C2F697EE-9AF5-4917-A376-51E9C43F8DFA@prwatch.org 45E765B8.5050601@earthlink.net 99c65f730703011756x711c74b5hf6835868850fd482@mail.gmail.com 38a7bf7c0703011828r2452ff82xf20143d55ef9520b@mail.gmail.com c52819d30703011830x4c0782d8i2aed75ac219fed6e@mail.gmail.com 38a7bf7c0703011834x28ee9bc6pfb914a3c444b94a7@mail.gmail.com 52a8cf060703011842s2dca0df1qa405e56dda90650@mail.gmail.com Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:33:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: 52a8cf060703011842s2dca0df1qa405e56dda90650@mail.gmail.com (Rob Smith's message of "Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:42:58 -0700") Message-ID: 86y7mgm9xj.fsf@elan.rh.rit.edu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.94 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed --text follows this line-- "Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com writes:
On 3/1/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com
wrote:
anything you do related to Wikipedia may now get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside
community.
it's dinged us somewhat in the
press, based on the blogosphere at least.
Actually this matter has been brewing for some time. Amazing it
took this
long to bring attention to it.
True. It could've been discovered as far back as 7 January, if I may recount the timeline of events. It was 7 February that Essjay posted this: http://www.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Essjay&oldid=66549
On an interesting side note, it apparently wasn't until 21 January that anyone noticed - that was when an anon user brought it up on [[User talk:Essjay]] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&oldid=102161036. Given the anonymity, the name provided as a sig, and the linked website, I think we can conclude it was in fact Daniel Brandt who first noticed it http://www.whois-search.com/whois/216.60.71.100%20.
It is also interesting to note that Essjay never replied as [[User:Shanel]] quite quickly reverted it. (A lapse of judgement? I suppose so, in the same way Yanksox had a lapse of judgement deleting [[Daniel Brandt]]).
As it happened, I watch User talk:Essjay, and I saw Brandt's comment, which worried me. I believe I discussed it on #wikipedia, but there was little interest and so there the matter laid until much later, 1 February, when [[User:Dev920]] apparently independently noticed the discrepancy and left a note on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=104948143; Essjay's reply was the first confirmation and first appearance of the stalker defense http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=104973443. Dev went away satisfied (interesting that Essjay's reply to Dev's reply says that Essjay had been expecting these questions for some time), and the conversation was archived, and there matters laid (again) until later, in 5 February when [[User:Thatcher131]], invoking Star Trek, brought up the archived conversation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=105762432.
This was shortly followed by a message from an anon http://www.whois-search.com/whois/199.33.32.40, who quoted from the now infamous _New Yorker_ article and expressed skepticism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=105944722. I do not know whether this was Brandt following up his earlier message - a whois traces back to Palo Alto's "City of Palo Alto, Department of Information Resources", and I believe Brandt is supposed to be using SBC IP ranges from San Antonio, although that is not conclusive.
It was at this point that the merde began to hit the fan (for the general section of the history, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&offset=20070212185915&limit=500&action=history).
Another SBC IP http://www.whois-search.com/whois/71.141.237.249 chimed in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&oldid=106170762; note his claim that Brandt was already actively spreading the news. A *fourth* IP http://www.whois-search.com/whois/70.231.130.196 edited the third's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEssjay&diff=106201706&oldid=106186328. [[User:Musical Linguist]] then censored the two IP's post, apparently assuming they were from Brandt http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=106201706. Another aside: [[User:Stevietheman]] posted an odd message referring to a Slashdot article http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/07/1442229; if you read the discussion, a prominent, moderated +5 comment by "Everyman" (apparently well known as a pseudonym for Brandt) basically lays out the issue.
