A general question regarding Brandt and WP: NPA, One rule for one? Options

[Jonathan]

Why is it that it is okay for members of the Wikipedia Brethren/Cabal to constantly call Brandt all sorts of horrendous names as expertly covered in Brandt's website when WP: NPA is quite possibly the most overly quoted policy used by admins (other than, of course, WP: AGF).

Is it the case that members of the Wikipedia Elite ™ are basically able to do whatever the fuck they want? Cool! In which case, it would be great to infiltrate Wikipedia by becoming an admin, because then you could use your shiny brand new powers to send Wikipedia crashing to oblivion from within. And considering as how Wikipedia will probably be dead and buried in 10, maybe 15 or perhaps 20 years time, just who is going to give a damn when a beacon of abuse and unreliability goes down in flames?

But seriously, the fact that people like Raul, Snowspinner and Freakofnurture and SlimVirgin can do what they like is deeply troubling. I can't understand why Jimmy can't simply revoke their adminship status and ban them forever. Just what the hell can they do?

[Daniel Brandt]

SlimVirgin started the bio on me before I ever became a user on Wikipedia. I noticed the stub on a search engine, and emailed SlimVirgin to object. She replied that they don't take articles down just because someone doesn't want their biography on Wikipedia. Jimmy backed her up and scolded me. Then I signed up as a User, primarily to see what would happen if I challenged my bio as a User. I have never had any interest whatsoever in editing Wikipedia apart from this. I saw my User experience as a way to learn more about how Wikipedia operates. It worked -- I learned a lot about who has the power and who doesn't. I learned that subjects of articles have zero power.

That seemed perverse to me at the time, and it still does. As the situation evolved, they ganged up on me and my article got longer and longer. Gamaliel, who was a grad student in library science, had access to databases and pulled out stuff from 30+ years ago to expand the article. What started as a couple of paragraphs got longer and longer. I was banned twice for legal threats. I think intelligent legal threats are entirely appropriate in civil society -- what's the purpose of the law if you aren't allowed to reference it? Civil law is a way to keep people from taking justice into their own hands when they get mad, but Wikipedia feels that it's above the law because Web 2.0 is its own law.

I want the whole thing deleted. I've learned a lot about the legal situation with respect to Wikipedia, and I've learned a lot about who the people are behind Wikipedia. I think time is on my side, and my bio will get deleted someday. In the meantime, Wikipedia's reputation will take hits from me whenever I can manage it.

They should just admit that SlimVirgin exercised poor judgement in starting that stub on me, and take the thing down. Even SlimVirgin has argued for a take-down on the mailing list. But the teenie-boppers won't have it, and they will fight to keep the article merely because I need to be taught a lesson. Okay, I'm up for a war.

Meanwhile, the Foundation office pretends that they are a service provider and not a publisher, so they don't even answer my emails and faxes. They have to pretend that they're hands-off in order to argue that they have immunity under Section 230. My feeling is that they don't have a case any way you look at it.

But because they keep hands-off, the situation deteriorates thanks to the teenie-boppers who need their ego trips. By now it's like Lord of the Flies -- the teenagers (and that includes some older editors who are immature) control the situation by default.

[nobs]

...I learned that subjects of articles have zero power....

Not necessarily so...in the midst of an ArbCom hearing where the basis of the Defense was the policy statement, "experts do note occupy a position of privelege in Wikipedia", that language was removed from the Policy page.

Brandt's wikibio reads this statement from the god-king,

"I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all...

In preparation for an Appeal, my draft included the language,

[John] Loftus serves on Daniel Brandt's PIR Board of Advisers

It appears now I have to modify that language to

Loftus formerly of the Carter Administration Justice Dept. Nazi hunting Office

because if the statement is misunderstood as guilt by association, the original language may undermine my case.

The picture looks something like this: Brandt & Berlet were buddies who followed the same career path among various organizations some people say to be KGB front organizations responsible for the loss of the War in Vietnam. Circa 1991 Brandt and Berlet had a falling out over the issue of Holocaust denial, Berlet's rendition is that Brandt allowed infiltration of fascists into thier organization.

Of course anyone familiar with Berlet would know he'd call his mother a fascist if she served him cold cereal instead of oatmeal for breakfast.

That is why I prefer to wait til subjects are dead before writing biographical material, cause then we see thier whole life in perspective, and make sense of this garbage -- without fear of defamation suits.

This post has been edited by nobs: