New discussion started on BLP, The Real Thing, or more wikidrama? Options

[Daniel Brandt]

A discussion has opened on possible changes in BLP that would tilt AfDs for BLPs in the direction of "delete" as the default, instead of "keep."

I suspect that something along these lines will be implemented as official policy within the next few weeks. I also predict that it will be sufficiently watered down so that the new AfD on my bio will be a close one. The cabal will want my bio deleted — I think they already feel this way — and will unceremoniously squish the next DennyColt who shows up to frontload the process. With the emails flying behind the scenes, there is a good chance that my bio will get deleted and salted.

However, the policy itself will represent only a minor improvement. I may decide that while it barely got my bio deleted, it won't be of much help to any future BLP victims, and I'll be tempted to file a lawsuit anyway. The damages I'll claim have to do with the fact that it took me 19 months of hard work to get my bio taken down, and I took a lot of abuse along the way. (Just today, for example, David Gerard called me a "sociopath.")

If my bio is deleted, it would forestall an appeal by me to the Foundation Board of Trustees, but it won't necessarily preclude a lawsuit by me against Jimbo and the Foundation.

[Somey]

It looks like you'll probably have to sue anyway. Basically what they're doing now is watering down the original proposal sufficiently as to ensure that your bio article, specifically, won't be deleted. They're even saying as much...

If this helps get obvious hatchet jobs about "single-incident notables" like William_Bradford_(professor) out of there, that's good, but if it doesn't include people whose main "claim to fame" is their having been persecuted by Wikipedia itself, regardless of their response(s) to it, then it could actually make things worse for everyone in the long term.

By the way, don't mind Dave Gerard - as far as he's concerned, there are only two types of people in the world: People who serve to increase Dave's sense of personal aggrandizement, and "sociopaths."

[JTM]

A discussion has opened on possible changes in BLP that would tilt AfDs for BLPs in the direction of "delete" as the default, instead of "keep."

I suspect that something along these lines will be implemented as official policy within the next few weeks. I also predict that it will be sufficiently watered down so that the new AfD on my bio will be a close one. The cabal will want my bio deleted — I think they already feel this way — and will unceremoniously squish the next DennyColt who shows up to frontload the process. With the emails flying behind the scenes, there is a good chance that my bio will get deleted and salted.

However, the policy itself will represent only a minor improvement. I may decide that while it barely got my bio deleted, it won't be of much help to any future BLP victims, and I'll be tempted to file a lawsuit anyway. The damages I'll claim have to do with the fact that it took me 19 months of hard work to get my bio taken down, and I took a lot of abuse along the way. (Just today, for example, David Gerard called me a "sociopath.")

If my bio is deleted, it would forestall an appeal by me to the Foundation Board of Trustees, but it won't necessarily preclude a lawsuit by me against Jimbo and the Foundation.

I reviewed the criteria and I can imagine that one of the first bones of contention will be the definition of a "public person." That sort of thing can be argued six different ways from Sunday without any resolution. The Britannica model proposed of course takes away from consideration the recently famous. Britannica can be a tad slow in that regard. Nonetheless, I sense this is the best way of removing you entry which I assume to be the principal goal of the proponents. Good Luck!

[GlassBeadGame]

Any revision will be fundamentally flawed because they will approach it from an internal WP perspective. In order to work whatever they come up with will have to not please the "community" but be acceptable to complete strangers to WP process, values and ends. The answer cannot be found in WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. The answer is not to be found in WP at all. They need to assume the viewpoint of a person who aggrieved by the article.

What is needed is a process that is outside, neutral and independent. I would propose something like the process below:

1) Notice
The creator of an BLP must make reasonable efforts to inform the subject about the existence of the article. These efforts should be documented in the article talk page. If the subject provides objections to the article the article will deleted pending the outcome of the processes provided below:

2) Review Panel
If the subject feels that she/he not sufficiently notable enough to warrant the intrusion of the article she may be given an opportunity to have the matter reviewed by an independent panel. What I have in mind is similar to the "God Committees" that hospitals have for treatment/termination decisions. The panel would consist of trusted neutral and independent experts on this issue. They would not be appointed by Mr. Wales or elected by the "community." That would never be acceptable to an aggrieved BLP subject. They would administered by an independent entity such as the American Arbitration Association or various other professional dispute resolution providers. The panel member would be something like historians or journalists, people who have expertise in determining if someone is "notable". They would work off of written submissions of the creator/editors and the BLP subject. The panel would be charged with determining if an article is justified balancing the public interest in inclusion against the intrusion into the privacy of the BLP subject. If the Panel determines that an article is not appropriate it is deleted and salted without further recourse. If the panel determines an article is justified the BLP subject may appeal to the full arbitration process described below.

