A discussion has opened on possible changes in BLP that would tilt AfDs for BLPs in the direction of "delete" as the default, instead of "keep."
I suspect that something along these lines will be implemented as official policy within the next few weeks. I also predict that it will be sufficiently watered down so that the new AfD on my bio will be a close one. The cabal will want my bio deleted — I think they already feel this way — and will unceremoniously squish the next DennyColt who shows up to frontload the process. With the emails flying behind the scenes, there is a good chance that my bio will get deleted and salted.
However, the policy itself will represent only a minor improvement. I may decide that while it barely got my bio deleted, it won't be of much help to any future BLP victims, and I'll be tempted to file a lawsuit anyway. The damages I'll claim have to do with the fact that it took me 19 months of hard work to get my bio taken down, and I took a lot of abuse along the way. (Just today, for example, David Gerard called me a "sociopath.")
If my bio is deleted, it would forestall an appeal by me to the Foundation Board of Trustees, but it won't necessarily preclude a lawsuit by me against Jimbo and the Foundation.
Full Version: New discussion started on BLP
It looks like you'll probably have to sue anyway. Basically what they're doing now is watering down the original proposal sufficiently as to ensure that your bio article, specifically, won't be deleted. They're even saying as much...
If this helps get obvious hatchet jobs about "single-incident notables" like William_Bradford_(professor) out of there, that's good, but if it doesn't include people whose main "claim to fame" is their having been persecuted by Wikipedia itself, regardless of their response(s) to it, then it could actually make things worse for everyone in the long term.
By the way, don't mind Dave Gerard - as far as he's concerned, there are only two types of people in the world: People who serve to increase Dave's sense of personal aggrandizement, and "sociopaths."
If this helps get obvious hatchet jobs about "single-incident notables" like William_Bradford_(professor) out of there, that's good, but if it doesn't include people whose main "claim to fame" is their having been persecuted by Wikipedia itself, regardless of their response(s) to it, then it could actually make things worse for everyone in the long term.
By the way, don't mind Dave Gerard - as far as he's concerned, there are only two types of people in the world: People who serve to increase Dave's sense of personal aggrandizement, and "sociopaths."
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 23rd April 2007, 3:46pm) 
A discussion has opened on possible changes in BLP that would tilt AfDs for BLPs in the direction of "delete" as the default, instead of "keep."
I suspect that something along these lines will be implemented as official policy within the next few weeks. I also predict that it will be sufficiently watered down so that the new AfD on my bio will be a close one. The cabal will want my bio deleted — I think they already feel this way — and will unceremoniously squish the next DennyColt who shows up to frontload the process. With the emails flying behind the scenes, there is a good chance that my bio will get deleted and salted.
However, the policy itself will represent only a minor improvement. I may decide that while it barely got my bio deleted, it won't be of much help to any future BLP victims, and I'll be tempted to file a lawsuit anyway. The damages I'll claim have to do with the fact that it took me 19 months of hard work to get my bio taken down, and I took a lot of abuse along the way. (Just today, for example, David Gerard called me a "sociopath.")
If my bio is deleted, it would forestall an appeal by me to the Foundation Board of Trustees, but it won't necessarily preclude a lawsuit by me against Jimbo and the Foundation.
I reviewed the criteria and I can imagine that one of the first bones of contention will be the definition of a "public person." That sort of thing can be argued six different ways from Sunday without any resolution. The Britannica model proposed of course takes away from consideration the recently famous. Britannica can be a tad slow in that regard. Nonetheless, I sense this is the best way of removing you entry which I assume to be the principal goal of the proponents. Good Luck!
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 is needed is a process that is outside, neutral and independent. I would propose something like the process below:
The expense of administrating these processes shall be borne by the WMF. Parties shall bear there own respective costs for counsel and experts.
Do not confuse this independent process with any of the flawed and convoluted process, including ArbCom that exist currently in WP.
I would contribute this suggested process to the WP discussion but I am banned so I'll discuss it here instead.
What do you think Daniel?
What is needed is a process that is outside, neutral and independent. I would propose something like the process below:
1) Notice
The creator of an BLP must make reasonable efforts to inform the subject about the existence of the article. These efforts should be documented in the article talk page. If the subject provides objections to the article the article will deleted pending the outcome of the processes provided below:
2) Review Panel
If the subject feels that she/he not sufficiently notable enough to warrant the intrusion of the article she may be given an opportunity to have the matter reviewed by an independent panel. What I have in mind is similar to the "God Committees" that hospitals have for treatment/termination decisions. The panel would consist of trusted neutral and independent experts on this issue. They would not be appointed by Mr. Wales or elected by the "community." That would never be acceptable to an aggrieved BLP subject. They would administered by an independent entity such as the American Arbitration Association or various other professional dispute resolution providers. The panel member would be something like historians or journalists, people who have expertise in determining if someone is "notable". They would work off of written submissions of the creator/editors and the BLP subject. The panel would be charged with determining if an article is justified balancing the public interest in inclusion against the intrusion into the privacy of the BLP subject. If the Panel determines that an article is not appropriate it is deleted and salted without further recourse. If the panel determines an article is justified the BLP subject may appeal to the full arbitration process described below.
3) Full Arbitration
Any Subject of a BLP who feels that she has been defamed, portrayed in a false light or believes her privacy has been invaded may apply for arbitration of the matter. The Arbitrator shall be selected and governed by the policies of the American Arbitration Association, or other independent provider. The parties to dispute shall be the BLP subjects, the creator/editors of the article, any administrators closing discussion of internal processes concerning the article and a representative of the WMF. The arbitration will permit legal counsel, a record by transcript, permit testimony under oath, experts witnesses and documentary evidence. The arbitrator shall provide a written opinion elaborating the decision. The decision shall be limited to the status (delete or permit) of the article, the article's content and the appropriate level of article protection, if any.
The expense of administrating these processes shall be borne by the WMF. Parties shall bear there own respective costs for counsel and experts.
Do not confuse this independent process with any of the flawed and convoluted process, including ArbCom that exist currently in WP.
I would contribute this suggested process to the WP discussion but I am banned so I'll discuss it here instead.
What do you think Daniel?
I think the key point is whether the new BLP policy has provisions that are initiated by the subject. Since only a tiny percentage of the 150,000 BLP articles will ever trigger the subject of the article into acting, the response on Wikipedia should be drastically tilted in favor of the subject's desire to delete.
This would actually help solve problems for Wikipedia, in that the squeaky wheels from outside Wikipedia (the ones like Seigenthaler who have Congressmen, publishers and superlawyers in their Rolodex) will have something immediate they can use for grease-relief, instead of being forced to do battle with the SqueakBoxes and Wales-watchers inside of Wikipedia like I've been doing for 19 months.
Anything else is rather like hopping into your huge, hulking SUV and driving to a neighborhood meeting about global warming.
This would actually help solve problems for Wikipedia, in that the squeaky wheels from outside Wikipedia (the ones like Seigenthaler who have Congressmen, publishers and superlawyers in their Rolodex) will have something immediate they can use for grease-relief, instead of being forced to do battle with the SqueakBoxes and Wales-watchers inside of Wikipedia like I've been doing for 19 months.
Anything else is rather like hopping into your huge, hulking SUV and driving to a neighborhood meeting about global warming.
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 23rd April 2007, 10:12pm)
I think the key point is whether the new BLP policy has provisions that are initiated by the subject. Since only a tiny percentage of the 150,000 BLP articles will ever trigger the subject of the article into acting, the response on Wikipedia should be drastically tilted in favor of the subject's desire to delete...
