The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> My email to SlimVirgin, my guess is that nothing will happen
Jonny Cache
post Tue 9th January 2007, 6:06pm
Post #41


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 7th January 2007, 4:06pm) *

QUOTE(anon1234 @ Sat 6th January 2007, 9:08pm) *

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,
QUOTE

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 cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 9th January 2007, 6:14pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Tue 9th January 2007, 7:33pm
Post #42


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 9th January 2007, 12:06pm) *

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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Tue 9th January 2007, 7:42pm
Post #43


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 9th January 2007, 2:33pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 9th January 2007, 12:06pm) *

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 cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Sun 14th January 2007, 8:37pm
Post #44


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 7th December 2006, 1:08am) *
SlimVirgin started the bio on me before I ever became a user on Wikipedia. ...
QUOTE(nobs @ Sat 13th January 2007, 11:04am) *
... Slim does not act randomly... Let's walk the dog backwards....
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 13th January 2007, 12:11pm) *
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:
QUOTE
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

QUOTE

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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sun 14th January 2007, 8:56pm
Post #45


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



You're not trying to imply that Berlet put her up to it somehow, are you? I think we have to assume that at the time, there was no guarantee that Brandt would object so strenuously to the article... If anything, Berlet would have wanted to avoid getting Brandt involved in Wikipedia affairs, if only to avoid future embarassment potential. I wasn't around when it happened, of course, so maybe I'm wrong. But why would Berlet want to risk making that kind of trouble for himself? He may be ill-tempered, but he seems a bit smarter than that.

I mean, AFAIK we have no reason to assume that Slimmy didn't create the stub simply because Brandt was mentioned in a few places on Wikipedia, and she just wanted to "improve coverage," so to speak. (Her actions after that were one botched damage-control move after another, of course!)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Sun 14th January 2007, 9:42pm
Post #46


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Part II -- Chris Arabia uses "fellow left-wingers"

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 14th January 2007, 1:56pm) *
You're not trying to imply that Berlet put her up to it somehow, are you? I think we have to assume that at the time, there was no guarantee that Brandt would object so strenuously to the article... If anything, Berlet would have wanted to avoid getting Brandt involved in Wikipedia affairs, if only to avoid future embarassment potential.
Rangerdude makes the case clearly in both ArbCom cases, and SlimVirgins' actions here and Requests for comment/SlimVirgin2

WP:RfArb/Rangerdude/Workshop Rangerdude (RD) said,

QUOTE
3) ...Cberlet's ... called the material I added "a giant wad of Horowitz screed on my Wiki entry" and asks that they be reduced to a link. [108] I responded to this request with a defense of my edits on NPOV grounds that was straightforward and certainly not abusive as SlimVirgin has alleged [109]. SlimVirgin responded the next day by carrying out Cberlet's request and chopped off the majority of the Horowitz material I had added. Cberlet's repeated references to Chip Berlet as "my" article and his requests aimed at controlling and removing critical content seem to violate WP:OWN's prohibition of this, as do SlimVirgin's edits aimed at carrying out his requests.

What sourced, NPOV material did SlimVirgin chop off? this portion, for example:
QUOTE
Arabia writes that "Berlet’s favored technique is to describe fascist and/or hate movements in detail and then brazenly link them to anyone who does not tow his party line." ... According to Front Page Magazine, Berlet has employed similar tactics against "fellow left-wingers" who disagree with him politically. According to Arabia, his approach has had the effect of squashing "vigorous debate and discourse" both within the political left and in general. [21]

On 28 September 2005 the sourced NPOV material was still in the Chip Berlet mainspace. This is when the attacks on Mr. Brandt's credibility started. Compare the Berlet bio today with the NPOV version RD (Rangerdude) wrote, tells much of the whole story.

This post has been edited by nobs: Tue 30th January 2007, 6:35pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nathan
post Tue 16th January 2007, 2:23am
Post #47


Retired
******

Group: Inactive
Posts: 1,609
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:35pm
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 17

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This reminds me of something a lawyer told me "If the content is available in Canada, you can sue under Canadian law" (that's about my own ..uhm..issues..and if I had the money to do that, it'd be done..)

