon the questionable source which has been allowed inclusion for 16 months.

( g ) efforts to remove the "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=104935334", citing Jimbo Wales as the source, are now the subject of an edit war.

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 26th December 2006, 9:25am) *
My letters and faxes to Jimmy Wales, Brad Patrick, and Danny Wool were ignored....
News on this front, too. From Foundation-1,
QUOTE
This will enable Brad to focus on developing the role of
General Counsel, and addressing a backlog of complex legal questions the
Foundation faces moving forward.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027478.html




Posted by: Somey

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? 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADaniel_Brandt&diff=105520343&oldid=105441365) 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 manner matter, is the person's desire to remain anonymous even relevant to the question? I mean, if I dress up in a Banana Splits costume, go shoot the Queen of England, and manage to get away without being identified, does that mean Wikipedia can't create an article called "The guy in the Banana Splits costume who shot the Queen and successfully escaped capture"? I mean, sure, it's a stupid title, but why shouldn't they, considering the supreme notability of what I, the guy in the costume, have allegedly done?

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. mad.gif

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Anthere says at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027499.html

QUOTE
I'll tell you three secrets, just do not repeat them. First, we are beginning to oil the wheels to find someone to be the new CTO in the long run. Second, Mark, Brion etc... pretty much manage their own business between themselves well. By large, Tim reports to Brion right now, and all is well. Third, Brion is not a report man... he is Brion. On the tech side, the most urgent things we can be facing in the next three months really, are much more related to hardware, hosting, network, insurance, contracts... in large part Mark realm (along with JeLuF, Domas, Rob etc...). [emphasis added]

From the context it seems that Anthere is more concerned with property insurance for their servers. What's the problem here? Do they expect God to smite their servers with a lightening bolt? I'm sure this won't happen, because God must realize by now that this would merely generate a negative biography on Himself, written by anonymous teenagers.

They don't need property insurance. What they really need is liability insurance for the Foundation and its officers and directors. I always thought one of the main duties of a general counsel was to keep the Foundation and its directors and officers from getting sued. If that's true, Brad hasn't been doing his job. He has never communicated with me in any sort of effort to negotiate my objections to Wikipedia.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 5th February 2007, 7:00pm) *
I always thought one of the main duties of a general counsel was to keep the Foundation and its directors and officers from getting sued. If that's true, Brad hasn't been doing his job.

Well, that's probably because he's been the Interim Executive Director for several months - wearing all those hats must've been difficult. Now that he's back to concentrating exclusively on his role as General Counsel, he'll be able to go back to working full-time on failing to keep the Foundation and its directors and officers from getting sued.

laugh.gif

Posted by: nobs

Well the saga continues. And no conspiracy would be genuine unless Allen Dullas and the Bush family fortune were somehow involved.

Ken Myers, aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ksm10 is the author of http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM2, presented at the August 2006 Wikimania conference, and appears to be an influentional take on the various legal issues regarding Wikipedia and Sec 230. Myers bio says he "is a recent graduate of Harvard Law School and will be joining Sullivan & Cromwell New York as an associate in the fall (of 2006)."

Who is Sullivan & Cromwell? Prescott Bush and Union Banking were clients of Allen Dullas and http://www.amazon.com/Law-Unto-Itself-Sullivan-Cromwell/dp/1557782393. Wikipedia is now the source for the information how the Bush family fortune being derived from Nazi's originated with a group aligned with Holocaust denial. (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/060875.html)

So as the Foundation establishes the position of General Counsel and builds the Legal Department, it's now patently obvious they are looking to advice from an associate of the law firm which, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_Information_Research, participated in money laundering for the Nazi's.

Where will all end?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(nobs @ Tue 6th February 2007, 1:53pm) *
...it's now patently obvious they are looking to advice from an associate of the law firm which, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_Information_Research, participated in....