The reason only a small number are inititated by the subject is that most articles initiated by the suibject get deleted on vanity grounds. I think the BLP is far too restrictive myself on who should be allowed on wikipedia and would happily testify to this effect in an American court
QUOTE(SqueakBox @ Mon 23rd April 2007, 9:30pm)
The reason only a small number are inititated by the subject is that most articles initiated by the suibject get deleted on vanity grounds. I think the BLP is far too restrictive myself on who should be allowed on wikipedia and would happily testify to this effect in an American court
I don't believe he's referring to the articles themselves, Squeaks. Rather, he's referring to possible provisions in the policy to allow the subject of the article to initiate the deletion process. Without those provisions, very little will be gained other than more pointless arguing among Wikipedians, which seems to be the only thing the place is good for these days...
If more than 500 people choose to opt out in the first year, I personally would be shocked, and I wouldn't even blame Wikipedia for reconsidering at that point. The people objecting to the idea on those grounds aren't really thinking about the problem, at least not in a non-reflexive manner. Remember that if someone has done a lot of negative/bad things, they're better off with biographical information on Wikipedia than anywhere else on the net, because at least there, they can influence it themselves. The exceptions would be people who have legitimate reason to believe that they're being specifically targeted for persecution and retaliation by Wikipedians, and if that's the case, Wikipedia shouldn't have a biography of them, at least not until the persecutors are perma-banned for it. (And let's face it, that's never gonna happen!)
Unfortunately, those subjects are the people whose articles are most likely to "survive" an AfD under the current rules.
Also, if anyone asks you to testify about something in a US court, I suspect it won't be about Wikipedia policy... I could see maybe prosecuting you for terrible misuse of punctuation, but beyond that? Naaah.
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Mon 23rd April 2007, 9:35pm)
I don't understand why Tobias thinks this is newsworthy. What does he expect? I think he was hoping for a scenario like this:
1. Brandt pays money to a Florida lawyer and files a suit, and Jimbo and the Foundation are properly served.
2. The bio on Brandt disappears instantly.
3. Brandt tells his lawyer, "Never mind."
4. The statute of limitations expires.
5. The bio reappears.
6. Brandt walks off into the sunset, muttering, "Wikipedia is smarter than me. Duh! I'm so dumb."
Of course there was always the possibility that I might want to recover damages for the 2,444 versions of my bio that were gobbled up by Google over the last 19 months! What's the point Tobias is trying to make?
Good ol' Mr. T! More irrational, reactionary hyperbole....
Here's still more:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ril/069807.html
Oooh, great idea!
I fail to see how the tenth-most-popular website in the world, with over a million registered users, nearly 2,000 administrators and 50,000 regular users, whose policies have never been successfully challenged in court, could be "bullied" by one guy that nobody has ever heard of before. What, because he went out and found some peoples' real names without even getting out of his chair, and posted them on an obscure website, where the stuff wasn't even indexed by search engines? And because information on about five or six of those people was re-posted here, where about 95 percent of it also was not indexed by search engines, and none of it was ever linked to by the mainstream media? This is bullying, compared to what Wikipedia does on a regular basis?
Some of these people are, quite frankly, lunatics. What's worse, they appear to be whiny, victim-culture lunatics. Brandt shouldn't sue them - he should report them to the proper authorities.
Here's still more:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ril/069807.html
QUOTE(Stan Shebs @ Tue Apr 24 03:31:18 UTC 2007)
Brandt is not a terrorist, but he is a bully, and bullies live for the moments when they get to feel strong at the expense of their victims. I think it drives him crazy that Wikipedia as a whole can't be bullied; he and his sycophants will go after individuals all day, and sometimes get a hit on one on them, but there's no "boss" to go after, not Jimbo, not the mysterious evuhl "Slimmy", not the Foundation. Even in the very unlikely event that he succeeds in suing the Foundation out of existence, people would just move WP elsewhere - like to wikipedia.google.com...
Oooh, great idea!