So if the content is available in France and he had a good enough reason to sue in France, he could do it.
(But I'd tend to lean more toward American law in this case, whereever Wikimedia is really based in)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Tue 16th January 2007, 12:35pm
Post #48


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



QUOTE(Nathan @ Tue 16th January 2007, 2:23am) *

This reminds me of something a lawyer told me "If the content is available in Canada, you can sue under Canadian law" (that's about my own ..uhm..issues..and if I had the money to do that, it'd be done..)

So if the content is available in France and he had a good enough reason to sue in France, he could do it.
(But I'd tend to lean more toward American law in this case, whereever Wikimedia is really based in)

Yes, it's a question of enforceability. Sue me in Canada and win - what can you do? I have no assets there and no plans to visit. Try enforcing a Canadian judgment against me in England.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nathan
post Tue 16th January 2007, 6:20pm
Post #49


Retired
******

Group: Inactive
Posts: 1,609
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:35pm
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 17

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



That's another good point.

QUOTE(guy @ Tue 16th January 2007, 7:35am) *

Yes, it's a question of enforceability. Sue me in Canada and win - what can you do? I have no assets there and no plans to visit. Try enforcing a Canadian judgment against me in England.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Wed 17th January 2007, 8:15pm
Post #50


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This paper, Combating Extremism is Cyberspace says,

In Zeran v. America Online Inc., U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 97-1523 (Nov. 12, 1997) the Appeals Court noted,
QUOTE
"...lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions — such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content” are barred by Section 230. The court declared that Congress enacted Section 230 precisely because it recognized the threat that lawsuits pose to freedom of speech on the Internet: Interactive computer services have millions of users. The amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is therefore staggering. The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obvious chilling effect. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems.
and that Section 230 was to encourage service providers to
QUOTE
“self-regulate the dissemination of offensive material over their servers.”

In rereading related pages and the locus of the dispute which led to the creation of the Brandt bio, Slim says,
QUOTE
I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something.
Yes the "published criticism" was excised and the problem users hounded off. Brandt was the victim of a drive-by smear, probably engineered by Berlet, executed by SV, aimed at limitting and removing criticism of Berlet contributed by Rangerdude and Nobs01 which conformed to Wikipedia Attribution policies. See, Contextual narrative of events and motives for creation of Daniel Brandt article.

The problem seems to be Wikipedia's definition of "source". Reviewing those pages, SlimVirgin persistently referred to the host as "source" in discussions with me, and it was as if we were talking past each another. I don't know if it was deliberate, just strecthing the rules, or careless. I assumed in good faith WP:DR and Arbitration would resolve this. And I certainly didn't agree to submit to Arbitration with the intention of being defamed in the process.

And of course she, like Berlet, attempts to link and tie Berlet critics to the LaRouche movement.

This post has been edited by nobs: Thu 18th January 2007, 9:50pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Fri 19th January 2007, 2:06am
Post #51


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Part V ( A ) -- "We have discussed this problem at PRA"

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics#Political Research Associates

An RfC was filed on Political Research Associates (PRA) the same day the Daniel Brandt bio was created. This is illustrative of the fact that Berlet, et al were frustrated over the inability to excise properly sourced criticism from the PRA article. Berlet says,
QUOTE
Talk:Political Research Associates Vocal critics of this organization (where I work) have added much negative criticism. There are no lists of publications or accomplishments, quotes from supporters are gone, quotes from critics abound; and now criticism dominates the page. Is this fair and NPOV?13:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
On the PRA talk page, Berlet announces the RfC
QUOTE
This page is now totally unfair and unbalanced. The majority of text is based on critics. None of the publications of PRA are listed. The actual quotes from our supporters have been deleted, in favor of quotes from critics. We have discussed this problem at PRA, and we feel this situation needs to be addressed, so we are asking Wiki editors to look at this page and make comments.--Cberlet 13:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Rangerdude engages Berlet
QUOTE
That PRA personally doesn't like its critics or what they say about it is simply not our concern on wikipedia
Berlet rejoins
QUOTE
So far we have had this page taken over by fans of convicted felon and neo fascist lunatic Lyndon LaRouche; and fans of a small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The critics of PRA quoted include Dan Brandt, a noted conspiracy theorist who has complained in print that PRA seems to be run by women (horrors!), and David Horowitz, who acts as the carnival geek of the ultraconservative political right.
Let me make a personal observation: Brandt was spared that day some of the more vicious comments directed at others. We have provided the motives to smear Brandt's credibilty, we've have provided the evidence Berlet asked others to intervene, we have provided proof Berlet thought Brandt's criticism unfair. All that was lacking was the foundation to discredit Brandt, "a noted conspiracy theorist".

