> To: wikiwatch AT sbcglobal.net
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales AT wikia.com>
> Subject: Do you want to be unblocked at Wikipedia?
> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:34:29 +0200
>
>
> Apparently, your article was deleted via AfD. I understand that you
> don't want to be blocked from Wikipedia, but you also don't intend to
> edit Wikipedia.
>
> Shall I unblock you?


Mr. Wales:

Thank you for your offer.

The AfD closing admin redirected the Daniel_Brandt biography to an
article on NameBase. The voting which isn't a vote, but under Wikipedia's
curious process merely a method of arriving at consensus, was by my count
about 54 percent in favor of a delete. There is still strong opposition
to a delete on the grounds that 54 percent does not suggest a consensus
to delete, which is why the closing admin went for the redirect.

It appears that the DRV, which is now underway, will sustain this.
The redirect was changed today from NameBase to an article on
Public Information Research. The feeling was, apparently, that the
PIR article provides wider latitude to develop new content about me
and/or websites controlled by me.

I am not happy about any redirect, and will be monitoring the development
of the PIR article. It may be necessary for me to point out defamatory
edits as they occur, whether this is in my capacity as the president
of PIR, or in my capacity as a living person.

The reason that I am not happy with the redirect is that I feel the old
Daniel_Brandt link, which is already in wide use both on and off Wikipedia,
will continue to show high rankings in the search engines. It would be
preferable if Wikipedia returned empty content for this page rather than
a redirect.

You are correct that I have no intention of editing Wikipedia apart from
the need to monitor content relevant to PIR or me. But I would like to
be unblocked, as this will prevent the removal of any comments that
I'd otherwise have to make as a "banned" user.

Regards,
Daniel Brandt

[mmmmm . . . What is he playing at? I wonder about that, and about why the "Sole Founder" does not know the difference between "delete" and "redirect" or "merge".

June 17, 2007
Mr. Jimmy Wales
Wikimedia Foundation

Dear Mr. Wales:

It is essential that I be unblocked immediately so that I am
able to comment on the Public Information Research talk page
as a non-banned user.

Google is already showing the PIR page in the number one spot
in a search for my name. The first sentence of this page reads
as follows:

"Public Information Research, Inc. (PIR) claims to be a 501c(3)
nonprofit, tax-exempt public charity, although no record for it
exists in IRS publication 78."

While this is technically true, it is damaging to PIR and sheds
a false light on the situation. The fact of the matter is that
small 501c(3) organizations such as ours, which are not
required to file annual information returns because gross
annual revenue is under $25,000, are frequently not listed
in publication 78.

We have a determination letter from the IRS, as shown here:
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/irsinfo.html

The first sentence in that PIR article is poorly researched
at best, and libelous at worst. It places every name in our staff
box on the defensive. Can you imagine the impact this sentence
will have on any potential donors who see it?

Please unblock me as soon as possible.

I also urge you to kill the redirect from the Daniel_Brandt
article to the PIR page, so that the ubiquitous and high-ranking
links to Daniel_Brandt return empty content. This may be the best
way for the Wikipmedia Foundation to avoid future liability,
as the numbers of those searching for "Public Information
Research," as opposed to those searching for "Daniel Brandt,"
are few and far between.

Also, it would mean that I don't have to watch the PIR page
every day for the rest of my life.

Regards,
Daniel Brandt

I also urge you to kill the redirect from the Daniel_Brandt
article to the PIR page, so that the ubiquitous and high-ranking
links to Daniel_Brandt return empty content. This may be the best
way for the Wikipmedia Foundation to avoid future liability,
as the numbers of those searching for "Public Information
Research," as opposed to those searching for "Daniel Brandt,"
are few and far between.

Normally, the fact that people are actually likely to be searching for a particular name is a reason in favor of having a redirect from it (in cases where for whatever reason the name itself is deemed unsuitable for a full article). Here, you're claiming that your name is of more interest to the public than your organization's name, which would seem to undermine any AfD claims that you're non-notable (if the organization is notable, and you're of more interest to the public than the organization, then doesn't that make you notable?). It would take a good deal of Bizarro-world logic to get from there to a grounds to remove the redirect from the name people are searching for to a page that is relevant to it.

The problem is that the redirect is not an HTTP redirect, it is a software redirect performed by the Wikimedia software. You don't need me to tell you ... why this is significant in google terms...

Things are looking up, Daniel — this has got to be the nicest thing any Wikipediot has ever said about you.

Between June 5, 2006 and February 23, 2007, I was banned. Jimbo Wales had banned me because of my refusal to apologize for a photo that I had posted, and which he considered as offensive. The altered photo was published on Daniel Brandt's site, Wikipedia Watch, in a section called "The Wikipedia Hive Mind Chat Room." During this time, my contribution on Wiki was very limited:—I sometimes used proxy editors that would post my material.