http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Daniel_Brandt

By JoshuaZ, no less!

Apologies if this topic has already been discussed or Mr. Brandt disapproves. I just noticed that Hivemind was back up and checked his account. JoshuaZ has reblocked him for having an outing site.

Oh dear.

This should get interesting.

Well, it has been a week. It was done so covertly, I just noticed it. Since some administrators read this forum, perhaps things will be set right... or become much more complicated? I'm not going on JoshuaZ's talkpage and risk having my account blocked to call him to task.

Gee whiz, I didn't know it myself until I read this forum. Like I've told anyone who has ever asked, I'm really not interested in being a Wikipedia editor when I grow up.

Still, Joshua Zelinsky, age 23, Yale class of 2007, is an ass. And just to prove that I can bray along in harmony, in 24 hours I'll put SlimVirgin and Durova back up on hivemind. If S and D don't like this, they should unblock me and block JoshuaZ instead. Then maybe I'll reconsider (maybe). By the way, S, you're now linked on Cryptome, which should be good for about one or two thousand extra readers for those two links (scroll down and look under "Offsite").

Yikes! Another BADSITE. Better get busy, Joshua.

By the way, I think we need a discussion about Somey's redactions. Doesn't it seem embarrassing to have a stimulating news article on Wikipedia that mentions WR also, only to see that the article also mentions that WR has redacted certain crucial information?

And what was that item that Blissyu2 mentioned the other day about some sort of legal threat from Katefan0 way back when? I was never told about this, and as far as I know, Katefan0 never made any threats to anyone. I certainly never heard from her. If she made such a threat, I might be able to help turn it into an interesting situation. But if I'm not informed that it happened, then I can't do anything, obviously.

HiveMind has been back up for a while now. I have left a note letting Jimbo, who unblocked him, know

Kudos to SqueakBox!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=147349111

My guess is a response like "I believe in forgiveness and everyone will edit in perfect harmony." Which means "I ain't get involved in this no longer! Y'all are on your own!" Admonishing JoshuaZ though would bring some credibility back to the GodKing. And his reputation would be further uplifted by admonishing Slim Virgin for reblocking Zordrac despite his time being served (I wouldn't touch this issue with a 10-foot pole though, SqueakBox. JoshuaZ, possibly, but Slim Virgin will not allow it and you are too valuable a Wikipedian to have your career marred by a SV indef block).

I know that Daniel wasn't really interested in editing, but the block I think is more of a revenge tactic and goes against the whole peace deal after the AFD.

Would this notice from Durova constitute the plot thickening?



More demands from Durova in "her" encyclopedia.

Greg

What gives this person any authority over users' conduct off wiki? Doesn't that imply a level of intrusion, monitoring and verification that if reciprocated would be found unacceptable.

Not really. Just another would-be net nanny having a rant.

Yes, I thought about this yesterday with the news article posted here. I wonder if there should be a prominent "press contact" link here at WR so that it can be explained what the information is and why it was taken down. Seems like a compromise.

I find that a bit embarassing too. I have suggested that we have a separate board for any "outing", so that we can reach a compromise. However, about 50% of people who use this board disagree with "outing" admins, so we need to go with a compromise.



She made a request in relation to Amorrow's posts (I don't know if you ever noticed them). At one point Amorrow said pretty explicitly that he was going to stalk Katefan0, that he knew where she lived etc. This came on the heels of his writing a lot about "female Wikipedia users". She requested that we get rid of his material, and that we ban him. It didn't take a lot of discussion before we agreed to this one. I guess technically it wasn't a legal threat, although she did hint that she would have taken legal action if we didn't comply. In that case at least, I think she was in the right. Had we allowed Amorrow to keep doing what he was doing, I think that we would have been in some legal trouble.

I'm confused. I thought that the redactions were part of a deal cut to start your AFD Daniel, with Slimvirgin driving, and receiving payoff in that her name was deleted. As such, I would have thought that you actually requested that they be made.

There were no deals with me. There were brief spurts of implicit good faith between me and SlimVirgin, and me and Durova, when it seemed to be in our mutual interest during the past few months. But now that S and D are all over the web, it seems silly to leave them off of hivemind. At this point it would make hivemind look like I'm trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube. It's too late for that, just as it's too late to hope that my bio will ever get deleted from all those Wikipedia scraper sites out there. I've now put those two back on hivemind. I also added recent hires Cary Bass, Sue Gardner, and Mike Godwin.

The redactions were Somey's project. He seemed to think that it would result in a more kindly attitude toward WR on the part of certain Wikipedians. He should know by now that if you present a gift to Wikipedians, they will beat you over the head with it, and then claim that CheckUser proves that first you threatened them with it, and later beat yourself over the head with it, by which time they weren't even in the building, according to CheckUser. There's no accountability, no reciprocity, and no possible way to deal with Wikipedia. You have to aim for Wikipedia's extinction (or at least the extinction of anonymous editing), because nothing else makes any sense.

My feeling at the time was that the names that Somey redacted were already available on other sites for any half-capable researcher, and Somey should do what he wants. I don't run this board — I'm just a member.

Well, it seems there's a face-paced discussion up on the Administrator's Noticeboard on this now. Seems to be strongly against unblocking Brandt, but who knows? Out of curiousity, anyone know when/why the Hivemind went back up?

In general, I'm also curious about why there's apparent value in "outing" admins who are essentially nobodies - maybe to encourage the kind of harrassment that lead to the departure of some admins historically, though I'm not sure.