This post has been edited by nobs: Tue 30th January 2007, 9:48pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Thu 25th January 2007, 1:37am
Post #52


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Part V ( B ) -- "Please refute that you put kittens into dryers!!! "

In response to the "Giant Blob of Horowitz", aka "Red-baiting Lie Article", Berlet responded to a question from a user who, coincidentally was the subject of the Mercy ruling, which is now part of WP:Biographies of living persons/Dealing with edits by the subject of the article.

From the Horowitz "hit piece" (written by Chris Arabia), Berlet quoted this section,
QUOTE
“Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet “may try to undermine your work and isolate you.”
Then Berlet identified the "leftist writer" whom Chris Arabia quoted anonymously in the FrontPage Magazine article, and proceeded to link him to Holocaust denial:
QUOTE
This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt, who I criticized because he was urging people on the left to read the anti-Semitic Spotlight newspaper (at the time published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.) I left the board of a group Brandt ran when he refused to discuss my concerns over his increasing tolerance of conspiracy theories and antisemitism. He was mad.
Elsewhere on the same Archived page, User:El_C displays one of the earliest "special privileges" I've found afforded to Mr. Berlet, asking for his approval of the then current version of his mainspace article (2 Jun 2005);
QUOTE
I noticed that the criticism section isn't entirely symmetrical at the moment, missing a response from yourself on Daniel Brandt's criticism as well as that of The New American. In the interests of consistency and fairness, I think these are due
Truthfully, I am not all that an experienced editor in Wikipedia, having spent the vast majority of time in dispute resolution rather than editing. But I really don't know how common or accepted a practice this is. I wonder if in the "interests of consistency and fairness", this special treatment has been offered to other editors who "share the burden of notability".

And the actual text of the "Mercy" ruling should also be considered here as well, since it arose directly out of the Rangerdude case,
QUOTE
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.
Again the question, has this policy been applied uniformly and consistently?

This post has been edited by nobs: Tue 30th January 2007, 9:49pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Thu 25th January 2007, 4:59pm
Post #53


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Thu 25th January 2007, 9:52pm
Post #54


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *
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?
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *
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,
QUOTE
Rangerdude and nobs have almost taken over my own user page: [Talk:Chip_Berlet]

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *
[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,
QUOTE
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. ...
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *
...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,
QUOTE
...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.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *

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.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *
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.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *

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,
QUOTE
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.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 25th January 2007, 9:59am) *
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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Fri 2nd February 2007, 3:32am
Post #55


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104935334
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Fri 2nd February 2007, 4:16pm
Post #56


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



QUOTE(nobs @ Thu 1st February 2007, 9:32pm) *

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

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

Squeaky reverted, so now it's back. On the Talk page, Squeaky compares me to Jesus. This is great! On December 26, 2005 he merely compared me to Britney Spears. This means that I'm making progress. I wish he'd send me some of that stuff he's smoking.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Fri 2nd February 2007, 5:08pm
Post #57


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 2nd February 2007, 10:16am) *
On the Talk page, Squeaky compares me to Jesus. This is great! On December 26, 2005 he merely compared me to Britney Spears. This means that I'm making progress...

Just think, in a few months you'll be as big as John Lennon!

Who is this User:Badharlick, then? He seems to have become Daniel's biggest advocate over there, along with User:Sbharris (indirectly)... Of course, every time he starts making noise, someone decides, "Hey! It's time to archive the talk page, isn't it? Why, yes it is," and the whole thing starts all over again.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Fri 2nd February 2007, 7:59pm
Post #58


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Part IV ( C ) -- Questionable sources

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 29th January 2007, 8:04am) *

Is Jayjg a sockpoodle of SlimVirgin's? It seems like lately he's about two minutes behind her with a rubber stamp.
Two minutes? Two minutes after the blob of Horowitz. Of course now we know,

( a ) the slanders in PIR wiki entry are cited to a self published source, Chip Berlet, Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo- Fascist Overtures to Progressives, and Why They Must Be Rejected, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Political Research Associates, December 16, 1991.

