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

[Jonny Cache]

candy-strippers

U wish !!!

Jonny

[GlassBeadGame]

candy-strippers

U wish !!!

Jonny

You have your health care practices. I have mine.

[Daniel Brandt]

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 do you think Daniel?

I'm losing all hope for a new BLP process. Jimbo will have to roar into the current discussion on a white Ferrari loaded with cluesticks and Bomis babes, and chase off some idiot editors, while giving some others carte blanche to come up with a policy that makes deletion almost automatic for semi-notables who request it. This is not likely to happen in the next few weeks, and I'll end up appealing to the Board.

[mephistophilis]

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.

Here's a little argument on BadlyDrawnJeff's talk page and on the article talk page (at the bottom of each section) here and here. He should know that you don't piss off jay and slim, I feel some retaliation coming on.

[Somey]

He should know that you don't piss off jay and slim, I feel some retaliation coming on.

It's the story of Mr. Jeff's Wikilife, I'm afraid... right target, wrong issue!

Yikes! He's got guts, I'll give him that much. But this is one instance where Slimmy and Jayjg are the good guys, believe it or not.

That's just my opinion, of course...

[Somey]

And here, of course, is the epitome of pure, inhuman evil.

I will never, ever forgive that sick little fuck, probably for as long as I live.

(Also, thanks to Squeakbox for reverting it back. There's hope for you yet, man!)

[JohnA]

As I've said before, Wikipedia is not going to change its policies on BLPs unless it is forced to from a judge's order or a legally binding undertaking.

[Daniel Brandt]

May 3, 2007

Mr. Fred Bauder:

Would you please explain the evidence that you used as your basis
for restoring the redirect on my User page, and the "banned" template
on my User_talk page, and protecting those pages on April 30?

If you are acting on the basis of Jimbo's reblocking of me, which he
incorrectly alleges was the result of my request that he do this,
then it should say, "Blocked by Jimbo Wales" instead of "Banned."

The message you posted on my behalf on April 20 starts out
this way:

> I feel that Jimmy Wales made the wrong decision when he unbanned
> me a couple of days ago. I had asked that my article be deleted,
> along with the Talk pages, and my User and User_talk pages too.
> I am not interested in editing Wikipedia, and never have been,
> apart from my desire and need to comment on why I objected to that
> article on me, in whole and in part.

As others have already correctly observed, the first sentence must
not be interpreted apart from the following two sentences.

To conclude that I am requesting a reban, without addressing the
issue that I've been pursuing for 19 months regarding deletion,
is disingenuous at best, and malicious at worst. This error of
fact has now propagated to Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users, which
incorrectly states that I was "rebanned" on April 21, and further
states that "Jimbo Wales lifted the block/ban on April 18, and
reinstated it on April 21, both at Brandt's own request."

This mischaracterization has already led one administrator
to summarily delete comments I made regarding my biography,
on the grounds that I am "banned."

Clearly, Jimbo selectively interpreted that April 20 paragraph
because it allowed him to extricate himself from an inconvenient
situation. I was willing to let it go, even though I did not
request a reblock and did not expect one, because after it happened
I felt that the "community ban" that had been used to describe my
situation was now closer to a simple non-community "block."

The difference is substantial, in that the "banned" condition
prevents me from commenting on my own biography if and when an
administrator decides to use it.

Mr. Bauder, your action on April 30 appears to be excessive.
I request that you undo what you've done.

Thank you,
Daniel Brandt

[Jonny Cache]

May 3, 2007

Mr. Fred Bauder:

Would you please explain the evidence that you used as your basis for restoring the redirect on my User page, and the "banned" template on my User_talk page, and protecting those pages on April 30?

If you are acting on the basis of Jimbo's reblocking of me, which he incorrectly alleges was the result of my request that he do this, then it should say, "Blocked by Jimbo Wales" instead of "Banned".

The message you posted on my behalf on April 20 starts out this way:

I feel that Jimmy Wales made the wrong decision when he unbanned me a couple of days ago. I had asked that my article be deleted, along with the Talk pages, and my User and User_talk pages too. I am not interested in editing Wikipedia, and never have been, apart from my desire and need to comment on why I objected to that article on me, in whole and in part.

As others have already correctly observed, the first sentence must not be interpreted apart from the following two sentences.

To conclude that I am requesting a reban, without addressing the issue that I've been pursuing for 19 months regarding deletion, is disingenuous at best, and malicious at worst. This error of fact has now propagated to Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users, which incorrectly states that I was "rebanned" on April 21, and further states that "Jimbo Wales lifted the block/ban on April 18, and reinstated it on April 21, both at Brandt's own request".

This mischaracterization has already led one administrator to summarily delete comments I made regarding my biography, on the grounds that I am "banned".

Clearly, Jimbo selectively interpreted that April 20 paragraph because it allowed him to extricate himself from an inconvenient situation. I was willing to let it go, even though I did not request a reblock and did not expect one, because after it happened I felt that the "community ban" that had been used to describe my situation was now closer to a simple non-community "block".