There's no evidence for this, Nobs. Just because someone speaks at Wikimania and writes a paper on Section 230 doesn't mean the foundation is somehow forming a relationship with the law firm that just hired that same guy, right out of school, after the fact. If you can find something that suggests this, even vaguely, then by all means let us know - but without something to back this up, it's just the usual conspiracy-theory speculative blah-blah-blah.

I'd say you should know better, but I think we're clearly past that point now...! dry.gif

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 6th February 2007, 2:13pm) *
QUOTE(nobs @ Tue 6th February 2007, 1:53pm) *
...it's now patently obvious they are looking to advice from an associate of the law firm which, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_Information_Research, participated in....
There's no evidence for this, Nobs. Just because someone speaks at Wikimania and writes a paper on Section 230 doesn't mean the foundation is somehow forming a relationship with the law firm that just hired that same guy, right out of school, after the fact. If you can find something that suggests this, even vaguely, then by all means let us know...
Well let's see what John Loftus says about Sullivan & Cromwell (per WP:V):
QUOTE
"Some Americans were just bigots and made their connections to Germany through Allen Dulles's firm of Sullivan and Cromwell because they supported Fascism. The Dulles brothers, who were in it for profit more than ideology, arranged American investments in Nazi Germany in the 1930s to ensure that their clients did well out of the German economic recovery. . . .

"Sullivan & Cromwell was not the only firm engaged in funding Germany....

"...Instead of divesting the Nazi money," continue the authors, "Bush hired a lawyer to hide the assets. The lawyer he hired had considerable expertise in such underhanded schemes. It was Allen Dulles. According to Dulles's client list at Sullivan & Cromwell, his first relationship with Brown Brothers, Harriman...

Source: John Loftus, http://www.john-loftus.com/bush_nazi_scandal.asp, October 31. 2003.
There is more information about Sullivan & Cromwell in John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews, St. Martin's Press (1994). None of this stuff for NPOV purposes, as best I can discern, is in the wiki entry on Sullivan & Cromwell.

Now, as to Ken Myers relationship to the Foundation Legal Department, that is currently a matter under review....

Wiki Research Bibliography
http://bibliography.wikimedia.de/index.php?action=listKeywordProcess&id=196&catId=20

Posted by: coriaceous

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 29th December 2006, 6:03am) *

The fact that I have continued to identify some Wikipedia editors and administrators will not be held against me by a jury. This is exactly what the Wikimedia Foundation feels that I should be doing, because its position is that all editors are responsible for their own edits. This means I have to identify these people. The Foundation won't help me do this. I'm http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/lawyer2.html as requesting the IP addresses those who have edited my bio, in order to facilitate their identities. I received no response.


It's a two-edged sword. Asking that everyone who makes an edit be fully identified (name, address etc) is an invitation to massive invasion of privacy. At the same time, Wikipedia's unwillingness to require such information, to be kept in a private database, in order to track down abusers/plagiarists/vandals/libelists/etc is probabluy criminal (or rather, will become so as new law on the topic evolves).

I think admins should publically indentified, however, and all admins would have a bio. This would be an interesting topic in a test-case.

My own feeling is that WP will eventually crash and burn in a morass of litigation, coming back as a propriatary product of Google, Yahoo, etc. Brandt may be the one to bring it down. But he's certainly gotten them running scared.

Posted by: Somey

Welcome to the "non-lurking area" of the forum, Mr. Coriaceous!

QUOTE(coriaceous @ Tue 6th February 2007, 7:27pm) *
I think admins should publically indentified, however, and all admins would have a bio. This would be an interesting topic in a test-case.

I've been thinking very seriously about this lately. Much has changed during the last year - Wikipedia is now so popular, so well-known, and in some ways so ubiquitous, that any one of the thousand or so active admins is probably much more "notable" now than Brandt could ever hope to be. Right now, each of them as an individual (and maybe a few of the prominent non-admins too) is having a much greater impact on society, culture, civilization, yada yada yada than he is, maybe more than a good half of the living people who have biographies in WP... So yes, there should be an article about each and every one of them, giving names, backgrounds, professions, date of birth, the whole thing. And photos - mustn't forget those!