3) Full Arbitration
Any Subject of a BLP who feels that she has been defamed, portrayed in a false light or believes her privacy has been invaded may apply for arbitration of the matter. The Arbitrator shall be selected and governed by the policies of the American Arbitration Association, or other independent provider. The parties to dispute shall be the BLP subjects, the creator/editors of the article, any administrators closing discussion of internal processes concerning the article and a representative of the WMF. The arbitration will permit legal counsel, a record by transcript, permit testimony under oath, experts witnesses and documentary evidence. The arbitrator shall provide a written opinion elaborating the decision. The decision shall be limited to the status (delete or permit) of the article, the article's content and the appropriate level of article protection, if any.

The expense of administrating these processes shall be borne by the WMF. Parties shall bear there own respective costs for counsel and experts.

Do not confuse this independent process with any of the flawed and convoluted process, including ArbCom that exist currently in WP.

I would contribute this suggested process to the WP discussion but I am banned so I'll discuss it here instead.

What do you think Daniel?

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Mon 23rd April 2007, 10:29pm

[Daniel Brandt]

I think the key point is whether the new BLP policy has provisions that are initiated by the subject. Since only a tiny percentage of the 150,000 BLP articles will ever trigger the subject of the article into acting, the response on Wikipedia should be drastically tilted in favor of the subject's desire to delete.

This would actually help solve problems for Wikipedia, in that the squeaky wheels from outside Wikipedia (the ones like Seigenthaler who have Congressmen, publishers and superlawyers in their Rolodex) will have something immediate they can use for grease-relief, instead of being forced to do battle with the SqueakBoxes and Wales-watchers inside of Wikipedia like I've been doing for 19 months.

Anything else is rather like hopping into your huge, hulking SUV and driving to a neighborhood meeting about global warming.

[SqueakBox]

I think the key point is whether the new BLP policy has provisions that are initiated by the subject. Since only a tiny percentage of the 150,000 BLP articles will ever trigger the subject of the article into acting, the response on Wikipedia should be drastically tilted in favor of the subject's desire to delete...

The reason only a small number are inititated by the subject is that most articles initiated by the suibject get deleted on vanity grounds. I think the BLP is far too restrictive myself on who should be allowed on wikipedia and would happily testify to this effect in an American court

[Somey]

The reason only a small number are inititated by the subject is that most articles initiated by the suibject get deleted on vanity grounds. I think the BLP is far too restrictive myself on who should be allowed on wikipedia and would happily testify to this effect in an American court

I don't believe he's referring to the articles themselves, Squeaks. Rather, he's referring to possible provisions in the policy to allow the subject of the article to initiate the deletion process. Without those provisions, very little will be gained other than more pointless arguing among Wikipedians, which seems to be the only thing the place is good for these days...

If more than 500 people choose to opt out in the first year, I personally would be shocked, and I wouldn't even blame Wikipedia for reconsidering at that point. The people objecting to the idea on those grounds aren't really thinking about the problem, at least not in a non-reflexive manner. Remember that if someone has done a lot of negative/bad things, they're better off with biographical information on Wikipedia than anywhere else on the net, because at least there, they can influence it themselves. The exceptions would be people who have legitimate reason to believe that they're being specifically targeted for persecution and retaliation by Wikipedians, and if that's the case, Wikipedia shouldn't have a biography of them, at least not until the persecutors are perma-banned for it. (And let's face it, that's never gonna happen!)

Unfortunately, those subjects are the people whose articles are most likely to "survive" an AfD under the current rules.

Also, if anyone asks you to testify about something in a US court, I suspect it won't be about Wikipedia policy... I could see maybe prosecuting you for terrible misuse of punctuation, but beyond that? Naaah.

[BobbyBombastic]

hi dan! http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ril/069804.html

[Daniel Brandt]

hi dan! http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ril/069804.html

I don't understand why Tobias thinks this is newsworthy. What does he expect? I think he was hoping for a scenario like this:

1. Brandt pays money to a Florida lawyer and files a suit, and Jimbo and the Foundation are properly served.
2. The bio on Brandt disappears instantly.
3. Brandt tells his lawyer, "Never mind."
4. The statute of limitations expires.
5. The bio reappears.
6. Brandt walks off into the sunset, muttering, "Wikipedia is smarter than me. Duh! I'm so dumb."

Of course there was always the possibility that I might want to recover damages for the 2,444 versions of my bio that were gobbled up by Google over the last 19 months! What's the point Tobias is trying to make?

[Somey]

Good ol' Mr. T! More irrational, reactionary hyperbole....

Here's still more:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ril/069807.html

Brandt is not a terrorist, but he is a bully, and bullies live for the moments when they get to feel strong at the expense of their victims. I think it drives him crazy that Wikipedia as a whole can't be bullied; he and his sycophants will go after individuals all day, and sometimes get a hit on one on them, but there's no "boss" to go after, not Jimbo, not the mysterious evuhl "Slimmy", not the Foundation. Even in the very unlikely event that he succeeds in suing the Foundation out of existence, people would just move WP elsewhere - like to wikipedia.google.com...

Oooh, great idea!

I fail to see how the tenth-most-popular website in the world, with over a million registered users, nearly 2,000 administrators and 50,000 regular users, whose policies have never been successfully challenged in court, could be "bullied" by one guy that nobody has ever heard of before. What, because he went out and found some peoples' real names without even getting out of his chair, and posted them on an obscure website, where the stuff wasn't even indexed by search engines? And because information on about five or six of those people was re-posted here, where about 95 percent of it also was not indexed by search engines, and none of it was ever linked to by the mainstream media? This is bullying, compared to what Wikipedia does on a regular basis?

Some of these people are, quite frankly, lunatics. What's worse, they appear to be whiny, victim-culture lunatics. Brandt shouldn't sue them - he should report them to the proper authorities.

[GlassBeadGame]

hi dan! http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ril/069804.html

Nice job Dtobias. I have been meaning to spam WikiEN-l for WR but couldn't figure out how to get past moderation. Good work comrade.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Tue 24th April 2007, 4:06am

[michael]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ril/069806.html

ROFL, "no problem"? Did he witness the mud that DennyColt slung in his amazing quickness to "enforce" his essay and his declaration that anybody who "supports, endorses, advertises, or promotes attack/hate sites" has "questionable morality"? He removed htem from user talk, Wikipedia talk, etc. pages, not just the mainspace (if there were any such links in the mainspace, I doubt that).

[Somey]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ril/069804.html

...In addition to supporting such a suit, the commentators are in general agreement that the fatal flaw of any possible policy that comes out of Wikipedia is that the policy comes out of Wikipedia; it's made by people within the Wikipedia community and consistent with that community's values and principles, which is inherently wrong: the policy should be imposed on Wikipedia from outside, preferably by the most fervent haters of the site and everything it stands for.

Hmm... He almost makes that sound like a bad thing!

Really, any policy that allows people like Brandt, William Bradford, and yes, even Seth Finkelstein, to extricate themselves from the morass of persecution, bickering, childish retaliation, and in some cases outright harassment that Wikipedia has become would be better than nothing, at least until the whole thing is scotched by some 6-week n00b who comes along and decides unilaterally that "we don't do this." Personally, I don't care if the policy is developed internally... Just do something. The fact that "BLP victims" aren't likely to trust them to get it right is almost beside the point, until they do, in fact, manage to get it wrong. But have they actually done anything so far to merit that kind of trust? In a word,

NO

But nobody out here is stopping them from trying, for heaven's sake! The only people doing that are their own reactionary elements... Last but not least, I keep seeing this talk of the "community's values and principles." What are those, again?

[GlassBeadGame]

Pass the conch shell. It once again Lord of the Flies time.

This is the kind of reasoning that BLP subjects can expect if getting relief from inappropriate articles means engaging the "community" in internal processes. These decisions must be placed in independent hands.

[BobbyBombastic]

is this their new attorney?

[Joseph100]

Pass the conch shell. It once again Lord of the Flies time.

This is the kind of reasoning that BLP subjects can expect if getting relief from inappropriate articles means engaging the "community" in internal processes. These decisions must be placed in independent hands.

LMAO.... This is so useless, if I was Daniel Brandt, I would not fuck around and waste my time negotiating with brain damaged, basement dwelling, delusional, word salad obsessed , dipshit psychopathic crazies, that run Wikipeida. All Wikipedia is now is a warped surreal, Everquest game.

I would just file the paper and show the dickwads how the “REAL WORLD” works.

This just my humble opinion….

Thanks

[Joseph100]

Here is the place the process server should go first....

Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
200 2nd Avenue S
Suite 358
St. Petersburg FL 33701


I wonder were the other places were the process server can find JIMBO at???

Any rate, again, it's a complete waste of time dealing with the Narcissistic, Schizophrenic, psycho crazies, with grandiose delusions of gradur, with-in the role playing game of Wikiworld.

Just DROP THE BIG ONE and show them the light and fire of [[USA:LAWSUIT_&_CIVIL_LAW]]

[GlassBeadGame]

Any rate, again, it's a complete waste of time dealing with the Narcissistic, Schizophrenic, psycho crazies, with grandiose delusions of gradur, with-in the role playing game of Wikiworld.

Just DROP THE BIG ONE and show them the light and fire of [[USA:LAWSUIT_&_CIVIL_LAW]]

I would not discourage any BLP subject who has been aggrieved by an article to negotiate, either prior to, or concurrent with litigation. I would encourage negotiation either with or without the assistance of dispute resolution professionals and formal processes. I would not encourage the use of any of the "made up" processes and forums inside WP. What I am most against is engaging "community" in any form of negotiation. The description above is more or less accurate. When I review the "discussion" this community engages in I tend to lose faith in any possible resolution. It is as if a hospital malpracticed upon a patient and then asks the patient to take it up with the candy-strippers. The responsible party is the WMF.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Wed 25th April 2007, 10:06pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Not bad tropical fruit guy.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Thu 26th April 2007, 2:43am

[gomi]

There is quite a bit of amusing mudslinging going on just now between SlimeVirgin, BadlyDrawnJeff, and Jayjg. I don't have time to post diffs at the moment, but it's a hoot.