[X] My Assistant

[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

[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: Sat 6th January 2007, 7:16pm

[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.

[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.

[Jonny Cache]

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.

As far as the Norms Of The Established Society (NOTES) go, Wikipedia's allowance of anonyms puts it outside those bounds from the start and undermines every attempt to make it accountable, or even to paint it as a reasonable facsimile of normal society.

The idea that you can pull the rug out from under personal responsibility at the outset, and keep insisting that enforcement of Wikipedia policy does not depend on knowing the real world identities of those who open user accounts, simply bankrupts every post hoc attempt to patch up its biggest gaping loophole.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 9th January 2007, 6:14pm

[Daniel Brandt]

As far as the Norms Of The Established Society (NOTES) go, Wikipedia's allowance of anonyms puts it outside those bounds from the start and undermines every attempt to make it accountable, or even to paint it as a reasonable facsimile of normal society.

The idea that you can pull the rug out from under personal responsibility at the outset, and keep insisting that enforcement of Wikipedia policy does not depend on knowing the real world identities of those who open user accounts, simply bankrupts every post hoc attempt to patch up its biggest gaping loophole.

Amen to that.

Jonny, can I steal your "Dr. Jimbo and Mr. Hive" to replace the "What is the point of this page?" title in the middle of this page?

[Jonny Cache]

As far as the Norms Of The Established Society (NOTES) go, Wikipedia's allowance of anonyms puts it outside those bounds from the start and undermines every attempt to make it accountable, or even to paint it as a reasonable facsimile of normal society.

The idea that you can pull the rug out from under personal responsibility at the outset, and keep insisting that enforcement of Wikipedia policy does not depend on knowing the real world identities of those who open user accounts, simply bankrupts every post hoc attempt to patch up its biggest gaping loophole.

Amen to that.

Jonny, can I steal your "Dr. Jimbo and Mr. Hive" to replace the "What is the point of this page?" title in the middle of this page?

O G, I dunno what our local licenc/se is -- whatever it is, we sure have a lot of it -- but since this one is twice-stolen already, from Robert Louis Stevenson and The Fieryangel, I reckon it's NOR enuff to suit even WP.

So be my geist ...

Jonny

[nobs]

Part I -- Navigating flame wars of the Daniel Brandt controversy

SlimVirgin started the bio on me before I ever became a user on Wikipedia. ...

... Slim does not act randomly... Let's walk the dog backwards....

So are you looking for something that predates even that? There probably isn't anything, IMO. Remember, we're talking about Slimmy here - she doesn't need a reason to go on the attack, overtly or covertly. She just does it - that's how she is. You're right that she doesn't act randomly,

The sequence of events that led to SlimVirgin's creation of the Daniel Brandt bio can be found using these Google search terms:

Rangerdude+Brandt
Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page+Rangerdude

Rangerdude was working on the Chip Berlet mainspace:

Some critics of Berlet consider his actions during the 1990s to have been unfair to left-wing activists in America. In 1991, Berlet mostly limited his criticism to groups on the left who were prepared to form alliances with organizations considered to be anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi, or fascist, such as Liberty Lobby and the Populist Party.

.... Berlet strongly argues that left-wing activists in such coalitions need to maintain a position of principled self-criticism and refrain from sweeping away or understating issues of bigotry. This arguably hardline stance has attracted criticism from a number of individuals.

Daniel Brandt, a left-wing activist who maintains the Googlewatch and Namebase websites, [13] [14] writes of Berlet:

He isn't critical of conspiracy thinking on the basis of the evidence, but waits until the theorist can be shown to have incorrect political associations. Berlet doesn't fit anywhere on our spectrum; he's running his own show. [15]

03:39, 3 August 2005 Berlet posts edit summary, "Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page"

00:45, 5 August 2005 SlimVirgin enters fray, posts

This article is actively undergoing a major edit

Protracted edit war and two Arbitration cases follow.

18:46, 28 September 2005 SlimVirgin creates Daniel Brandt page.

This post has been edited by nobs: Tue 30th January 2007, 9:57pm