I fail to see how the tenth-most-popular website in the world, with over a million registered users, nearly 2,000 administrators and 50,000 regular users, whose policies have never been successfully challenged in court, could be "bullied" by one guy that nobody has ever heard of before. What, because he went out and found some peoples' real names without even getting out of his chair, and posted them on an obscure website, where the stuff wasn't even indexed by search engines? And because information on about five or six of those people was re-posted here, where about 95 percent of it also was not indexed by search engines, and none of it was ever linked to by the mainstream media? This is bullying, compared to what Wikipedia does on a regular basis?
Some of these people are, quite frankly, lunatics. What's worse, they appear to be whiny, victim-culture lunatics. Brandt shouldn't sue them - he should report them to the proper authorities.
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Mon 23rd April 2007, 9:35pm)
Nice job Dtobias. I have been meaning to spam WikiEN-l for WR but couldn't figure out how to get past moderation. Good work comrade.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ril/069806.html
ROFL, "no problem"? Did he witness the mud that DennyColt slung in his amazing quickness to "enforce" his essay and his declaration that anybody who "supports, endorses, advertises, or promotes attack/hate sites" has "questionable morality"? He removed htem from user talk, Wikipedia talk, etc. pages, not just the mainspace (if there were any such links in the mainspace, I doubt that).
ROFL, "no problem"? Did he witness the mud that DennyColt slung in his amazing quickness to "enforce" his essay and his declaration that anybody who "supports, endorses, advertises, or promotes attack/hate sites" has "questionable morality"? He removed htem from user talk, Wikipedia talk, etc. pages, not just the mainspace (if there were any such links in the mainspace, I doubt that).
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ril/069804.html
Hmm... He almost makes that sound like a bad thing!
Really, any policy that allows people like Brandt, William Bradford, and yes, even Seth Finkelstein, to extricate themselves from the morass of persecution, bickering, childish retaliation, and in some cases outright harassment that Wikipedia has become would be better than nothing, at least until the whole thing is scotched by some 6-week n00b who comes along and decides unilaterally that "we don't do this." Personally, I don't care if the policy is developed internally... Just do something. The fact that "BLP victims" aren't likely to trust them to get it right is almost beside the point, until they do, in fact, manage to get it wrong. But have they actually done anything so far to merit that kind of trust? In a word,
But nobody out here is stopping them from trying, for heaven's sake! The only people doing that are their own reactionary elements... Last but not least, I keep seeing this talk of the "community's values and principles." What are those, again?
QUOTE(Dan Tobias @ Tue Apr 24 02:46:34 UTC 2007)
...In addition to supporting such a suit, the commentators are in general agreement that the fatal flaw of any possible policy that comes out of Wikipedia is that the policy comes out of Wikipedia; it's made by people within the Wikipedia community and consistent with that community's values and principles, which is inherently wrong: the policy should be imposed on Wikipedia from outside, preferably by the most fervent haters of the site and everything it stands for.
Hmm... He almost makes that sound like a bad thing!
Really, any policy that allows people like Brandt, William Bradford, and yes, even Seth Finkelstein, to extricate themselves from the morass of persecution, bickering, childish retaliation, and in some cases outright harassment that Wikipedia has become would be better than nothing, at least until the whole thing is scotched by some 6-week n00b who comes along and decides unilaterally that "we don't do this." Personally, I don't care if the policy is developed internally... Just do something. The fact that "BLP victims" aren't likely to trust them to get it right is almost beside the point, until they do, in fact, manage to get it wrong. But have they actually done anything so far to merit that kind of trust? In a word,
NO
But nobody out here is stopping them from trying, for heaven's sake! The only people doing that are their own reactionary elements... Last but not least, I keep seeing this talk of the "community's values and principles." What are those, again?
Pass the conch shell. It once again Lord of the Flies time.
This is the kind of reasoning that BLP subjects can expect if getting relief from inappropriate articles means engaging the "community" in internal processes. These decisions must be placed in independent hands.