Anything less, and they'd simply be selfishly (and, of course, hypocritically) refusing to apply their own rules and standards to themselves. That's typical of abusive organizations, of course, but the principle still holds true all the same.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(nobs @ Tue 6th February 2007, 11:53am) *

Who is Sullivan & Cromwell?
Of more concern to me is the fact that Sullivan & Cromwell is one of Microsoft's main litigation firms, notably defending them in the (many) anti-trust suits. <stifles grin> Now where did I put that tinfoil hat?

Posted by: nobs

Outline of malicious intent

( a ) SlimVirgin said on 00:19, 7 January 2005,

QUOTE
I kept Daniel Brandt [in the Chip Berlet#Criticism subsection], not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something.
( b ) SlimVirgin made references to "malice" and protecting Wikipedia in two instances prior; once in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=28292553, and again in the Nobs01 case, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others#Statement_by_SlimVirgin
QUOTE
Now Nobs01, who often edits with Rangerdude, is inserting that Chip was closely associated with "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=28365242&oldid=28365153," and has made comments that look like threats, implying that if we don't retain the material, he'll insert even worse, which again raises the issue of malice.
Nobs01 served notice and requested SlimVirgin to withdraw the language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01/Archive02#Discussion_retreived_from_User_talk:SlimVirgin.2Farchive21) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01/Archive02#Proposed_wording to amend her Statement.

( c ) SlimVirgin created the Daniel Brandt article prior to publicly stating, “not because I feel he's a credible source”.

( d ) SlimVirgin altered the text of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=21266218&oldid=21143115, to read,
QUOTE
...widely acknowledged extremist views....may be used... only...as sources about themselves...
prior to SlimVirgin’s action on 28 September 2005 when she created the Daniel Brandt article.

( e ) SlimVirgin created the Daniel Brandt article on 28 September with the intent that Brandt, and the organization he works for, could not be considered a “credible source” for criticism of Chip Berlet.

( f ) The sourcing for criticism of Brandt (then and now) violates Wikipedia http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=22084&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry22084.

Posted by: coriaceous

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 6th February 2007, 10:19pm) *

Welcome to the "non-lurking area" of the forum, Mr. Coriaceous!

QUOTE(coriaceous @ Tue 6th February 2007, 7:27pm) *
I think admins should be publically indentified, however, and all admins would have a bio. This would be an interesting topic in a test-case.

I've been thinking very seriously about this lately. Much has changed during the last year - Wikipedia is now so popular, so well-known, and in some ways so ubiquitous, that any one of the thousand or so active admins is probably much more "notable" now than Brandt could ever hope to be. Right now, each of them as an individual (and maybe a few of the prominent non-admins too) is having a much greater impact on society, culture, civilization, yada yada yada than he is, maybe more than a good half of the living people who have biographies in WP... So yes, there should be an article about each and every one of them, giving names, backgrounds, professions, date of birth, the whole thing. And photos - mustn't forget those!

Anything less, and they'd simply be selfishly (and, of course, hypocritically) refusing to apply their own rules and standards to themselves. That's typical of abusive organizations, of course, but the principle still holds true all the same.


Compelling admins to be publically identified would have a HUGE impact on the quality of articles, and would lead to a destruction of the various cabals. It would also send a certain number of currrent admins into hiding.

Publishing IP addresses in all edits would also have a salutary effect on edits.

But of course, none of this will happen until the Wikipedia foundation is sued into oblivion.

And incidentally, its fascinating how closely Wikipedia people monitor this board. This suggestion probably scares them into terminal constipation.

In the upcoming litigation, it would also be insteresting if Brandt was given full access to W's servers (with Jimbo Wales authority) to snoop out ALL IP addresses of ALL admins, as well as editors for the article in question, so that these people can be sued too.

