[WikiEN-l] Analysis of the politics of "Brandt unblocked by Jimbo"

[gjzilla at gmail.com]

On 4/21/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Seth, please stop trolling.  You have not the least clue what you are
> talking about, and you are simply making an ass of yourself.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> >       Let me disclaim that I'm not a lawyer, I have no insider
> > information, and I could simply be talking through my beard. So take the
> > following for what it's worth. That being said, here's my analysis:
> >
> >       Don't stress over it! This is what's called "going through the
> > motions", or recently, "Kabuki". Both sides want to appear willing to
> > compromise, and to portray the other as intransigent. Here is what I
> > conjecture will happen - something along these lines: Brandt will make
> > edits to his bio that some Wikipedians will find objectionable. Flame
> > war ensues. Brandt will collect evidence to support a claim that
> > Wikipedians are a bunch of anonymous harassers. Admins will collect
> > evidence to support a claim that Brandt is an unreasonable unclean-hands
> > vexatious litigant. The next move is that after this has gone on for a
> > while, Jimbo will *PERSONALLY* REBLOCK Brandt, positioning his
> > ultra-popular, media-connected, well-supported, many lawyer-friends,
> > self as the primary personal defendant for any lawsuit. This is
> > amenable to Brandt, since he wants to sue Jimbo personally, not some
> > front-man. Then stay tuned ...
> >
> >       I'm not saying this has been worked out in advance in a
> > collusive fashion. But rather that each side knows what the other
> > wants, and they've reached a game-theoretic "consensus" over it. So sit
> > back for the movie, and don't waste your energy over feeling betrayed
> > by the politics of it (you haven't really been betrayed anyway). See
> > if I'm right.
> >
> >       The situation is now out of the hands of anyone but the
> > top players (Sadly, Wikipedia is *not* yours - whatever locutions
> > are employed, to a first approximation, it *belongs* to Jimbo and Co.)
> >
> >       Let me pre-emptively try to deal with Attack Of The Strawmen:
> >
> > 1) Does Jimbo want Brandt to sue?
> >
> >       No, of course not - "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner
> > that repenteth ...". Nothing would make him (Jimbo) happier here for
> > Brandt to see the glorious light of the Wikipedia-way and join in free
> > labor harmony for the greaterment of all Wikiality. But it's not going
> > to happen, and that's bloody obvious.
> >
> > 2) Are you claiming there's a backroom deal? I assure you not!
> >
> >       See above point about each side understanding the other.
> >
> > 3) But Brandt has been such a bad guy, how can Jimbo be so nice now?
> >
> >       The only thing that Jimbo will say in the near future is peace
> > and love, grace and forgiveness, let the prodigal be enfolded in the
> > bosom of the community ... BECAUSE IT'S THE RUN-UP TO A LAWSUIT. The
> > next act is when he'll say something along the lines of "With a heavy
> > heart, I have re-blocked Brandt. I gave him every chance, but it was
> > not to be ..."
> >
> > 4) Wikipedia is immune to all lawsuits by "Section 230"!
> >
> >          Well, let's say there's a good case for that proposition,
> > but it's still not a universally held belief.
> >
> > [Disclosure: I may write a column on this eventually, so I'm taking notes,
> > but that would be weeks in the future if it even happens.]
> >
>
>

Mr. Wales: What? I don't really consider this trolling. You're making
it sound like he hit a nerve...

~~~~