Frankly, as an admin, I wouldn't mind giving my identity out if every other editor was forced to do the same (The Citizendium Model) but I'm not sure I want to be handing it out to a bunch of anonymus trolls, as it were. Truthfully, it's not very exciting - I'm an unremarkable 25 year old graduate student - but I'm not sure I'd enjoy an unflattering photo of me on WW, and I'd probably like it less when I got harrassing phonecalls or visits at work because I deleted some terrible article about random hackers.

Regardless of whether your initial block was jusified, Mr. Brandt, how could you possibly think that blackmailing admins into unblocking you, of all things, would do anything but make the situation much, much worse?

How about your very own biography that requires 20 months of hard work to get deleted? I might be able to arrange that if you don't want to be on Wikipedia-Watch. You'll instantly be number one on Google, whereas Wikipedia-Watch had one hell of a time even getting noticed by Google for the first 16 months of its existence.

I'm not sure what this second sentence actually means, but I'll try and answer the thrust.

I'm not sure it'd bother me particularly much. This may be because our circumstances differ - I don't really know much about you. Although I haven't quite reached that stage yet, someday I know little bios will be floating around about me that I'll have far less access to or control of than any Wikipedia entry (unless I flunk out). And far less flattering comments will be added to my entry at ratemyprof.com than could ever stick in a Wikipedia article. This doesn't worry me now - maybe someday it will. I've written a couple of living people biographies on Wikipedia, and in at least one case I know that the subject looked at it and found it acceptable.

Do you mind if I ask if you've suffered any actual damages or hardships from your former biography, or if it's just the principle of the thing?

Jimbo has just weighed in, endorsing the block.

I liked Seth Finkelstein's follow-up

I like it too...

Come, come. I think you dont understand the story. Mr. Brandt was essentially held hostage as an unwilling BLP. There was an(other, 16th) AFD battle, and it resulted in a weird merge. Then the history files went back up, as did all the AFD histories. Since they republished the history files, it is as worse as it can get for him.

I always felt that keeping his name up there was blackmail. Funny you'd accuse him of that for pressuring them with payback for tormenting him.

I have a hunch that SV and D made DB an offer: your article for our names. I thought that it was odd how SV and D tag-teamed on that AFD, and now it all makes sense. They bought him off. Now they are accusing him of coercion and blackmail. This is so like the victim game both of them play, and it is dirty and hypocritical.

His history files were reposted after the AFD. which violated the deal. He warned them to do something, and Durova threw a hissy fit and put him on ANI (acting as if she never had a clue there was a deal. Sure.)

If they wanted their part of the bargain (that I'm thinking they cooked up) then they should have held theirs.

LET THE WIKIPEDIAN GOD KINGS EAT TH"ER OWN DOG FOOD!!!
What good for the pot is good for the kettle.

Wikpeida is filled with hate filled basement dwellers, with no life and spend
18/24 editing Wikipedia for jimbojuice.

Ironic.

I think a bunch of people should join together in a class action lawsuit on Wikipedia.

Jimbo Wales who had unblocked Daniel Brandt prior, has endorsed the reblocking

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=147557211

That's been posted before in another thread, if I recall correctly.

This block is rediculous. It is rediculous of the stupid cabal to disrespect Mr. Brandt in this way, because he requested the removal of his libelous biography, to block him. The cabal should so be sued for this. Mister Brandt, you are admirable and very respectable. In a case like yours, the deletion shouldn't have been filibustered (15 times) because you requested deletion yourself. Blame Jimbo. Leninist Jimbo. I admire you, Mr. Brandt.

The talk page to the WP Daniel Brandt article has been restored by Bryan Derksen. Presumably a result of the latest SV shenanigans.

I fixed it.

From July 15th to July 27th, I made no posts to this Board. I began losing interest in Wikipedia too, except to make sure no one was trying to weasel into the Public Information Research stub. Then I found out from this thread that I was blocked again, and Durova read my comment, and another round of silliness started on ANI. The Ohmynews article came out the same time, and got Slashdotted. I had just put Durova and SlimVirgin back on hivemind.

Now look where I am. I got re-hooked and have to start my Wikipedia withdrawal all over again. No wonder I cannot get anything productive done these days. Wikipedia just isn't smart enough to know when to leave me alone.

How long will it be before Daniel's IP is blocked and his blanking reverted?

It is sad to think that you might be fighting Wikipedia to your very death... and even afterwards as you won't be even marginally protected by the BLP policy after you die.

Makes you not want to do anything notable as WP might libel you even after you die.

When I was a kid I brought a new aspect to playing Monopoly with my siblings. Insurance. For $200-$1,000, depending on board development and the players position when purchasing the "policy," I'd cover a player as they passed those pricey green and blue lots. Maybe I sense an opportunity again. A person could, either while living or through their estate, purchase best efforts for monitoring/editing their Wikipedia article. Clean up vandalism and fend of nasty POV Pushers. MyWikiGraveYard.com. What do you think Greg?

I think Daniel should relax after he dies and not worry so much about Wikipedia, personally.

In many cultures, offending the dead is often worse than offending the living. His estate could sue, I suppose (particularly if they can conclude that WP played a part in his death).

Whether the dead can sue Wikipedia, edit WP, or become an administrator on WP I think might be worthy of another forum topic, but probably not here. The topic is rather morbid.

Brandt's ghost will haunt Jimbo and maybe others if the ghost is so inclined.

Jimbo and his racketeering crew would have it shut down in weeks. You're not allowed to make money off of activity on Wikipedia, unless your company starts with the letters WI, and ends with the letters KIA.

Greg

At least Daniel Brandt isn't back on the List of Banned users again, although they did ban the person who removed him.

I wouldn't be counting on WP surviving Daniel Brandt. Besides, Daniel isn't that old.