The notably infamous Brandt has a few more things to say on the subject of what he might do to Wikipedia even if Wikipedia caves in fully to his demands that his bio be deleted. Unfortunately, the comments are on a site where, if I linked to it on Wikipedia itself, various people would go ballistic about it and try to enforce alleged policies against linking to such sites, but no such rule seems to exist on this list, so here's the link:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8430
See how he "may decide" to "file a lawsuit anyway" even if we give him what he's asking for. Subsequent discussion includes some back- and-forth debate about whether the "Wikipedia Cabal" has secretly decided to delete Brandt's bio because it's too much trouble (and, along with that, suppress all internal opposition to such deletion forcibly), or, contrariwise, that the cabal will carefully craft a new BLP policy that allows some recourse to "bio victims" but still lets them keep the Brandt article... either way, they think he should sue about it. 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.
On 4/23/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
The notably infamous Brandt has a few more things to say on the subject of what he might do to Wikipedia even if Wikipedia caves in fully to his demands that his bio be deleted. Unfortunately, the comments are on a site where, if I linked to it on Wikipedia itself, various people would go ballistic about it and try to enforce alleged policies against linking to such sites, but no such rule seems to exist on this list, so here's the link:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8430
See how he "may decide" to "file a lawsuit anyway" even if we give him what he's asking for. Subsequent discussion includes some back- and-forth debate about whether the "Wikipedia Cabal" has secretly decided to delete Brandt's bio because it's too much trouble (and, along with that, suppress all internal opposition to such deletion forcibly), or, contrariwise, that the cabal will carefully craft a new BLP policy that allows some recourse to "bio victims" but still lets them keep the Brandt article... either way, they think he should sue about it. 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. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh World, when will you learn to listen to drini :P
3 days before he got unblocked: ---------- "I also took down the IRC logs. As I move toward litigation, it has become clearer to me that Jimbo and the Foundation are responsible for the behavior of their editors, because they control the structure of Wikipedia. There is no point in confusing the judge and jury."
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=8226&view=findpost... http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8226 ---------- 3 days afterwards, he got unblocked.
On 4/24/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
fully to his demands that his bio be deleted. Unfortunately, the comments are on a site where, if I linked to it on Wikipedia itself, various people would go ballistic about it and try to enforce alleged policies against linking to such sites, but no such rule seems to exist on this list, so here's the link:
What are you talking about? There would be no problem about linking to it from a talk page, and no reason for you to link to it from article space. Please don't be unnecessarily inflammatory.
Steve
On 4/23/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
What are you talking about? There would be no problem about linking to it from a talk page, and no reason for you to link to it from article space. Please don't be unnecessarily inflammatory.
Steve
I think that would be [[Wikipedia:Attack sites]], in case you've missed the brouhaha.
-- Jonel
On 4/24/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
What are you talking about? There would be no problem about linking to it from a talk page, and no reason for you to link to it from article space. Please don't be unnecessarily inflammatory.
See [[Wikipedia:Attack sites]], where certain people are trying to impose a strict liability system under which any mention of sites that they consider to be attack sites, regardless of the reason, would result in blocking.
Hundreds if not thousands of people have spent time editing Brandt's biography and more than with any other article we've been trying to cater to the subject's needs. He is known for criticizing high-profile organizations. He may not like it, but if that means you're repeatedly in the media, you're notable -- regardless of what you claim yourself. He's nothing to complain about. If anyone attempts to include malicious or false material in this bio, it will get revert at such a breakneck speed hardly anyone will notice. We are doing everything we can -short of deletion- to make the bio reliable. If he intends to sue, he should just stop threatening and do it.
Mgm
P.S. Did that Barbara Bauer lawsuit ever actually get to court or was that another empty threat?
On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:25 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
P.S. Did that Barbara Bauer lawsuit ever actually get to court or was that another empty threat?