This is the kind of reasoning that BLP subjects can expect if getting relief from inappropriate articles means engaging the "community" in internal processes. These decisions must be placed in independent hands.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 24th April 2007, 8:07am)
Pass the conch shell. It once again Lord of the Flies time.
This is the kind of reasoning that BLP subjects can expect if getting relief from inappropriate articles means engaging the "community" in internal processes. These decisions must be placed in independent hands.
LMAO.... This is so useless, if I was Daniel Brandt, I would not fuck around and waste my time negotiating with brain damaged, basement dwelling, delusional, word salad obsessed , dipshit psychopathic crazies, that run Wikipeida. All Wikipedia is now is a warped surreal, Everquest game.
I would just file the paper and show the dickwads how the “REAL WORLD” works.
This just my humble opinion….
Thanks
Here is the place the process server should go first....
Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
200 2nd Avenue S
Suite 358
St. Petersburg FL 33701
I wonder were the other places were the process server can find JIMBO at???
Any rate, again, it's a complete waste of time dealing with the Narcissistic, Schizophrenic, psycho crazies, with grandiose delusions of gradur, with-in the role playing game of Wikiworld.
Just DROP THE BIG ONE and show them the light and fire of [[USA:LAWSUIT_&_CIVIL_LAW]]
Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
200 2nd Avenue S
Suite 358
St. Petersburg FL 33701
I wonder were the other places were the process server can find JIMBO at???
Any rate, again, it's a complete waste of time dealing with the Narcissistic, Schizophrenic, psycho crazies, with grandiose delusions of gradur, with-in the role playing game of Wikiworld.
Just DROP THE BIG ONE and show them the light and fire of [[USA:LAWSUIT_&_CIVIL_LAW]]
QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Tue 24th April 2007, 11:02pm)
Any rate, again, it's a complete waste of time dealing with the Narcissistic, Schizophrenic, psycho crazies, with grandiose delusions of gradur, with-in the role playing game of Wikiworld.
Just DROP THE BIG ONE and show them the light and fire of [[USA:LAWSUIT_&_CIVIL_LAW]]
I would not discourage any BLP subject who has been aggrieved by an article to negotiate, either prior to, or concurrent with litigation. I would encourage negotiation either with or without the assistance of dispute resolution professionals and formal processes. I would not encourage the use of any of the "made up" processes and forums inside WP. What I am most against is engaging "community" in any form of negotiation. The description above is more or less accurate. When I review the "discussion" this community engages in I tend to lose faith in any possible resolution. It is as if a hospital malpracticed upon a patient and then asks the patient to take it up with the candy-strippers. The responsible party is the WMF.
Not bad tropical fruit guy.
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.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 25th April 2007, 1:34am)
candy-strippers
U wish !!!
Jonny
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 2nd May 2007, 4:26pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 25th April 2007, 1:34am)
candy-strippers
U wish !!!
Jonny
You have your health care practices. I have mine.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 23rd April 2007, 3:20pm)
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.
QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 2nd May 2007, 11:20pm)
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.
QUOTE(mephistophilis @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 3:03am)
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...
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!)
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!)
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.
QUOTE
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
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
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 8:01am)
QUOTE
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:
QUOTE
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
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 2nd May 2007, 11:47pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 23rd April 2007, 3:20pm)
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.
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
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
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?)
> 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?)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 6:42am)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 2nd May 2007, 11:47pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 23rd April 2007, 3:20pm)
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
D&D ?
Dungeons & Dragons ?
Jonny
Dungeons & Dragons ?
Jonny
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 9:14am)
D&D ?
Dungeons & Dragons ?
Jonny
Due Diligence
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."
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 9:10am)
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.
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 10:01am)
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.
QUOTE
(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.
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 5:03pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 10:01am)
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.
QUOTE
(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
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 11:03am)
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
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 5:27pm)
Is this sort of thinking non-thinking found in Objectivism, or is it just Jimbo?