By this point, you may be wondering just when things really start happening. The first discussion that attracts any sort of widespread attention was started by [[User:Purples]], two or three days later on 10 February http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEssjay&diff=107237564&oldid=107198643. Purples's post started a discussion that included [[User:Peter M Dodge]], myself ([[User:Gwern]]), yet *another* SBC IP http://www.whois-search.com/whois/68.90.179.253, [[User:Thatcher131]] again, [[User:Armedblowfish]], [[User:Cbrown1023]], [[User:User:Grace Note]], [[User:Majorly]], and well a lot of people. 13 and 12 February saw the majority of posts on the topic and I believe brought it to the attention of the wider community, eventually leading to the Signpost article, community portal discussion, and the main Slashdot article.
I hope this chronology of events is helpful in showing that this was in fact a slowly brewing PR crisis, however suddenly it may seem to some to have arisen.
On 3/2/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
True. It could've been discovered as far back as 7 January, if I may recount the timeline of events. It was 7 February that Essjay posted this:
[...]
That's some solid wiki-research! Very informative, thank you. I feel like we're all taking part in an Oliver Stone movie, but with geeks instead of good looking people...
--Oskar
On 3/1/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
<C2F697EE-9AF5-4917-A376-51E9C43F8DFA@prwatch.org> <45E765B8.5050601@earthlink.net> <99c65f730703011756x711c74b5hf6835868850fd482@mail.gmail.com> <38a7bf7c0703011828r2452ff82xf20143d55ef9520b@mail.gmail.com> <c52819d30703011830x4c0782d8i2aed75ac219fed6e@mail.gmail.com> <38a7bf7c0703011834x28ee9bc6pfb914a3c444b94a7@mail.gmail.com> <52a8cf060703011842s2dca0df1qa405e56dda90650@mail.gmail.com>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:33:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: 52a8cf060703011842s2dca0df1qa405e56dda90650@mail.gmail.com (Rob Smith's message of "Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:42:58 -0700") Message-ID: 86y7mgm9xj.fsf@elan.rh.rit.edu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.94 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed --text follows this line-- "Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com writes:
On 3/1/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com
wrote:
anything you do related to Wikipedia may now get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside
community.it's dinged us somewhat in the
press, based on the blogosphere at least.
Actually this matter has been brewing for some time. Amazing it
took this
long to bring attention to it.
True. It could've been discovered as far back as 7 January, if I may recount the timeline of events. It was 7 February that Essjay posted this: http://www.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Essjay&oldid=66549
On an interesting side note, it apparently wasn't until 21 January that anyone noticed - that was when an anon user brought it up on [[User talk:Essjay]] < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&oldid=1021610...
.
Given the anonymity, the name provided as a sig, and the linked website, I think we can conclude it was in fact Daniel Brandt who first noticed it http://www.whois-search.com/whois/216.60.71.100%20.
It is also interesting to note that Essjay never replied as [[User:Shanel]] quite quickly reverted it. (A lapse of judgement? I suppose so, in the same way Yanksox had a lapse of judgement deleting [[Daniel Brandt]]).
I'm not so certain of that; Yanksox registered an account with WR 23 Feb 2007 9:08am http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1014
where he presumably read the series "Navigating flame wars of the Daniel Brandt controversy" (two hours is ample time) and promptly deleted the Brandt page on 23 Feb 2007 12:53pm. Ken Myers, author of *Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia* registered an account a day earlier 22 Feb 2007 and was active on that board for several hours at the same time prior as well.
21st Feb 2007, 11:10pm
Yanksox deletes Daniel Brandt
Wed 21st Feb 2007, 4:10pm Ken Myers registers an account
"Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com writes:
On 3/1/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:33:28 -0500 In-Reply-To:
52a8cf060703011842s2dca0df1qa405e56dda90650@mail.gmail.com
(Rob Smith's message of "Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:42:58 -0700") Message-ID: 86y7mgm9xj.fsf@elan.rh.rit.edu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.94
(gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed --text follows this line-- "Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com writes:
On 3/1/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com
wrote:
anything you do related to Wikipedia may now get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside
community.it's dinged us somewhat in the
press, based on the blogosphere at least.
Actually this matter has been brewing for some time. Amazing
it
took this
long to bring attention to it.