I'm not sure. But the article got deleted because an admin decided that "I'm unconvinced by the arguments that the sources are reliable" is equivalent to "there is not a consensus that the sources are reliable," and the usual fun at DRV failed to overturn it.
/sighs
Of course, she would be a classic example of a single incident biography. Someone should recreate at [[Barbara Bauer Literary Agency]].
-Phil
On 24/04/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:25 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
P.S. Did that Barbara Bauer lawsuit ever actually get to court or was that another empty threat?
I'm not sure. But the article got deleted because an admin decided that "I'm unconvinced by the arguments that the sources are reliable" is equivalent to "there is not a consensus that the sources are reliable," and the usual fun at DRV failed to overturn it.
Not strictly accurate. The admin in question decided that "I'm unconvinced by the arguments that the sources are reliable" is equivalent to "there **is** a consensus that the sources **are not** reliable". By the current rules, no consensus would result in status quo, i.e. a keep.
On Apr 24, 2007, at 11:31 AM, James Farrar wrote:
Not strictly accurate. The admin in question decided that "I'm unconvinced by the arguments that the sources are reliable" is equivalent to "there **is** a consensus that the sources **are not** reliable". By the current rules, no consensus would result in status quo, i.e. a keep.
True enough. The point remains - it was a shockingly bad close, and a shockingly bad DRV.
-Phil
On 4/24/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/04/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:25 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
P.S. Did that Barbara Bauer lawsuit ever actually get to court or was that another empty threat?
I'm not sure. But the article got deleted because an admin decided that "I'm unconvinced by the arguments that the sources are reliable" is equivalent to "there is not a consensus that the sources are reliable," and the usual fun at DRV failed to overturn it.
Not strictly accurate. The admin in question decided that "I'm unconvinced by the arguments that the sources are reliable" is equivalent to "there **is** a consensus that the sources **are not** reliable". By the current rules, no consensus would result in status quo, i.e. a keep.
Since when does one admin's personal opinion constitute concensus? Of course, people who don't know a thing about literature can make a consensus, but I prefer one by people who know what they are talking about. I could jump into a deletion debate on metaphysics, but I'd do preciously little to reach concensus. I'm simply not informed about metaphysics conventions and the like.
The sources in question were deemed not reliable even though they were written by established writers and even though they were on the website of a well-known writer's organization because they happened to talk about Bauer's negative actions and happened to be published in blog form. A whole bunch of comments said the source was unreliable, but failed to give any explanation as to why they believed it to be the case.
Mgm
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:25 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
P.S. Did that Barbara Bauer lawsuit ever actually get to court or was that another empty threat?
I'm not sure.
The case was only filed a couple of weeks ago. Valid or not you can't expect it to get to court so quickly.
Ec
On 4/24/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:25 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
P.S. Did that Barbara Bauer lawsuit ever actually get to court or was that another empty threat?
I'm not sure.
The case was only filed a couple of weeks ago. Valid or not you can't expect it to get to court so quickly.
The legal system is, if I understand correctly, even more sluggish than the publishing industry. Let me say that differently: has there been a decision if this is actually going to court? If it takes so long before it can be scheduled, at least they could make a quick decision so a case can be scheduled, otherwise you're just waiting longer.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 4/24/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:25 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
P.S. Did that Barbara Bauer lawsuit ever actually get to court or was that another empty threat?
I'm not sure.
The case was only filed a couple of weeks ago. Valid or not you can't expect it to get to court so quickly.
The legal system is, if I understand correctly, even more sluggish than the publishing industry. Let me say that differently: has there been a decision if this is actually going to court? If it takes so long before it can be scheduled, at least they could make a quick decision so a case can be scheduled, otherwise you're just waiting longer.
I don't know what the court rules are like in New Jersey, but in most jurisdictions (unless their is a clear urgency to prevent damages) _at least_ 30 days is allowed for filing defences to a court action. WMF and perhaps other defendants are not in NJ so they all need sufficient time to consult with their advisors, and write up their defences. Doing nothing is not a good option because that can lead to a default judgement. Nothing can or should happen until the defences have been filed.