( b ) the genesis of Right Woos Left was Chip Berlet, Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left, The Guardian (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3.

( c ) the Guardian is the subject of Chap. 9, p. 125 of Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America, John George and Laird Wilcox, Prometheus Books (Buffalo, New York), 1992, ISBN 0-87975-680-2.

( d ) WP:ATT states,
QUOTE
Questionable or self-published sources
Some sources pose special difficulties: Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s).

( e ) SlimVirgin said Rangerdude wanted "Chip's published journalism ruled as an inappropriate source for Wikipedia articles" and she was "thinking of taking the matter further" to Jimbo Wales, and she didn't regard Danial Brandt as "a credible source."

( f ) Jimbo Wales echoed SlimVirgin's sentiments and added, "I don't consider him a credible source about anything at all", based upon the questionable source which has been allowed inclusion for 16 months.

( g ) efforts to remove the "tabloid material", citing Jimbo Wales as the source, are now the subject of an edit war.

This post has been edited by nobs: Sat 3rd February 2007, 5:33pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Sat 3rd February 2007, 11:16pm
Post #59


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 26th December 2006, 9:25am) *
My letters and faxes to Jimmy Wales, Brad Patrick, and Danny Wool were ignored....
News on this front, too. From Foundation-1,
QUOTE
This will enable Brad to focus on developing the role of
General Counsel, and addressing a backlog of complex legal questions the
Foundation faces moving forward.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ary/027478.html



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Mon 5th February 2007, 10:47pm
Post #60


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



So, Brad Patrick is no longer the Interim Executive Director... I guess good ol' Angela is more persuasive than we thought!

And they're going to get an Executive Search Firm to find someone permanent now. Hopefully someone who's actually visited Wikipedia at some point in the past year or two... Where do I send my resume, then? smile.gif

Meanwhile, back to Talk:Daniel_Brandt. Another admin-wanna-be, User:Colin_Keigher, left an unusually cryptic note on it recently, and I was wondering if anyone could guess what it means? He's addressing this directly to Daniel B, or at least Daniel's IP address:

QUOTE(Colin Keigher @ 06:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC))
You've contributed to society in a public matter, these people have contributed to society in a private manner.

Ironically, the edit summary on this entry (diff) claims this is a "reply to a stupid argument." The argument was, of course, that anonymous WP admins should be publicly exposed because of the impact Wikipedia has on, well, pretty much everything. That isn't a "stupid" argument, is it? It might be an "unpopular" argument, but "stupid"? I should hope not.

Presumably "matter" is a typo, and he meant to write "manner," but even then, this makes no sense. If one is contributing to society, isn't Wikipedia's entire argument that it doesn't matter whether one is doing it publicly or privately? It's the extent of the "contribution" that matters, isn't it? In which case, who is contributing to a greater extent - Daniel Brandt, who operates a few websites that are only of interest to people who really like to maintain their privacy, or a high-ranking Wikipedia admin, developing content on one of the ten most popular websites in the world?

I'm thinking he's actually referring to the nature of the contributions (to society) themselves, i.e., the "manner" in which the contributions are made. But what's "private" about administering Wikipedia, other than the desire of a particular admin to remain anonymous? Is he trying to suggest that nobody can see what they've done? For that manner matter, is the person's desire to remain anonymous even relevant to the question? I mean, if I dress up in a Banana Splits costume, go shoot the Queen of England, and manage to get away without being identified, does that mean Wikipedia can't create an article called "The guy in the Banana Splits costume who shot the Queen and successfully escaped capture"? I mean, sure, it's a stupid title, but why shouldn't they, considering the supreme notability of what I, the guy in the costume, have allegedly done?

Of course, with my luck, someone will shoot the Queen tomorrow while wearing a Banana Splits costume, various government agencies will read this, and I'll become the subject of some sort of international manhunt. Sheesh.... I can't even tell you how many times this has happened! In fact, I'm thinking about ending my use of Banana-Splits-costume analogies altogether, if it keeps up. mad.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd 12 14, 5:43pm