True. It could've been discovered as far back as 7 January, if
I
may recount the timeline of events. It was 7 February that
Essjay
posted this: http://www.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Essjay&oldid=66549> On an interesting side note, it apparently wasn't until 21
January
that anyone noticed - that was when an anon user brought it up
on
[[User talk:Essjay]] <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&oldid=1021610...
.
Given the anonymity, the name provided as a sig, and the linked website, I think we can conclude it was in fact Daniel Brandt
who
first noticed it http://www.whois-search.com/whois/216.60.71.100%20.> It is also interesting to note that Essjay never replied as [[User:Shanel]] quite quickly reverted it. (A lapse of
judgement?
I suppose so, in the same way Yanksox had a lapse of judgement deleting [[Daniel Brandt]]).
I'm not so certain of that; Yanksox registered an account with
WR 23 Feb
2007 9:08am http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1014
where he presumably read the series "Navigating flame wars of
the Daniel
Brandt controversy" (two hours is ample time) and promptly
deleted the
Brandt page on 23 Feb 2007 12:53pm. Ken Myers, author of
*Wikimmunity:
Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia* registered
an account a
day earlier 22 Feb 2007 and was active on that board for several
hours at
the same time prior as well.
21st Feb 2007, 11:10pm
Yanksox deletes Daniel Brandt
Wed 21st Feb 2007, 4:10pm Ken Myers registers an account
That is interesting. I had only meant to express the sentiment that both removed something which could be defended and would be defended by a part of the community but which both should've known would in the long run be generally deprecated. I had no idea that Yanksox had deleted the article *after* joining WR, and not after (which is what I had thought). This certainly shines a different light on the matter, for me at least - wasn't Everyking punished for less?
I'm afraid I don't see the Myers connection, though. I skimmed his paper, but I didn't really understand it.
On 3/2/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
"Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com writes:
<snip> >> Given the anonymity, the name provided as a sig, and the linked >> website, I think we can conclude it was in fact Daniel Brandt who >> first noticed it >> <http://www.whois-search.com/whois/216.60.71.100%20>.> >> It is also interesting to note that Essjay never replied as >> [[User:Shanel]] quite quickly reverted it. (A lapse of judgement? >> I suppose so, in the same way Yanksox had a lapse of judgement >> deleting [[Daniel Brandt]]). > > I'm not so certain of that; Yanksox registered an account with WR 23 Feb > 2007 9:08am > <http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1014> > > where he presumably read the series "Navigating flame wars of the Daniel > Brandt controversy" (two hours is ample time) and promptly deleted the > Brandt page on 23 Feb 2007 12:53pm. Ken Myers, author of *Wikimmunity: > Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia* registered an account a > day earlier 22 Feb 2007 and was active on that board for several hours at > the same time prior as well. > > 21st Feb 2007, 11:10pm > > Yanksox deletes Daniel Brandt > > Wed 21st Feb 2007, 4:10pm Ken Myers registers an account
That is interesting. I had only meant to express the sentiment that both removed something which could be defended and would be defended by a part of the community but which both should've known would in the long run be generally deprecated. I had no idea that Yanksox had deleted the article *after* joining WR, and not after (which is what I had thought). This certainly shines a different light on the matter, for me at least - wasn't Everyking punished for less?
I'm afraid I don't see the Myers connection, though. I skimmed his paper, but I didn't really understand it.
-- Gwern
A note: Ken Myers is a lawyer who has written about the Communications Decency Act and its relationship to Wikipedia, and who delivered a paper (and organized a panel) about that topic at last year's Wikimania. He's a bright guy with some good ideas. It's unsurprising to me that he's interested in controversies surrounding Wikipedia, but it does seem completely irrelevant to this discussion. -- phoebe
On 3/2/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
A note: Ken Myers is a lawyer who has written about the Communications Decency Act and its relationship to Wikipedia, and who delivered a paper (and organized a panel) about that topic at last year's Wikimania. He's a bright guy with some good ideas. It's unsurprising to me that he's interested in controversies surrounding Wikipedia, but it does seem completely irrelevant to this discussion. -- phoebe
Timeline
Wed 21 Feb 2007, 4:10pm Ken Myers registers an account at WR
Thu 22 Feb2007, 12:35pm Ken Myers last posting at WR
Fri 23 Feb 2007, 9:08am Yanksox registers an account at WR
Fri 23 Feb 2007, 12:53pm Yanksox deletes Daniel Brandt
Fri 23 Feb 2007, 12:56pm Yanksox does a kamikazi dive
Sun 25 Feb 2007, 9:46pm nobs posts summary at Wikien-1
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6799&view=findpost...
