The Jeff Merkey Thread, JVM tries his hand at the "Brandt problem," other stuff Options Rating

An account for Wikipedia user "Jeffrey Vernon Merkey" was set up on May 2. It would appear from his userpage and his contributions that 1) he is a Cherokee Indian, or someone familiar with Cherokee language and culture; 2) despite the brand new account, he is hardly a WP newbie; and 3) in addition to Cherokee topics, he is particularly interested in Daniel Brandt and Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

One of his comments on the WP Brandt article talk page:

I have to say that Daniel has made a strong case for his inclusion in Wikipedia based on his numerous interactions with Wikipedia. Given that, it certainly appears that he is a notable individual for inclusion. I would like add that perhaps Daniel has been a more positive influence than he may be given credit for. Due to his interactions with Wikipedia, The project has been "prodded" into more concise standards as described in WP:BLP, policies for verifying the credentials of editors, and the like. Many of these steps perhaps would have been taken in timeon their own, but with Daniel hounding the Wikipedia Community the way he does, they evolved much more quickly. I have to say, Wikipedia is a higher quality project more better overall methods as a result of Daniel's effort, albiet not all intended by him. Given that, I would recommend mention of his positive impacts to the projects accountability and overall quality be mentioned. Not all Wikipedia detractors are bad nor are their efforts all moot if they result in positive change and growth. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And this:

Whenever you guys are ready for me to start enhancing Daniel's article, let me know. I am happy to get started. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You can get started now using Talk:Daniel Brandt/sandbox. I just now copied Daniel Brandt to it. WAS 4.250 13:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll be able to edit yourself by tomorrow I believe, SqueakBox 19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll get started. I need to do some research first to make certain this article is very accurate, and well sourced. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article is only semi-protected. You can edit 4 days after opening an account. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, he has pledged a $500.00 bounty to WF if "Daniel Brandt" gets FAS!

But wait, there's more! That's right-- it would appear that Jeffy has his own BLP, which has previously been the subject of a thread here, and which has garnered the close personal scrutiny of Jimbo himself.

Many are the questions. So many are the questions.

But wait, there's more! That's right-- it would appear that Jeffy has his own BLP...

From the article in question:

On June 21, 2005 Merkey filed a lawsuit against several people and organizations such as Slashdot and Bruce Perens, and 200 John Does. The suit includes various charges concerning harassment by the defendants.

Yes, the perfect choice for someone to edit the Brandt article! No wonder they're so eager to get him in there, editing merrily away...

The lawsuit specifically claimed that Bruce Perens had suggested murdering Merkey, quoting Mr. Perens as having said "Merkey should be placed in a file of people to be killed."

And now we see why!

My guess would be that this is Merkey's way of sucking up to the Faithful, in order that he might be allowed to remove negative references from his own article. Quite clever, actually. Pathetic, but still clever...

My guess would be that this is Merkey's way of sucking up to the Faithful, in order that he might be allowed to remove negative references from his own article. Quite clever, actually. Pathetic, but still clever...

Well, it could be worse.. wait.. he was the one who sued over the GPL (oh god.. that lawsuit was.. interesting.. I think he amended the lawsuit six/seven times with new and different people, before the judge threw out the lawsuit for failure to state a claim which could be actioned).

But wait.. there's more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=128559034

Something here doesn't seem right, considering for how long Mr Brandt has fought this article, he's just given in? Color me doubtful until further notice.

I have also has discussions with SqueakBox on the English Wikipedia and I am going to attempt to write a neutral article on Daniel, and the other editors seem to be in agreement.

"The other editors"? Does he even have any idea as how many "editors" are involved in the Brandt Ongoing Persecution WikiProject?

And once again, there's our man Squeakbox, representing Wikipedia, the very guy who claimed that deleting the Brandt article would result in the USA becoming a police state and wreck the world economy. Greeeaaat! What better way to achieve "neutrality" than to consult with good ol' Squeakers?

Daniel also understands that until he formaly withdraws his legal threats from the Foundation, he will remain banned. If and when he withdraws them, I would recommend a 1 year ban and allowing him to come back to the site provided he stays away from his bio (same terms I am under).

"Same terms I am under," eh? Well, that's proof enough for me. Can you say "Quisling"?

I'm sure he'll do a fine job of editing the Brandt article, though it might help if he learned how to spell, and maybe sign his talk page entries at some point.