Once defences have been filed, here may need to be time for disclosure of documents or examinations for discovery. After that there is a need to find an available court date; this depends on how busy the courts in the jurisdiction are with other case. Once that is decided it is also possible that the lawyers for any one of the parties to seek an adjournment for any of a number of important reasons, such as his client needing toenail sugery on that date. All that being said, waiting two years for this to get to court is not out of the question.
Most likely New Jersey's court rules are available on line; you may want to look them up for more precise answers.
Ec
On 4/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 4/24/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:25 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
P.S. Did that Barbara Bauer lawsuit ever actually get to court or was that another empty threat?
I'm not sure.
The case was only filed a couple of weeks ago. Valid or not you can't expect it to get to court so quickly.
The legal system is, if I understand correctly, even more sluggish than
the
publishing industry. Let me say that differently: has there been a decision if this is
actually
going to court? If it takes so long before it can be scheduled, at least they could make
a
quick decision so a case can be scheduled, otherwise you're just waiting longer.
I don't know what the court rules are like in New Jersey, but in most jurisdictions (unless their is a clear urgency to prevent damages) _at least_ 30 days is allowed for filing defences to a court action. WMF and perhaps other defendants are not in NJ so they all need sufficient time to consult with their advisors, and write up their defences. Doing nothing is not a good option because that can lead to a default judgement. Nothing can or should happen until the defences have been filed.
Once defences have been filed, here may need to be time for disclosure of documents or examinations for discovery. After that there is a need to find an available court date; this depends on how busy the courts in the jurisdiction are with other case. Once that is decided it is also possible that the lawyers for any one of the parties to seek an adjournment for any of a number of important reasons, such as his client needing toenail sugery on that date. All that being said, waiting two years for this to get to court is not out of the question.
Most likely New Jersey's court rules are available on line; you may want to look them up for more precise answers.
Ec
I won't bother. If all that is needed and this actually gets to court, I trust the Science Fiction Writers of America (SFWA) to deal it adequately. They have the knowledge to deal with this even when the legal system resembles a snail.
Mgm
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
See how he "may decide" to "file a lawsuit anyway" even if we give him what he's asking for.
Yep, that's why appeasement gets such a bad rap.
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 :-) or even worse, make clones for every search company that dreams of unseating Google. So instead of having one copy of his bio to monitor, he will cleverly have arranged to have hundreds of diverging versions to monitor instead!
Stan
I don't think this is a credible threat, nor is it intended to be. It's merely indirect intimidation because Brandt knows people read Wikipedia Review. This is another example of editing, Brandt-style: "Do what the hell I tell you or I sue you". Nothing to worry about.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile. http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
This is another example of editing, Brandt-style: "Do what the hell I tell you or I sue you". Nothing to worry about.
It would seem that's not quite it. The style now seems to be: "Do whatever you like, I'm suing you anyway." I'm not quite sure what he intends to gain by making empty threats with no associated demands...
Thomas Dalton wrote:
This is another example of editing, Brandt-style: "Do what the hell I tell you or I sue you". Nothing to worry about.
It would seem that's not quite it. The style now seems to be: "Do whatever you like, I'm suing you anyway." I'm not quite sure what he intends to gain by making empty threats with no associated demands...
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
(Not you, Thomas. Brandt.)
This is another example of editing, Brandt-style: "Do what the hell I tell you or I sue you". Nothing to worry about.
It would seem that's not quite it. The style now seems to be: "Do whatever you like, I'm suing you anyway." I'm not quite sure what he intends to gain by making empty threats with no associated demands...
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
Well, he's got the 2nd two, no problem. I am very uncertain and doubtful as to his sanity.
On 24/04/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
This is another example of editing, Brandt-style: "Do what the hell I tell you or I sue you". Nothing to worry about.