Wrong link above. Sorry.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=7020&view=findpost...
On 03/03/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong link above. Sorry. http://wikipediareview.com/...
All links to wikipediareview.com are wrong links.
I suppose you still have no idea why you were banned except an obvious conspiracy against the truth or something.
- d.
On 3/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/03/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong link above. Sorry. http://wikipediareview.com/...
All links to wikipediareview.com are wrong links.
I suppose you still have no idea why you were banned except an obvious conspiracy against the truth or something.
- d.
Sir, I accepted my responsibility, did not circumvent remedies, and remained silent for 1 year to *prove my good faith*. In my silence, this sectarian dispute only got worse with others dragged into it. I believe in the project very much (a view Mr. Brandt does not have) and even tried to pursuade Brandt to pursue non-litigious means. I beleive this situation can be resolved without further embarassment to all parties -- all -- who made mistakes. All I've asked for was simple fairness.
Rob Smith aka Nobs01 & Nobs02
"Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com writes:
On 3/2/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
A note: Ken Myers is a lawyer who has written about the
Communications
Decency Act and its relationship to Wikipedia, and who
delivered a paper
(and organized a panel) about that topic at last year's
Wikimania. He's a
bright guy with some good ideas. It's unsurprising to me that
he's
interested in controversies surrounding Wikipedia, but it does
seem
completely irrelevant to this discussion. -- phoebe
Timeline
Wed 21 Feb 2007, 4:10pm Ken Myers registers an account at WR
Thu 22 Feb2007, 12:35pm Ken Myers last posting at WR
Fri 23 Feb 2007, 9:08am Yanksox registers an account at WR
Fri 23 Feb 2007, 12:53pm Yanksox deletes Daniel Brandt
Fri 23 Feb 2007, 12:56pm Yanksox does a kamikazi dive
Sun 25 Feb 2007, 9:46pm nobs posts summary at Wikien-1
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6799&view=findpost...
Rob, again, could you be a little more explicit about what sort of causation you see in this correlation? Yes, it is kind of odd that a lawyer specializing (or more modestly, has an interest in), would register on a message board widely known to be very critical of Wikipedia, involved with exactly the sort of subject material that raises issue that lawyer examines, and occasionally frequented by Wikipedia insiders just a day or 2 before a Wikipedia insider registers and is apparently influenced by what he reads to commit a quite controversial series of admin actions related to a cause celebre on that message board - but _post hoc ergo propter hoc_, as the logicians say. Are you suggesting Yanksox is Ken Myers, Ken Myers contacted Yanksox and convinced him to do it, the other way around, or what? And then you include mention nobs...
I'm just not following you here.
From: Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com Date: Mar 2, 2007 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Correction to New Yorker Article To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
"Slim Virgin" < slimvirgin@gmail.com> writes:
On 3/2/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
None of this would have happened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay#Outside_f...
if the circumstances that led to the creation of the Daniel
Brandt bio had
been dealt with fairly in both Arbitration cases which
preceeded it..
I created the stub on Brandt because his name was showing up as a
red
link in the article about, as I recall, Chip Berlet. Rather than remove the red link, I created a stub so it turned blue. End of
story.
Sarah
this would've happened regardless of Brandt. Would it have made the front page of Slashdot, would the New Yorker have published a correction if he had not been involved? I do not know for sure.
-- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.
( A ) Brandt started the ball rolling for *TNY* to fix its error.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost...
and the cases of Kathryn Wolfe or Katefan0 are well known.