The old thread links to an MP3 file of a prank phone call to Merkey (or else an extremely good imitation of him) by someone from GNAA who might now be mistaken for Borat Sagdiyev, in which Merkey says he's "in discussion with Wikipedia's attorneys," and how the attorney he spoke to (presumably Brad Patrick) "has a lot of difficult issues to contend with." Believe it or not, the MP3 file is still there. He says, "The issue with free speech is that people have free speech in America until they abuse it." Then the Borat-like guy tells Merkey, "you have been trolled, you have lost, have a nice day."

After that, there's some good-natured laughter between Merkey and the GNAA folks. Merkey says:

Here's how you fix your problem with Wikipedia… Wikipedia is not run by Wales, it's run by, believe it or not, the Gay Rights Movement. They've got a lot of power there. There's one guy who's got his head on straight, and that's Brad Patrick... They've got money issues, they don't want to get sued… I'm the one who funded free speech, and kept the strip joints open down here.

If you've got an article on Wikipedia that you don't like, and you want it taken down, you contact Brad, contact Danny, you be polite, you be nice, and try to work with them, and they'll fix it.

You can watch the infighting between them, because there's simply a lot of derision… There's a lot of turnover on the site… First there was this one guy… I'm trying to remember his name…

But he can't remember.

He then goes on to talk about Section 230, and how...

...you can't sue them for defamation, because nobody there's responsible for it… They're against anything that doesn't support their agenda. They've trashed a lot of groups… I wouldn't say any one group has an agenda, because if you go out there, there's about 20,000 agendas. Wales doesn't give a shit. I talked to Wales on the phone several times, and here's the exact words he said to me - he said, Wales says, "I'll use anything I can get my hands on. I don't have to abide by any court orders." Basically what he said was, I'll do anything I please, anytime I please, with any information I please, because Section 230 of the CDA gives me immunity, and I can get away with anything.

I don't hate Wikipedia… I think some of 'em are kids, and they just don't know what they can't do yet, so they're just doing whatever they want - that's OK. Let 'em. One of these days they'll run across some mean old man like me that they work for, and they'll fire their ass. And they'll learn. That's how I learned...

Wikipedia is a fad. It's like a marginal habitat… You know what that is?

He explains.

At that point the GNAA side of the conversation is taken over by a female voice (American accent), and they go on for a long, long time about Linux, Netware, Open Source, Linux vs. Windows, Linux vs. Microsoft, Ubuntu, and so on. Merkey's not a big supporter of what he calls Linux and Open Source "fanatics," it turns out, and indeed, many of his criticisms of that movement could easily be applied to Wikipedia... Except that the GNAA people are big Linux fanatics, it turns out. (And determined arguers, too!)

After what seems like hours, Merkey finally moves the topic back to Wikipedia:

Where did Wales get his money to start Wikipedia? From selling what? He ran bomis.com. What is bomis.com? ... Bomis.com is a pornographic search engine. They weren't even his copyrighted images - he'd just go out and scarf 'em from the other porn sites, and put 'em in a search engine... and use the shield of Section 230 to shield himself under "fair use."

I wonder if he has an account here already? He lives in Utah... We do have two members here who are known to be from Utah, but I'm pretty sure they aren't Jeff Merkey.

I actually feel sorry for the guy (he's already run afoul of Ryulong) on ANI, but....

http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20041021131512626.html

Does not exactly fill me with hope. Especially when a JUDGE says in an official ruling...


123. Major testified that even though he has such a close business relationship with Merkey, he has to filter what Merkey says to find the truth, he is unable to control Merkey, Merkey is able to create his own reality which may have no basis in fact, and Merkey is prone to exaggeration.

124. In fact, however, Merkey is not just prone to exaggeration, he also is and can be deceptive, not only to his adversaries, but also to his own partners, his business associates and to the court. He deliberately describes his own, separate reality.

125. Major acknowledges that Merkey does not see boundaries; that if he feels strongly or wants to do something, he does

....

134. Merkey now alleges that all of his early commitments to Microsoft, which unquestionably were based upon pirated Novell technologies and information, were just vaporware.

135. Given his penchant for creating a separate reality and for deliberate misrepresentation, I find Merkey's claim that he was simply floating vaporware unreliable. Rather, he wanted to have the benefit of both worlds -- his world actually working on a clustering model based upon the Novell architecture -- but also a world in which he could claim that he was not using or misappropriating Novell confidential technical information.