The difference is substantial, in that the "banned" condition prevents me from commenting on my own biography if and when an administrator decides to use it.

Mr. Bauder, your action on April 30 appears to be excessive. I request that you undo what you've done.

Thank you,
Daniel Brandt

Daniel,

Good luck with that. But I fear that you are caught in a never-ending Catch-22 here. You are dealing with people of a mental age who are hopelessly mired in dichotomous thinking. The Very Idea that you would not beg on bended knee to be admitted to their cult makes you an infidel and a threat, deserving a fate no less dire than being shunned by morons the world over until Doomsday, if not Forever After.

Jonny

[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 do you think Daniel?

I'm losing all hope for a new BLP process. Jimbo will have to roar into the current discussion on a white Ferrari loaded with cluesticks and Bomis babes, and chase off some idiot editors, while giving some others carte blanche to come up with a policy that makes deletion almost automatic for semi-notables who request it. This is not likely to happen in the next few weeks, and I'll end up appealing to the Board.

Daniel, you have the patience of a saint in dealing with these arcane and cultish WP processes. If the pile of stones the WP "community" is collecting for it next go at you is any indication I'd say that would be specifically St. Stephen. I do have some concerns with your voluntary participation in processes that permit repeated opportunities for "community' members malign you in a public fashion.

I would encourage you to discuss what non-public processes might be acceptable from your viewpoint to address BLP privacy and defamation issues. As I have previously stated I believe these matters should be taken away from the "community" and placed in the hands of responsible, neutral and independent persons with a professional understanding of the issues involved.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Thu 3rd May 2007, 1:10pm

[Jonny Cache]

Saint Stephen ?

I think that a better model for Daniel's contemplation might be found here:

William Barrett Travis, Letter from the Alamo, 24 Feb 1836

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 3rd May 2007, 1:06pm

[Daniel Brandt]

I just got a response from Bauder. This is all it said:

> I removed that material when you took down the hivemind pages. I put it back up
> when you reinstated the hivemind pages. I'll take it down if you take down the
> hivemind pages.

The problem with this response is that I don't believe it, and you shouldn't either.

On April 25 I announced that Hive2 would go back up in 24 hours unless the link to the Wikipedia-Watch home page was restored in the article that appeared in The Signpost.

On April 26 I put Hive2 back up. (Hivemind, the other similar page, remains deleted, and so do 1,541 IRC log pages and their search engine, which included 11,329 searchable hostmasks with IP addresses that were all reverse-resolved. Apparently these counted for nothing. I've got a lot more logs I could have added to this, but I took it down instead.)

On April 28 I filed this appeal with ArbCom and got immediate confirmation from Newyorkbrad that he posted it to the ArbCom mailing list.

On April 30 Bauder decides I'm a "banned user" after all.

Here's my guess about what happened: The ArbCom is too incompetent and too embarrassed to address an issue that they themselves created with their sloppy language in the MONGO decision of October 20, which led to the BadSites Battle. I have heard nothing at all since ArbCom clerk Newyorkbrad posted it on the ArbCom mailing list.

To wit: ArbCom takes the sleazy way out of the problem, a solution that only a lawyer backed up by Jimbo could dream up: "Let's call Brandt 'banned' again and then we'll just throw his appeal in the trash and pretend our clerk never filed it."

What say ye, members of the jury? Should I put hivemind and the IRC logs back up in honor of the ArbCom? (We need a poll. How do I do a poll?)

[Joseph100]

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 do you think Daniel?

I'm losing all hope for a new BLP process. Jimbo will have to roar into the current discussion on a white Ferrari loaded with cluesticks and Bomis babes, and chase off some idiot editors, while giving some others carte blanche to come up with a policy that makes deletion almost automatic for semi-notables who request it. This is not likely to happen in the next few weeks, and I'll end up appealing to the Board.

Daniel, you have the patience of a saint in dealing with these arcane and cultish WP processes. If the pile of stones the WP "community" is collecting for it next go at you is any indication I'd say that would be specifically St. Stephen. I do have some concerns with your voluntary participation in processes that permit repeated opportunities for "community' members malign you in a public fashion.

I would encourage you to discuss what non-public processes might be acceptable from your viewpoint to address BLP privacy and defamation issues. As I have previously stated I believe these matters should be taken away from the "community" and placed in the hands of responsible, neutral and independent persons with a professional understanding of the issues involved.

My humble advice is to SUE THEM and not waste time screwing around with those
psychos....

It has been my observation, that every time he tried to deal with one powerful administrator. His doppelgänger comes in and undo all the good work of the other administrator. There is no single entity ruler, leader, whatever that has the final say in Wikipedia other than Jimbo, the juice vendor. And he doesn't give a rat's ass Daniel Brandt or for that matter, any one that don't help Jimbo's bank account.

