[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]

Chip Berlet wormed his way into the Wikipedia power structure, and this happened before I had ever looked at any Wikipedia page. I was simply uninterested in Wikipedia. I never assumed that Wikipedia was worth my time and effort until SlimVirgin started that stub on me 16 months ago.

Her stub on me, which I discovered by accident on Clusty, had two citations for me that I found objectionable. These evolved out of my anti-Google site that I started in 2002. That site created enemies for me. No one except me was anti-Google in 2002. This may be hard to believe more than four years later, but it's a fact. In addition to the Google name-bombing by professional AdSense spammers and search engine optimizers, which came within two years, I was an early target by Salon magazine. Reporter Farhad Manjoo made up some examples in his article that I never mentioned in the interview, and spun me as some sort of nut case. After all, who could possibly have any objection to Google, Inc.? Slashdot picked up the ball and ran with it, and I've been Cyberspace Enemy Number 1 ever since.

SlimVirgin's original stub was very short. She included those two citations because she needed something and those were available. She may have planned to expand it later under Berlet's guidance -- the evidence for this is circumstantial and speculative. I sent her an email and objected to the stub. I also sent one to Jimbo, plus a fax and letter. Slim and I worked together for a week. Any information about myself that I volunteered over the next month or so on the article Talk page ended up getting spun against me. One editor, Jokestress, started stubs on a dozen proper names that were associated with me. At no point should I have assumed good faith by Wikipedia. It took me a couple of months to realize this fully, and I made mistakes during those two months by revealing information about myself.

For example, there was an autobiographical article I wrote that saw print in 1992. There is nothing I'm trying to hide now that appeared in that article. I have no objection if 99.99 percent of the planet reads that article. However, when Wikipedians read it they are looking for items that can be extracted and used in my bio to depict me in a negative light.

When I was working with SlimVirgin in good faith in October 2005, I soon discovered that she had slimed me in defense of Chip Berlet several months earlier. By the middle of October 2005, I was beginning to realize that this wasn't a fair fight. I took down the copy of that 1992 autobiographical article from my own site so that no one from Wikipedia could use it in a citation. Months later I had to get it taken down from a public library site in Ohio, and from the Wayback Machine, and from Google Groups. That's because every time I got one copy taken down, some Wikipedian -- more often than not some administrator -- would find another copy. Today there aren't any copies on the web that I'm aware of. Nevertheless, Berlet cites this obscure 1992 publication anyway, even though no one except him can read the original. All I've managed to do is prevent other Wikipedians from using it for additional spin.

When Berlet objected to Fletcher Prouty as an advisor in 1991, I didn't discuss it with him and simply took Berlet off of the advisory board. Then he contacted other advisors and directors and tried to get them to resign. Three other advisors resigned because of this. Since they were just names on the letterhead, it made little difference to me. Berlet is vicious when he targets someone. When it became clear to me that SlimVirgin was Berlet's meatpuppet on Wikipedia, and that Jimbo would not review SlimVirgin's behavior, I realized that I had no other option apart from a take-down of the biography.

Initially it was about the two links from my anti-Google activities and the curious fact that I had no real voice in the matter. I knew that if Wikipedia sustained those links, they would last for another 100 years at the top of Google's results. However, I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this thanks to SlimVirgin and her meatpuppets.

It is so strange how social issues get utterly distorted by Wikipedians. Take the issue of privacy, for example. I fight for the privacy of users when it comes to using search engines. Google and Yahoo are the worst privacy violators. I also have other issues with Google, and yes, I think PageRank sucks on principle.

How does one reconcile this privacy interest of mine with the fact that I did research on Wikipedia editors that I posted on hivemind.html? It's very easy. Searching on the Internet by using a search engine is a passive, private matter. Editing a biography on Wikipedia is an active intrusion into the social sphere. Passive players deserve privacy, whereas active players must be held accountable for their actions. No one at Wikipedia has ever acknowledged a distinction such as this, even though it is plain common sense, and is fundamental to every legal and ethical system outside of Wikipedia.

I still don't understand why no one at Wikipedia has figured this out. Part of the problem must be Jimbo himself. His personal philosophy is self-serving, and he won't consider larger issues unless he's forced to. Combine Ayn Rand with Chicago options trading, and add Bomis to that, and you can see why Wikipedia is in the mess it's in today.