Look, if he's telling the truth about Mr Brandt giving in on the page, all well and good, hope he does a whizbanger of a job... but.. umm.. I'd wait until Daniel said it in his own words before I believe a single word of it.

Look, if he's telling the truth about Mr Brandt giving in on the page, all well and good, hope he does a whizbanger of a job... but.. umm.. I'd wait until Daniel said it in his own words before I believe a single word of it.

It's true that the Hive2 and Hivemind pages are (once again) 404'd, though... the IRC logs too. But the "Banned user" template is still on User:Daniel_Brandt, and I'd be utterly flabbergasted if they made an exception for that one page in robots.txt... If that's the deal he made with Merkey, then I suspect he might as well have asked ol' Jeff to build him a 200-room mansion floating among the rings of Saturn.

We'll find out what the deal is soon enough, I suppose...

I did get a call from Jeffrey Merkey on May 5. He thinks he can write a nice, friendly bio on me and make it stick, and end the war. I tried to convince him that there were too many powerful admins who would stop him. He brushed that off, because he has a special relationship with Jimbo and the Foundation.

Merkey is a fast talker. He has his own Cherokee language machine-translation of Wikipedia, and sells servers preloaded with Wikipedia. His interest in Wikipedia is primarily entrepreneurial. He seems to think that I'm a wannabe entrepreneur rather than a social activist. Ten months ago he cold-called me and made me an nice offer to join him as a consultant, but then the next day withdrew it after he asked whether I plan to sue Wikipedia, and I refused to rule that out. He wanted my name associated with his version of Wikipedia, from what I can gather. There were no hard feelings over this, but until last night that was the last time I heard from him.

Merkey used to work for Eric Schmidt at Novell, and doesn't like Schmidt. He seems to know a lot about legal issues, probably because of all the lawsuits he's been involved with.

Last night he asked if he could get a picture of me. I told him no. I also told him that I would not volunteer any information to aid him in rewriting my biography.

I pointed out that I want the bio locked down, and I don't want to be number one on Google. This is the position I expressed to Brad Patrick over a year ago. I could live with a bio under those conditions. Keeping the search engines away from it is almost the equivalent of getting it deleted, in my opinion. All it would take is a new flag in the system to generate a "noindex" meta in the header of certain articles. You wouldn't have to change robots.txt. It might be slightly easier than getting the article deleted, and it could be one option to offer BLP victims short of a deletion.

The only concession I made is that I agreed to take down hive2, which has been up for ten days now. Before that it was down for about ten days. Merkey felt that my naming admins was a major barrier to resolving the situation with my bio.

Basically I wished him luck, and told him that I'll be interested in how far he gets with his plan. It really depends on whether he's got the green light from above, it seems to me.

He completely dismissed my chances of presenting a successful case in court. His argument seemed to be that I had been so successful in forcing major changes at Wikipedia, that there was no way that I can get the bio deleted at this point. It's as if I'm some sort of hero, so my constant efforts over the last 19 months to get the bio deleted is negated by the notable impact I've had on Wikipedia. Catch-22. I have to say that this is first time I've heard that particular angle!

Anyway, it should be good theater, so keep the popcorn coming. I'm not that attached to hive2 anyway. I think I've made my point already with it. I'm almost certain that I've made my point with the IRC logs, because otherwise they wouldn't be so boring these days. I've been logging #wikipedia for the last three months nonstop, and checking it for keywords every day, and there's simply nothing interesting going on there anymore.

I did get a call from Jeffrey Merkey on May 5. He thinks he can write a nice, friendly bio on me and make it stick, and end the war.

Your bio actually makes you look very good.

Last night he asked if he could get a picture of me.

Hooboy.

I told him no. I also told him that I would not volunteer any information to aid him in rewriting my biography.

Because, um, that would be stupid.

It's as if I'm some sort of hero,

Well, he seems to like the attention, so he might think like that.

Merkey felt that my naming admins was a major barrier to resolving the situation with my bio.

Which is correct.

my constant efforts over the last 19 months to get the bio deleted is negated by the notable impact I've had on Wikipedia. Catch-22. I have to say that this is first time I've heard that particular angle!

Sure. You've rocked their world, so to Wikipedians, you are indeed notable. Generally notable, no (unless they consider everyone who has made a statement to the press as notable, which would change the notion of notability). They don't see outside their own box (which I'm sure is a big shock to you).

This post has been edited by wikilove: Sun 6th May 2007, 2:29pm

I pointed out that I want the bio locked down, and I don't want to be number one on Google. This is the position I expressed to Brad Patrick over a year ago. I could live with a bio under those conditions. Keeping the search engines away from it is almost the equivalent of getting it deleted, in my opinion. All it would take is a new flag in the system to generate a "noindex" meta in the header of certain articles. You wouldn't have to change robots.txt. It might be slightly easier than getting the article deleted, and it could be one option to offer BLP victims short of a deletion.

And how long would that take a reasonably talented MediaWiki developer? An hour? Two? And yet, this has been a yearned-for feature for at least two years, to the point where even "cabal" members have been asking for it lately. It should have been a feature of the original release.

I should put my money where my mouth is, though, and dive into the PHP files on a test-bed site and see just how easy or difficult it would be...

Nevertheless, I have to believe that the reason they don't do it is similar to our own reasons for not always removing personal info about WP users: They might interpret it as being tantamount to an admission of wrongdoing. At least in our case, we try to keep that stuff limited to subforums that are either non-public or aren't Google-indexed by default (though I didn't know about the latter thing until recently - again, we have Mr. Blu Aardvark to thank for that).

What's more, I've also learned that our own anti-indexing method isn't based on META tags or robots.txt at all - it's actually much more sure-fire than that, and keeps out crawlers that might otherwise ignore both of those things. So even though the addition of a META tag would (or should) be a simple matter, I doubt that MediaWiki could be made capable of our level of crawler-avoidance without some sort of total rewrite.

It really depends on whether he's got the green light from above, it seems to me.

I can't imagine he has a green light from anybody. In fact, I expect him to be re-banned within two weeks.

I can't imagine he has a green light from anybody. In fact, I expect him to be re-banned within two weeks.

I suspected as much, but wasn't sure. Why was he banned before? Linky?

A bigger question: Why would anyone with such long experience in IT and WP have even the tiniest expectation of fair dealing at the hands of his former tormentors? Anyone here with a psychological background care to comment?

Why would anyone with such long experience in IT and WP have even the tiniest expectation of fair dealing at the hands of his former tormentors? Anyone here with a psychological background care to comment?

It's not psychology. It's money.

This man is a multi-multi-multi-millionaire, and he isn't afraid to sue anyone. And he hobnobs with the hi-tech glitterati in a way that Jimbo Wales is only starting to do. Merkey deals directly with the top. And he has nothing to lose. (He's not afraid of losing job offers or career prospects). Again, I highlight the many millions he's got for assets.

These are qualities that make a man fearless. And also that would make WP sit up and respect.

I don't think he'll be banned again. For the same reasons.

This post has been edited by wikilove: Sun 6th May 2007, 7:19pm

I suspected as much, but wasn't sure. Why was he banned before? Linky?

Linky. And another, and another, and another.

A bigger question: Why would anyone with such long experience in IT and WP have even the tiniest expectation of fair dealing at the hands of his former tormentors?

I see two possibilities, myself: Either he's just really gullible, which I doubt, or his ego is so large that he thinks he can outsmart them, and/or dazzle them, and/or convince them of his sincerity just by sheer cleverness and bravado. Still, there's nothing wrong with having a big ego, though, as long as it doesn't cause you to hurt others. Maybe the jury is still out on Merkey, but if this is some sort of stunt, and it ends up helping to derail the move towards even a limited BLP opt-out policy (and the good guys have already compromised enough, IMO), then as far as I'm concerned he'll be just as evil as the rest of 'em, maybe more. Maybe much more.

It's not like we haven't seen plenty of examples already of people pulling various stunts to exploit the Brandt situation to advance their own personal agendas, or even just their petty desire for attention or prominence among the Faithful. You'd think WP would take this fact under advisement, but nooooo! At least Merkey has identified himself - but then again, had he not done so, I doubt Brandt would have given him the time of day.

[It's not like we haven't seen plenty of examples already of people pulling various stunts to exploit the Brandt situation to advance their own personal agendas, or even just their petty desire for attention or prominence among the Faithful. You'd think WP would take this fact under advisement, but nooooo! At least Merkey has identified himself - but then again, had he not done so, I doubt Brandt would have given him the time of day.

oh my.

Merkey wrote much of the code for Novell, and he created some company doing the same and sold it for 10 million dollars. He has Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds on speed dial. Why do you think that this is his first grab for attention, or that contact with Daniel Brandt would raise his profile?

Merkey doesn't understand Daniel Brandt's desire (or quest) to regain his privacy (obviously, since he asked Daniel Brandt for a picture - which is the last thing that DB wants anyone to have). That was the gaffe he made here. But from his perspective, being famous hasn't hurt him. He is concerned about the content of his bio, not its very existence.

Merkey is famous for his IT work and business deals, is about 20 times richer than Jimmy Wales, knows the score when it comes to legal matters, has invoked lawsuits in this realm before, and has the financial clout to get WP:OFFICE to pay attention. He also has nothing to lose from this.

He seems to be a decent person, and if you feel what he's doing will derail some effort to change BLP, then contact him and explain it to him.

Its not a vast conspiracy (cue the Halloween music)

This post has been edited by wikilove: Sun 6th May 2007, 9:07pm

well this is certainly an interesting webpage: http://www.gaiser.org/www.merkeylaw.com/041906/

If Mr. Merkey doesn't have a seat here already, I think we should keep one warm for him. He comes across as very wide-eyed when speaking about fixing the Native American articles, but as many of us already know, that doesn't last long.

Other than that, I don't know if he's an easy guy to figure out. His edit to Eric E. Schmidt was rather ponderous. Upon "returning to wikipedia", the immediate interest in Mr Brandt and calling him is rather odd.

I wish him the best of luck, as he sounds like a guy used to getting things done, but there have been a few guys just like him strutting on to WP that got nothing done.

further reading: Archived discussion on AN/I about Jeff Merkey's return

Why do you think that this is his first grab for attention, or that contact with Daniel Brandt would raise his profile?

I said no such thing...! I merely suggested that Merkey could be using the situation to put himself in a position whereby WP would owe him something - specifically, removal of some crap from his own article. It has nothing to do with publicity, unless we're talking about reduction of same... I mean, look at what he's managed to do already - the Hivemind and IRC pages have been taken down again, which is really the Faithful's only concern.

He seems to be a decent person, and if you feel what he's doing will derail some effort to change BLP, then contact him and explain it to him.

It's too early to tell, isn't it? Remember that I, for one, believe he'll fail, possibly quite badly. The chances that WP will start noindexing specific BLP pages (and let's not forget all the Talk pages and their associated archives), or add them to norobots.txt, is practically infinitesimal, despite how simple it would be for them. They're persecuting Brandt, not negotiating with him. The only difference between Brandt and Merkey, other than the vast difference in wealth, is that Brandt gave as good as he got. Of course, Brandt didn't have a public image to protect, and still doesn't. And need I add that the Faithful deserved a LOT worse.

Lookie, even if Brandt leaves the scene completely (which I doubt), I for one am never going to stop hassling them about an opt-out policy. I will continue to think of them as a massive blight on world culture, and a huge threat and danger to personal privacy, for just as long as they refuse to be rational and reasonable. If it seems like this website's tactics in not respecting the privacy of certain anonymous abusive admins is hypocritical, then so be it. They have to understand that people are serious about this. And it's time for them to quit fucking around and get serious about it too, before governments around the world start taking steps to make any kind of anonymous internet use a thing of the past.

First of all, the only takedown inspired by Merkey was the hive2.html takedown I did last night. Last month I took down hivemind, hive2, and all the IRC logs, and that wasn't Merkey at all. I put back hive2 ten days ago, and that wasn't Merkey either. Prior to last night, Merkey and I haven't communicated since last summer.

Here is how I see it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...#Jeff.27s_Words

To date, I have invested over $500,000.00 of my own funds in The Foundation and Wolf Mountain Group Wikipedia projects.

I wasn't going to mention this until I saw just now that this was already posted. I asked Merkey last night how much he has donated to Jimbo/The Foundation, and he quoted the same figure. The quotation above indicates that this figure is the combined total of his donation and his investment in his own Wolf Mountain Group projects, and I don't know how it breaks down between them. But from this evidence, and general comments he made to me on the telephone last night, as well as last summer, I conclude that Merkey hopes to eventually make some money off of his version of Wikipedia.