Wikipedia is catch 22 and you cannot win. You cannot get what you want, within it's ruling structure, because from the little pimpled faced punks that now rule in wiki, have it drilled in them that Daniel Brandt, is Satan, and will never, ever, ever get Daniel a fair shake. Also, Jimbo has proven himself to be unwilling to help you.

it's "JUNGLE LAW" and Mob rule in Wikiland. Wikiland, is the cyber equivalent to "Lord of the flies"

The only way you will get respect , and get what you want from Wikipedia is to drop a threatening cease to desist order on the foundation, and have a process server drop papers on Jimbo, and any of the arbcom/administrators that lived in the United States and can be found. In other words, you got a drop the big one.

The only reason, in my humble opinion, why Daniel Brandt, is even still dealing with that colony of autistic psychos, is to generate history for a lawsuit. If this is the case, then Daniel is then not wasting of time and is infact collecting the necessary D&D in order to help any future action against Wikipedia

This post has been edited by Joseph100: Thu 3rd May 2007, 3:14pm

[Jonny Cache]

D&D ?

Dungeons & Dragons ?

Jonny

[Joseph100]

D&D ?

Dungeons & Dragons ?

Jonny

Due Diligence

[Skyrocket]

I dream of the day when billboards, telephone book covers, late-night cable TV stations, etc. are full of ads that say "Slandered by Wikipedia? Finkelstein and Shabazz Law Firm can help. Call 1-800-LIBEL LAW for a free consultation."

[SqueakBox]

And here, of course, is the epitome of pure, inhuman evil.

I will never, ever forgive that sick little fuck, probably for as long as I live.

(Also, thanks to Squeakbox for reverting it back. There's hope for you yet, man!)

Yes well as long as his bio remains I will defend DB's right to comment in a way that doesnt violate wikipedia policies (ie no legal threats in the text) in relevant places (which certainly includes BLP talk pages). He is honest enough to sign his contribs and I am baffled as to why people should want to remove them let alone Denny's idea of blocking people that "co-operate" by responding to these contribs, not removing them etc but I am not a censoring type of person.

[Somey]

On April 26 I put Hive2 back up. (Hivemind, the other similar page, remains deleted, and so do 1,541 IRC log pages and their search engine, which included 11,329 searchable hostmasks with IP addresses that were all reverse-resolved. Apparently these counted for nothing. I've got a lot more logs I could have added to this, but I took it down instead.)

To be fair, I think they've made it clear enough that it's an all-or-nothing proposition for them at this point. They don't really see any need to distinguish between admins and regular editors in terms of personal accountability, counter-intuitive though that may be. And they mostly seem to think admins need more privacy protection than regular editors.

Sooo... I'd have to say the question of whether or not to put the other pages back is academic - it won't make any difference to anyone other than the people who are identified on Hivemind.html but not Hive2.html, and the ArbCom people and the admins obviously don't care much about them. In fact, I suspect they secretly think they all deserve it, for further enflaming an already-bad situation at every possible juncture.

(We need a poll. How do I do a poll?)

When you start a new topic, there should be a button (not very prominent) that says "Manage this topic's poll"... the rest is reasonably straightforward, it's just hard to find that button.

[SqueakBox]

On April 26 I put Hive2 back up. (Hivemind, the other similar page, remains deleted, and so do 1,541 IRC log pages and their search engine, which included 11,329 searchable hostmasks with IP addresses that were all reverse-resolved. Apparently these counted for nothing. I've got a lot more logs I could have added to this, but I took it down instead.)

To be fair, I think they've made it clear enough that it's an all-or-nothing proposition for them at this point. They don't really see any need to distinguish between admins and regular editors in terms of personal accountability, counter-intuitive though that may be. And they mostly seem to think admins need more privacy protection than regular editors.

Sooo... I'd have to say the question of whether or not to put the other pages back is academic - it won't make any difference to anyone other than the people who are identified on Hivemind.html but not Hive2.html, and the ArbCom people and the admins obviously don't care much about them. In fact, I suspect they secretly think they all deserve it, for further enflaming an already-bad situation at every possible juncture.

(We need a poll. How do I do a poll?)

When you start a new topic, there should be a button (not very prominent) that says "Manage this topic's poll"... the rest is reasonably straightforward, it's just hard to find that button.

As one of said people on HiveMind1 and not HiveMind2 I agree that people like myself can do very little (if I'd had my way the Signpost would have linked to this site and then 2 would still be in DB's computer and not on the web). Being on HiveMind1 helped strengthen my position somewhat within wikipedia discussions. Certainly DB has a point that if I am wanting to keep his bio and express that view that I then forsake my own right to privacy in terms of my identity being posted on the net in a way I cant control

[Daniel Brandt]

To be fair, I think they've made it clear enough that it's an all-or-nothing proposition for them at this point.

Jimbo certainly seems to believe in dualism. One reality is that Brandt is evil and banned, and the other is that Brandt suddenly wants to be a good boy, and he asked nicely so I'll unblock him and we'll let him be a useful member of the Wikipedia community.

Anything between those two poles, despite the fact that I've been shouting it for 19 months, doesn't exist. I wanted my bio deleted so that I can walk away from Wikipedia, whereupon Jimbo puts his hands over his ears, and says: "La-la-la-la, I can't hear you!"

Is this sort of thinking non-thinking found in Objectivism, or is it just Jimbo?