Wikipedia is about as far from Ayn Rand's thinking as it is possible to imagine. No financial profit, volunteers and endless in-fighting is not what she espoused, indeed quite the opposite.
QUOTE(Skyrocket @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 11:41am)
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."
My Google AdWords campaign currently features ads with the tagline: "Busted on Wikipedia?"
So, we're already getting close, Skyrocket.
Greg
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 11:01am)
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?)
Voting is evil.
Besides, I think the consensus here (a legitimate consensus, not a Wikipedia "consensus") is that you are pretty much justified in doing anything legal and ethical that's necessary to end the harassment.
QUOTE(SqueakBox @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 12:33pm)
Wikipedia is about as far from Ayn Rand's thinking as it is possible to imagine. No financial profit, volunteers and endless in-fighting is not what she espoused, indeed quite the opposite.
As I recall, she didn't specifically condemn endless in-fighting...
Also, the fact that WP uses volunteers doesn't necessarily contradict Randian belief in the profit motive. On the contrary, from Jimbo's perspective, it's a profit-maximizing strategy.
What's more, I think even Ayn Rand would have been able to manage editing out the quoted portions of a previous posting that aren't not being responded to, at least occasionally...
All that aside, the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia are, I would suspect, far too chaotic and anarchic for someone like Ayn Rand, or one of her followers. That may be why Jimbo wants to distance himself from it now. Also, Randians don't like to think in terms of the human costs of their activities - they believe in "higher purposes," and a somewhat-twisty version of utilitarianism in which the elites always get to decide what's best for everyone else.
To wit, what's going on now is that the elites on Wikipedia are wringing their hands about how messed up everything is, because the whole thing is far too big for them. Too many people, too many problems. Concentrating on something like the Brandt article is probably almost comforting for them, because it's a universal issue that doesn't require detailed technical knowledge or expertise, and there's a well-defined delineation between friend and enemy. That still doesn't mean they all understand the issue, though, as so many of them seem to think that the fact that Wikipedia is anonymously editable is somehow irrelevant... But it does explain their unwillingness to put the interests of the website and the "project" above their personal, and in some cases petty, grievances.
In your case, Squeakers, you've clearly decided to put the interests of the website above your own, which is actually very noble of you - it's just that the true interests of the website aren't quite what you think they are. And unfortunately, you're far from being alone in that regard.
QUOTE(SqueakBox @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 11:33am)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 5:27pm)
Is this sort of thinking non-thinking found in Objectivism, or is it just Jimbo?
Wikipedia is about as far from Ayn Rand's thinking as it is possible to imagine. No financial profit, volunteers and endless in-fighting is not what she espoused, indeed quite the opposite.
The problem is every believer of Ayn Rand I've known was the kind of person that was converted by the last book they read. This would be harmless except that "The Fountainhead" is such a long, boring and poorly written book it can't be finished by the Jimbos of the world. They get stuck in an intellectual low orbit.
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 3rd May 2007, 5:27pm)
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
This mention of dualism is an excellent point, as well as Somey's post about objectivism and Ayn Rand above mine. This is something I've been thinking about lately, and it would make a good essay or thread.
I'm inclined to believe that most younger, naive folks are attracted to dualism as it simplifies things a great deal. I think of myself when I was 14, and I really don't believe I would have any business being in charge of anything. Unfortunately, adolescents are given power on WP, and I think this adds to the dualistic group think that occurs on some issues.
When this is pointed out it is labeled ageism and dismissed.
To attempt to string this back to the topic, unverified information on a biography of a living person, is unverified whether it is good, bad, negative, or controversial. Allowing sick minded editors that often take control of an article to decide the classification of this information is unwise. I do not know what this observation helps solve, other than the fact that having a biography of a living person editable by anyone that happens to come across it is and has been a ticking time bomb. This point has been pounded over and over.
False or unwanted information that is in a living persons' biography does not equal false information in another article, such as [[entropy]]. The thinking that equates the two will never lead to an effective solution without the unilateral action of someone.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.