There's no fixing Wikipedia at this point. It probably has to be taken down.

[nobs]

When I was working with SlimVirgin in good faith in October 2005, I soon discovered that she had slimed me in defense of Chip Berlet several months earlier.

Can you say when this is, or provide a diff?

Chip Berlet wormed his way into the Wikipedia power structure, and this happened before I had ever looked at any Wikipedia page.

This is obvious in an RfM Freudian slip,

Rangerdude and nobs have almost taken over my own user page: [Talk:Chip_Berlet]

[SlimVirgin] may have planned to expand it later under Berlet's guidance -- the evidence for this is circumstantial and speculative.

22:33, July 28, 2005, six days before the Blob of Horowitz, SlimVirgin told Rangerdude,

The reason I'm supportive of Will [Beback] and Chip [Berlet] is that they're both very good editors. I trust their judgment on issues. I've learned from watching them both edit. ... I've watched them both go off in search of reputable sources that others can't be bothered to look for, or haven't been able to find. I've seen them go to great lengths to track down obscure bits of information and verify it. ...

...when Wikipedians read [an autobiographical article I wrote] they are looking for items that can be extracted and used in my bio to depict me in a negative light.

Yes indeed. And with Mr. Berlet as thier guide.

I told Mr. Berlet numerous times,

...beginning an historical examination with a conclusionary premise is a flawed method...

and have countless repetitions of him picking which “facts” he likes, discarding inconvenient facts, and going so far as to actually alter text of primary source documents. I have seen it with my own two eyes and have the evidence.

NPOV policy states: “Readers are left to form their own opinions.” This should mean an independent and neutral reading of any text, let the chips fall where they may. Berlet’s flawed methodology of not letting proven facts, proven facts he admits to, deter his POV (he just alters his arguement) gives undue weight to a host of critical areas vital to Wikipedia’s reputation as a valid research tool.

By the middle of October 2005, I was beginning to realize that this wasn't a fair fight.

There was a lot more going on by mid October 2005, I was in the midst of Mediation with Berlet (I estimate he & I spent 500 man hours that month). The Mediation pages still have not been restored, despite (1) an admission by Fred Bauder disallowing them as ArbCom evidence was in error; (2) the Mediator (now Arbitrator’s) promise to restore them over a year ago.

Why?

Those pages document Berlet’s flawed research methods, and it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia, who extended Berlet special privileges as a sort of “gatekeeper” to judge content.

Berlet is vicious when he targets someone.

All quotes from critics in this series, “Navigating the flame wars of the Daniel Brandt controversy”, all, I can personally attest to having experienced (and show diffs). Many of your quotes, Mr. Brandt, are indeed prophetic in this regard.

When it became clear to me that SlimVirgin was Berlet's meatpuppet on Wikipedia, and that Jimbo would not review SlimVirgin's behavior….I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this

Well, I think I have demonstrated, Berlet was willing to leave you alone up until the time the Giant Blob of Horowitz hit “his” page. The cat was out of the bag. Then he became defensive, and in doing so, set out to destroy his enemies. As Wilcox summarized his report,

Some Watchdog programs are valuable and important, especially as they help to promote real understanding and dispel antagonism and hatred between groups of people. In entering into a program of political warfare against their enemies, real or imagined, they [PRA] have compromised this goal.

As I told Fred Bauder, I count myself among Berlet’s imagined enemies, but I don’t think Bauder ever bothered to read the report.

It is so strange how social issues get utterly distorted by Wikipedians.

So true. Despite NPOV policy, there is an automatic assumption everybody has a POV. Take me for example: no goddamn law on earth requires me to hold an opinion on, say, abortion. I am free to choose not to give a crap one way or the other. Yet the hint of a political bias, one way or the other, automatically “links & ties” you to all sorts of other crap you are then expected to shoulder. This groupthink violates not only the spirit of NPOV, but AGF as well.


My heart goes out to you, my friend. I can see how this has affected you.

This post has been edited by nobs: Sat 27th January 2007, 1:01am

[nobs]

Looks like the Jimbo slam at Brandt has been excised from the bio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104935334