My email to SlimVirgin, my guess is that nothing will happen Options

[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

[JohnA]

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

[Nathan]

Good move. To me, this is more than fair - though Jimbo may disagree (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[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 jury will be sympathetic 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.

[poopooball]

pehraps slimmy is reading.

[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

(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.

[Somey]

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!

[blissyu2]

pehraps slimmy is reading.

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.

[guy]

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?

[thebainer]

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 jury will be sympathetic 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).

[Somey]

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 a story on CourtTV 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!

[Daniel Brandt]

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 jury will be sympathetic 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 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.

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 this page). 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.

[anon1234]

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.

[Somey]

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/Septemb...ok_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.

[JohnA]

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.

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/Septemb...ok_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.

[guy]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[JohnA]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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

[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 on record 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.

[Poetlister]

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.

[a view from the hive]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...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.

[Hamedog]

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

This post has been edited by Hamedog:

[Daniel Brandt]

Wow, look here, on Day 3, I'm a case study at some cyberlaw seminar at Harvard!

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?"

[nobs]

Wow, look here, on Day 3, I'm a case study at some cyberlaw seminar at Harvard!

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_...diary_Liability

[nobs]

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 stipulated 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 Final decision

Willmcw 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 here, 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 Final ruling,

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.

This post has been edited by nobs:

[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.

[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....

hmm....seems like other people are thinking along these lines too...

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

[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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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 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.)

[nobs]

...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 Finding of Fact:

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

Mr. Brandt is a Registered user.

Remedy:

The material ...may be removed by any user

Here Bauder, SlimVirgin, David Gerard and JKelly discuss

Using Talk pages to influence Google results

Here Bauder says the material is

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

Why they do this, I think, is so the material will show up on Google.
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,

I am probably the first user banned for personal attacks who provided footnotes & citations for his personal attacks.

Also, the Stephen Schwartz case somewhat parallels Daniel Brandt's, which reading between the lines may have partially resulted

...in favor of the Organization

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?

This post has been edited by nobs:

[Daniel Brandt]

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.

[nobs]

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.

This post has been edited by nobs:

[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.

[anon1234]

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.

This post has been edited by anon1234:

[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!)

[bonron]

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!

[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.

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.

...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,

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 the Foundation takes it seriously, 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,

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. Please cite Wikipedia policy to explain your justification for doing this. 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,

I have indeed suggested that a handful of "prominent conservatives" have allied themselves with "fascists or neonazis," 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.

...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 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.

[anon1234]

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.

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.

[Daniel Brandt]

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.

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:

(IMG:http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/seigraph.gif)

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.

[Jonny Cache]

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[nobs]

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,

Policies apply per person, not per account.

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.