It would seem that's not quite it. The style now seems to be: "Do whatever you like, I'm suing you anyway." I'm not quite sure what he intends to gain by making empty threats with no associated demands...
Social points on Wikipedia Review? Think of it as a very small MMORPG, interacting with the much larger MMORPG at Wikipedia.
- d.
From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Brandt says he might sue even if his bio is takendown! Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:40:59 +0100
On 24/04/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
This is another example of editing, Brandt-style: "Do what the hell I tell you or I sue you". Nothing to worry about.
It would seem that's not quite it. The style now seems to be: "Do whatever you like, I'm suing you anyway." I'm not quite sure what he intends to gain by making empty threats with no associated demands...
Social points on Wikipedia Review? Think of it as a very small MMORPG, interacting with the much larger MMORPG at Wikipedia.
- d.
Social points on Wikipedia Review? What next, troll-of-the-year award? Jacob Peters and Cplot on the shortlist? Sounds like great fun.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Hotmail http://get.live.com/betas/mail_betas
From: "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Brandt says he might sue even if his bio is takendown! Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:46:09 +0100
This is another example of editing, Brandt-style: "Do what the hell I tell you or I sue you". Nothing to worry about.
It would seem that's not quite it. The style now seems to be: "Do whatever you like, I'm suing you anyway." I'm not quite sure what he intends to gain by making empty threats with no associated demands...
Lol, quite right. Along the same lines, anyway.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Solve the Conspiracy and win fantastic prizes. http://www.theconspiracygame.co.uk/
On 4/23/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
The notably infamous Brandt has a few more things to say on the subject of what he might do to Wikipedia even if Wikipedia caves in fully to his demands that his bio be deleted. ... See how he "may decide" to "file a lawsuit anyway" even if we give him what he's asking for.
I don't think Brant will ever sue the Wikimedia foundation. I believe his real goal is to get someone else to do it for him. I'm not a lawyer, but could any of those present tell me if it would be possible for him to successfully pursue a criminal or civil suit against Wikimedia without showing up in court himself? If he can't, he'll never sue because we'd get a picture of him. If he could, disregard this email.
Sure. As long as he's represented, and never called, it could work. I'm sure that if his attorneys didn't put him on a witness list, Wikimedia would, though, so... once called, he'd have to show up.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: C.J. Croy To: English Wikipedia Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Brandt says he might sue even if his bio is takendown!
On 4/23/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
The notably infamous Brandt has a few more things to say on the subject of what he might do to Wikipedia even if Wikipedia caves in fully to his demands that his bio be deleted. ... See how he "may decide" to "file a lawsuit anyway" even if we give him what he's asking for.
I don't think Brant will ever sue the Wikimedia foundation. I believe his real goal is to get someone else to do it for him. I'm not a lawyer, but could any of those present tell me if it would be possible for him to successfully pursue a criminal or civil suit against Wikimedia without showing up in court himself? If he can't, he'll never sue because we'd get a picture of him. If he could, disregard this email.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh, for goodness sake, can we please stop discussing Brandt.
You've no idea how many legal threats OTRS gets every day. Broadly, we try to help the subject as much as our inadequate biographical policies allow, and and ignore the threats. Threats go the the lawyers - who ignore most of them anyway.
Why is the Wikipedia community so obsessed with Brandt?
The legal aspects are for the foundation and its lawyers, if Brand does ever sue. For the rest of us - forget it. It isn't our concern. His legal threats are no more (or less) dangerous than the rest, and the assessment does not lie with the community.
As for the community:
1) If you think we're treating Brandt fairly: then fine, ignore him. Certainly don't encourage him! Don't make him more than he is.
2) If you think he was a point or two about biographies (as I do): then no matter what you think of him, try to change things. Certainly don't troll him.
I'm just fed up with people going on as if Brandt was Satan, the anti-Jimbo, the ultimate wiki-boggy man. We don't need need this - and neither does he.
Drop it. Doc