I also believe that Jimbo's willingness to "vanish" some old posts about Merkey is related to Merkey's investment in, and/or donations to, Wikipedia and/or Jimbo.

Things got very vicious over a year ago between Merkey and Wikipedia, with Merkey slinging mud and Wikipedia editors slinging more mud, at which point Merkey got banned on April 19, 2006. Since then Jimbo and Merkey have mostly been saying nice things about each other.

My feeling is that Merkey wants to rehabilitate me for two reasons: He wants to protect his Wikipedia investment, and the sort of publicity that has been generated about Wikipedia by me is not helpful; and secondly, if I go away, Merkey might get some credit and enjoy increased stature within the Wikipedia community.

The most significant reservation I have is that Merkey seems to think that everyone can be bought. I told him last night that the one reason why Jimbo is treating him better now than Jimbo ever treated me, is because Merkey is richer than I am. I added that this was the same situation with Seigenthaler. Merkey had no answer to this.

I'm not motivated by money, and I think this confuses Merkey. I tried to explain to him that I'd like to get a stronger BLP policy out of this whole mess, and that seemed off-topic him, as if it was strange that anyone would want to hold out for something that abstract, tenuous, unlikely, and downright difficult, when it's so much easier to simply cultivate one's own garden.

look at what he's managed to do already - the Hivemind and IRC pages have been taken down again, which is really the Faithful's only concern.

Yes, but DB has exhibited (understandable) ambivalence about how to deal with things before. This response isn't unexpected.

It's too early to tell, isn't it? Remember that I, for one, believe he'll fail, possibly quite badly. The chances that WP will start noindexing specific BLP pages (and let's not forget all the Talk pages and their associated archives),

Can someone please explain to me why talk pages are indexed anyways?` This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a chat board, so why are user talk pages indexed? And the subject-related talk pages should be off-line too, as they are supposed to be "discussions about content" and not content. What were they thinking? Or was their goal to get as many google-pages online as possible?

Of course, Brandt didn't have a public image to protect, and still doesn't. And need I add that the Faithful deserved a LOT worse.

EVERYONE has a public image to protect. Brandt wants his privacy back (insomuch as this is possible), and that is part of his public image.

And it's time for them to quit fucking around and get serious about it too, before governments around the world start taking steps to make any kind of anonymous internet use a thing of the past.

That will come. Without a doubt, it will come. Presently, they only get hassled by repressive dictatorships. When a western government comes down on them, they'll feel the heat and start making some changes.

Some of that "coming down on them" can will come from investigations by government panels. Other government reaction will involve a rethink of laws and rulings on internet privacy, such as alterations to the Millenium Data statutes (which didn't anticipate wikis and blogs) and changes in WP treatment under Section 230.

All this will happen - in good time. They could avoid it, but I doubt they will.

This post has been edited by wikilove: Sun 6th May 2007, 10:59pm

First of all, the only takedown inspired by Merkey was the hive2.html takedown I did last night. Last month I took down hivemind, hive2, and all the IRC logs, and that wasn't Merkey at all....

Right - Sorry, I replied in a bit of haste there. Not that it's difficult to lose track...

I asked Merkey last night how much he has donated to Jimbo/The Foundation, and he quoted the same figure.

$500K is a lot of dosh. You don't suppose he's trying to get people to think that he was the guy ("An anonymous friend") who ponied up the $286K contribution on Dec. 27...? No way could that be possible, IMO - he would have been as public as he could possibly be with something like that.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Can someone please explain to me why talk pages are indexed anyways?` This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a chat board, so why are user talk pages indexed? And the subject-related talk pages should be off-line too, as they are supposed to be "discussions about content" and not content. What were they thinking? Or was their goal to get as many google-pages online as possible?

Having Google index everything means they don't have to build a better internal search engine. Either that, or they simply don't care about the threat of informational monoculture that they so clearly represent.

EVERYONE has a public image to protect. Brandt wants his privacy back (insomuch as this is possible), and that is part of his public image.

Ehh? I think you've been reading too many WP talk pages!

Howzabout I rephrase it, then: "Brandt, since he was not a public figure at the time and apparently had no wish to become one, had no pre-existing public persona to protect, and therefore had less to lose by fighting back."