Posted by: Poetlister

QUOTE(coriaceous @ Wed 7th February 2007, 10:09pm) *

Compelling admins to be publically identified would have a HUGE impact on the quality of articles, and would lead to a destruction of the various cabals. It would also send a certain number of currrent admins into hiding.

How do you enforce that? It has been alleged recently that even so senior an admin as Essjay has put out misleading information about himself. It has been claimed elsewhere that at least one other admin, not a million miles from the topic of this thread, has a different real name from the one she uses in e-mails and elsewhere. Will all admin candidates have to submit a passport photo endorsed by a minister of religion or other public figure?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Poetlister @ Wed 7th February 2007, 5:10pm) *
How do you enforce that?

Assuming the principle is upheld (and I realize it won't be, ever), nobody has to enforce anything. It's all part of the regular process - someone does some research on who a particular Wikipedia admin is, publishes it in a "reliable" publication (preferably web-accessible), and at that point it's out of their hands, right? You have a valid assertion of notability, backed up by a reliable source, and bingo, another fine BLP article on WP. (Which then gets deleted, of course, because the subject is an admin.)

Mind you, there are a few WP admins who are members here on Wikipedia Review, some of them surreptitiously, and they needn't worry about any of us divulging confidential membership info to journalists. (To be sure, such info only consists of e-mail and IP addressed used to register here, and for anyone who's joined within the last six weeks, there's also the all-important answer to the "are you an East-European spambot?" question. But that's still something, I guess! And considering how little fact-checking is done these days, we could probably tell them just about anything and they'd believe it... laugh.gif )

Nevertheless, journos are welcome to join the forum and use the PM system to try to contact people, just in case efforts to do so on WP are unsuccessful - though there's probably no reason to think anyone would have better luck here.

Posted by: gomi

Are there any members here who are Wikipedia admins and Eastern European spam-bots? Enquiring minds want to know!

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 7th February 2007, 7:17pm) *
Are there any members here who are Wikipedia admins and Eastern European spam-bots?

Well now, normally I'd make some sort of wisecrack here, but there actually was an instance of a registrant who used the name of a valid WP contributor, with a proper user page and everything, but who bore the hallmark of an East-European spambot. It wasn't an administrator, but I'll be honest, it was really sort of creepy.

Y'see, the hallmark of an East European spambot is to put a country-of-origin into the "Are you an East-European spambot?" field on the form. They're programmed to assume that Question #2, if there is one, is always going to be "Where are you from?" So, if we see that someone has answered that question with "USA" or "Latvia" or "Bulgaria," it's basically a dead giveaway, and we don't have to bother looking that person's name up on WP (this also assumes that they've registered with an e-mail address from a domain that isn't an obvious "spamhaus"). It saves a lot of time, actually, because if you really want to be thorough you have to check the registration IP too, and the whole process can take a good 2-3 minutes per phony registrant.

In this one case, though, I just happened to remember seeing the WP username before, so I checked. I have an amazing memory for trivial bits of information, but I can never seem to remember to call my Mom on weekends. It's to the point now where I really wish I could just frickin' remember to call my Mom, and I'd be willing to give up the ability to remember trivia almost completely if I could just do that...

The WP user claimed to be from Oregon, and the IP was (as usual) Bulgarian, so I put it off as a coinkydink. Still, I have this fear that spambot operators are going to start mining the WP userspace for registration names, and if so, that will definitely suck big-time! In fact, I shouldn't even be posting this - it'll just give 'em ideas. unsure.gif

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(coriaceous @ Wed 7th February 2007, 11:09pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 6th February 2007, 10:19pm) *

Welcome to the "non-lurking area" of the forum, Mr. Coriaceous!

QUOTE(coriaceous @ Tue 6th February 2007, 7:27pm) *
I think admins should be publically indentified, however, and all admins would have a bio. This would be an interesting topic in a test-case.

I've been thinking very seriously about this lately. Much has changed during the last year - Wikipedia is now so popular, so well-known, and in some ways so ubiquitous, that any one of the thousand or so active admins is probably much more "notable" now than Brandt could ever hope to be. Right now, each of them as an individual (and maybe a few of the prominent non-admins too) is having a much greater impact on society, culture, civilization, yada yada yada than he is, maybe more than a good half of the living people who have biographies in WP... So yes, there should be an article about each and every one of them, giving names, backgrounds, professions, date of birth, the whole thing. And photos - mustn't forget those!

Anything less, and they'd simply be selfishly (and, of course, hypocritically) refusing to apply their own rules and standards to themselves. That's typical of abusive organizations, of course, but the principle still holds true all the same.


Compelling admins to be publically identified would have a HUGE impact on the quality of articles, and would lead to a destruction of the various cabals. It would also send a certain number of currrent admins into hiding.

Publishing IP addresses in all edits would also have a salutary effect on edits.

But of course, none of this will happen until the Wikipedia foundation is sued into oblivion.

And incidentally, its fascinating how closely Wikipedia people monitor this board. This suggestion probably scares them into terminal constipation.

In the upcoming litigation, it would also be insteresting if Brandt was given full access to W's servers (with Jimbo Wales authority) to snoop out ALL IP addresses of ALL admins, as well as editors for the article in question, so that these people can be sued too.


I don't understand why you think identification would have a beneficial effect. I think it would hurt, even cripple the project, because there'd be mass exodus and new people would be discouraged from editing. The people who stick around are not going to suddenly become amazing super-genius writers and overcompensate for the losses.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 8th February 2007, 6:49am) *

I don't understand why you think identification would have a beneficial effect. I think it would hurt, even cripple the project, because there'd be mass exodus and new people would be discouraged from editing. The people who stick around are not going to suddenly become amazing super-genius writers and overcompensate for the losses.


Real world identification is simply the first step toward social responsibility, the minimal disclosure that is necessary to permit evaluation of Wikipedia's claims and pretensions. People of sound judgment understand this axiomatically.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 8th February 2007, 1:06pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 8th February 2007, 6:49am) *

I don't understand why you think identification would have a beneficial effect. I think it would hurt, even cripple the project, because there'd be mass exodus and new people would be discouraged from editing. The people who stick around are not going to suddenly become amazing super-genius writers and overcompensate for the losses.


Real world identification is simply the first step toward social responsibility, the minimal disclosure that is necessary to pemit evaluation of Wikipedia's claims and pretensions. People of sound judgment understand this axiomatically.

Jonny cool.gif


Apologies for my unsound judgment. I was just talking about the quality of the articles, not external views of the site, although I note that the site does seem to be fairly popular. Apparently some people have already evaluated it positively--and most of them would likely never have done so if we required identification, because then the site would never have really gotten off the ground in the first place.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 8th February 2007, 7:12am) *

Apologies for my unsound judgment. I was just talking about the quality of the articles, not external views of the site, although I note that the site does seem to be fairly popular. Apparently some people have already evaluated it positively -- and most of them would likely never have done so if we required identification, because then the site would never have really gotten off the ground in the first place.


Oh, popularity. For a minute there I thought we were talking about what it takes to make a good encyclopedia, y'know, principles of sound journalism and responsible scholarship.

Nevermind ...

Back to the Uboob already in progress ...

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Somey

Hey now, you guys are going off on a tangent here...!

All I was saying was that these people are now "notable" enough for their own articles. If they don't want articles written about them, then that should be their right - but they should extend that right to others as well, in the interest of fairness. They should extend that right to everyone.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 8th February 2007, 10:49am) *

Hey now, you guys are going off on a tangent here ... !


Tangent ??? I thought the topology of this topic was a non-differentiable fractal farey tail !!!

My bad -- I haven't been following this whole gangly thread, and was only responding to the last couple of posts ...

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 8th February 2007, 8:49am) *

... these people are now "notable" enough for their own articles. If they don't want articles written about them, then that should be their right - but they should extend that right to others as well, in the interest of fairness. They should extend that right to everyone.
Soon people will discover no living person wants a wiki entry about themself, notable or vanity. The very creation of an article, keeping with human nature, will always gravitate in the direction of negativity. Any 'puff piece' short of that is suspect.

Spoken by one with a reputation of being ominous: "I know where the bodies are buried..."

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(nobs @ Thu 8th February 2007, 11:43am) *
Soon people will discover no living person wants a wiki entry about themself, notable or vanity. The very creation of an article, keeping with human nature, will always gravitate in the direction of negativity. Any 'puff piece' short of that is suspect.

You don't really believe that though, do you?

Thing is, if you've been reading what's posted here on Wikipedia Review fairly regularly, it would be very easy to get that impression, I should think. But the reality of it is that most people do want articles about themselves, and most such articles aren't really negative at all. In cases where people have done bad things, or who have skeletons in their closets that have recently been revealed, those peoples' enemies will occasionally target their bio articles... but I'd say that's a tiny minority of cases.

Another thing: You yourself, Nobs, have a history of adding negative information to BLP articles - or at least one or two in particular - and it's ultimately the reason you're here, as I understand it. It may be that the information you added is true and well-sourced, that the subjects deserve to be exposed in that way, and that "the people" deserve to know - and you may very well be right. But again, that's still a tiny minority of articles, and even in those cases I doubt that all but a few would want to risk the additional attention they'd get by asking for an opt-out deletion.

At a minimum, Wikipedia must allow for the fact that it is capable of damaging people out of spite, pettiness, and vindictiveness, often having nothing to do with the "notability" of the subject. In other words, it must make allowances for serious flaws in the very nature of its underlying concept. Only if it does that can we even bother to consider the question of whether or not it's a net-positive to society.

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 8th February 2007, 11:18am) *
You don't really believe that though, do you?
It's human nature; "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God".
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 8th February 2007, 11:18am) *
most people do want articles about themselves, and most such articles aren't really negative at all. In cases where people have done bad things, or who have skeletons in their closets that have recently been revealed, those peoples' enemies will occasionally target their bio articles...
Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...see above...

Posted by: nobs

Anyone know what ever happened to User:SlimVirgin's Left Boob and User:SlimVirgin's Right Buttock?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=15229651

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024712.html

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(nobs @ Tue 13th February 2007, 10:07pm) *
Anyone know what ever happened to User:SlimVirgin's_Left_Boob and User:SlimVirgin's_Right_Buttock?

They're in my trophy case, out in the garage. For a while I had them mounted on my living room wall, but that led to some, uh... unpleasant questioning by the local authorities. sad.gif

I explained to them that it was all just good, wholesome, online family fun, but I suspect they started a file on me anyway.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(nobs @ Tue 13th February 2007, 10:07pm) *

There you go with that Left/Right stuff again ...

Check It Out : Have We Got Boobs 4U.com

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Juries will not recognize the imaginary distinction between "article content" and statements that are published elsewhere on the Wikimedia Foundation Website under the express authority of "administrators, Jimbo Wales, and/or the Arbitration Committee".

The fact that this massively distributed acknowledgment of responsibility contains a logical disjunction -- the "and/or" connective -- may seem to leave a loophole, but judges will instruct juries, and reprimand counsel if necessary, about the invalidity of the "disjunctive defense". (A disjunctive defense is the brand of waffling evasion where a lawyer says something like "My client was not present at the scene of the murder, and besides it was self-defense".)

So it is has always been clear that Wikipedia is a publishing enterprise under the self-confessed control of "administrators, Jimbo Wales, and/or the Arbitration Committee".

Jonny cool.gif