On 3/2/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
"Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com writes:
On 3/2/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
A note: Ken Myers is a lawyer who has written about the
Communications
Decency Act and its relationship to Wikipedia, and who
delivered a paper
(and organized a panel) about that topic at last year's
Wikimania. He's a
bright guy with some good ideas. It's unsurprising to me that
he's
interested in controversies surrounding Wikipedia, but it does
seem
completely irrelevant to this discussion. -- phoebe
Timeline
Wed 21 Feb 2007, 4:10pm Ken Myers registers an account at WR
Thu 22 Feb2007, 12:35pm Ken Myers last posting at WR
Fri 23 Feb 2007, 9:08am Yanksox registers an account at WR
Fri 23 Feb 2007, 12:53pm Yanksox deletes Daniel Brandt
Fri 23 Feb 2007, 12:56pm Yanksox does a kamikazi dive
Sun 25 Feb 2007, 9:46pm nobs posts summary at Wikien-1
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6799&view=findpost...
Rob, again, could you be a little more explicit about what sort of causation you see in this correlation? Yes, it is kind of odd that a lawyer specializing (or more modestly, has an interest in), would register on a message board widely known to be very critical of Wikipedia, involved with exactly the sort of subject material that raises issue that lawyer examines, and occasionally frequented by Wikipedia insiders just a day or 2 before a Wikipedia insider registers and is apparently influenced by what he reads to commit a quite controversial series of admin actions related to a cause celebre on that message board - but _post hoc ergo propter hoc_, as the logicians say. Are you suggesting Yanksox is Ken Myers, Ken Myers contacted Yanksox and convinced him to do it, the other way around, or what? And then you include mention nobs...
I'm just not following you here.
-- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.
After my Appeal was rejected and my ban extended, I sought out Mr. Brandt at WR and begin telling what I knew. All Brandt knew was he woke one morning and had been slandered. I laid out the events prior to the creation of his wiki bio in a portal at WR. A contextural narrative is reproduced here
http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2007/02/navigating-flame-wars-of-daniel-brandt....
Then I baited Mr. Ken Myers, author of *Wikimmunity,* into WR with a little piece of comedy he referenced in his first posting there. Brandt & Myers had a few exchanges, Myers spent several hours reviewing posting on that forum; by 1pm UTC the Brandt bio was deleted.
Rob Smith aka User:Nobs01 & User:Nobs02
Rob Smith wrote:
After my Appeal was rejected and my ban extended, I sought out Mr. Brandt at WR and begin telling what I knew. All Brandt knew was he woke one morning and had been slandered. I laid out the events prior to the creation of his wiki bio in a portal at WR. A contextural narrative is reproduced here
http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2007/02/navigating-flame-wars-of-daniel-brandt....
Then I baited Mr. Ken Myers, author of *Wikimmunity,* into WR with a little piece of comedy he referenced in his first posting there. Brandt & Myers had a few exchanges, Myers spent several hours reviewing posting on that forum; by 1pm UTC the Brandt bio was deleted.
And you're proud of that behaviour?
Ec
On 3/3/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Rob Smith wrote:
After my Appeal was rejected and my ban extended, I sought out Mr. Brandt
at
WR and begin telling what I knew. All Brandt knew was he woke one
morning
and had been slandered. I laid out the events prior to the creation of
his
wiki bio in a portal at WR. A contextural narrative is reproduced here
http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2007/02/navigating-flame-wars-of-daniel-brandt....
Then I baited Mr. Ken Myers, author of *Wikimmunity,* into WR with a
little
piece of comedy he referenced in his first posting there. Brandt & Myers had a few exchanges, Myers spent several hours reviewing posting on that forum; by 1pm UTC the Brandt bio was deleted.
And you're proud of that behaviour?
Ec
While not sharing Mr. Brandt's worldviews, or his desire to seek legal action and identify Admins he feels have persecuted him, I felt much relief in explaining to Brandt why he had been targeted with an invidious smear. Brandt was an innocent victim, and this is evidenced by Will Beback (aka Willmcw) and SlimVirgin's comments at the current AfD after *ArbCom voted to Accept a case against them*
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration...