Talk:Daniel Brandt/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Consider the following prior discussions before re-nominating: Speedy keep, AFD 07 November 2005. Keep, AFD 13 November 2005. Snowball keep, AFD 05 April 2006. Speedy keep, AFD 12 April 2006.

	The subject of this article, Daniel Brandt/Archive 4, has edited Wikipedia as Daniel Brandt (talk • contribs). In addition, the following users have appeared or claimed to be Brandt, but may actually be impostors:
	DanieI Brandt (talk • contribs) Harry 3 (talk • contribs) Houston R. (talk • contribs) Jango 7 (talk • contribs)	Wikipedia Watch (talk • contribs) 68.214.59.77 (talk • contribs) 68.91.89.75 (talk • contribs) 68.89.128.29 (talk • contribs) Fetchin' (talk • contribs)

See archived discussion: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3.

Contents 1 Recusing people from editing because of emotional involvement? 2 Biographical fact relevance 3 Public Figure or Not. 4 Replaced section 5 NSA cookies 6 References 7 Today's revert 8 Nonprofit 9 Privacy and latest deletion 10 HiveMind page 11 Let's get back to the point 12 Proposed edit 12.1 Voting 12.2 Discussion 12.3 The New York Times article 13 Sourcing draft card incident 14 "Downsize Microsoft" 15 A new federal law 16 Lamest edit wars ever 17 I'm not a "privacy activist" 18 Picture removed 19 To do 20 SProtect 21 I don't understand 22 Proposed Edits to page to revert back to 4th November 23 Why the proposed edit is justifiable (and why I'm NOT a sockpuppet of Brandt) 24 "monitoring privacy violations" 25 Pledge for AfD 26 Crappy web sites 27 No Original Research 27.1 Wikipedia Watch 27.2 WP:V 28 Now I see 29 Tweak header 30 Yahoo Watch? 31 Footnotes throughout? 32 Redirected to wikipediareview 33 Attributing quotes to Brandt 34 Birth year

Recusing people from editing because of emotional involvement?

Somewhere up there in the tangled mess of commentary (I can't even find exactly where it is, though I see it in the edit history), an anon-IP contributor suggested that anybody with an emotional involvement in the article subject should abstain, recuse him/herself, or be barred from editing the article. I think this is probably a bad idea in general. There are many situations where people with strong feelings (pro or con) are involved in editing an article, from fanboy/girl enthusiasm for a celebrity to being pissed off about a person's activities (as in this case). It's important that the WP:NPOV policy, and other Wikipedia policies, be strictly adhered to in such cases, and if the person's emotions prevent him/her from doing this, then a ban from editing the articles in question may be called for. However, plenty of people are able to hold emotions for a subject, but nevertheless edit the related article in a fair, neutral way. They shouldn't be arbitrarily barred from editing it, unless actual bias in their edits is shown. Otherwise, the people with the most knowledge about a subject, and motivation to work on creating and maintaining articles on the topic, will be prevented from doing it, to the loss of Wikipedia. *Dan T.* 16:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The only way to ban or restrict anyone re this article would be to take one or more of the editors here to arbitration, and to do that an Rfc concerning editors here would have to be approved. Then it would be for the arbcom to decide who could or could not edit freely, with restrictions or not at all. I have no plans of calling an Rfc, and unless someone is going to do so this debate is somewhat academic, SqueakBox 16:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a frequent tactic used when people seek to "disqualify" others they disagree with from editing an article. People should be so "disqualified" only under the most extreme circumstances, and only when their edits are shown to be suspect, not their personal feelings or talk page comments. There are plenty of Democrats who make fine, neutral edits to George W. Bush and Republicans who do likewise with John Kerry or Bill Clinton. Gamaliel 18:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

What tactic is it then to resist strict impartiality requirements when it benefits pushing a certain agenda? If the bar on "disqualifying" someone on emotional grounds should be set low, then why do you want to categorically deny the right to edit your own biography? Is it that you can't name any own article editors who have shown that they can adhere to NPOV regardless of that level of emotional attachment, or that there are too many counter examples?

The way I see it, it's easier to achive neutrality if people whose motivation to edit is suspect (even if not their prior acts to a significant enough degree, but just general comments) just abstain. There will be less mess for others to correct. If instead as you say, let them try to achieve neutrality, someone can always rise an RfC or some other procedure to fix it, you are trying the hard way. If there aren't enough impartial people to edit something, then isn't it better to just wait until some come along?

This matter about deleting any mention of the the SDS affair involves judgement calls, whether WP:BLP should be applied, whether "activist" is a blanket term and once an activist is always an activist for that particular cause until death or whether DB's notability today warrants digging unrelated stuff from the '60s, so obscure that the other participants of the same stunt are not mentioned by name in WP, etc. I think those are important enough questions for someone completely uninvolved to take a look at and not have the issue overrun by editors with adamant opinions already formed in a long feud with the subject of the article. For many writers in this talk page it goes way beyond simple differences of opinion. --80.186.112.54 01:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As Daniel has pointed out, at wikipedia people can edit anonymously. Therefore it is impossible to impose the policy about not editing one's own article as one is still free to do so anonymously, SqueakBox 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The rule on editing your own article is more of a guideline and suggestion than an absolute rule; as you say, it's really impossible to completely enforce anyway. If the edits are uncontroversial, nobody will make trouble about them. *Dan T.* 02:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether some policy is "matured consensus level policy" or enforceable, or even a policy is completely besides the point. I'm trying to discuss what's the right thing to do, whether emotionally involved people should edit relevant articles, not how to enforce it. Basically none of your policies are enforceable against a concerted effort to bypass them (as long as anonymous editing of articles is enabled) --80.186.112.54 02:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. See, for instance, Lyndon LaRouche, articles copnnected to this gentlemen are under arbcom rulings and his beliefs can be removed from the entire wikipedia if they are not sourced by a clear non LaRouche source, all this in spite of the efforts of LaRouch supporters. Any subject that merits a reasonable level of interest and potential controversy will normally find its balance through the energies of opposing viewpoints from different editors, and this article is no different, SqueakBox 02:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You disagree with what? That your policies are enforceable (despite that what you call "LaRouch supporters" can circumnvent all personal bans by editing without accounts and add their contributions to other articles which mention the subject or maybe someone or something closely related), or you think it's better to have a tug of war between the opposing camps allowing an "edit war", or "edit wheel" or whatever you call it when the whole matter descends to sand box level of "reconciliation of views". If that is seen more productive than moving the fighting off to some arbitration comittee, it should NOT be applied to biography articles about living persons. WP:BLP says that the subject matter requires extra sensitivity. Do you disagree with that too? --80.186.112.54 02:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well LaRouche is, of course, very much still alive. Editors may be able to evade personal bans, though not easy if it is the same subject and the same content. People don't evade bans that easily, especially as developers do have exstra locating abilities. Daniel editing his own article under a pseudonym is a different matter as he isn't banned. I think I am dealing with this issue in an extra sensitive way because he is a living person, as I did with Javier Solana, a living person whose article I have edited a lot, SqueakBox 03:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

People don't evade bans that easily, especially as developers do have exstra locating abilities. If ban evasion is not done frequently, that's not because it's not easy. It may be somewhat burdensome for a user who has not configured his system for anonymous web access before, but it is very easy to do. "exstra locating abilities", whatever they may be are worth nothing against anonymizing proxy networks, unless these "locating tools" tap into ECHELON. Why are you sidestepping the issue about using restraint with DB by offering your editing of Javier Solana's page? The question still is (since Section 2.22), whether this restraint should be exercised according to "Presumption in favor of privacy" and to remove any mention of the '60s activism as irrelevant, and not notable enough anymore after these years. --80.186.112.54 04:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well we can safely assume that daniel courted publicity by burning his card in front of the TV cameras. That was not a private act but one calculated to gain maximum publicity, so as long as we have an article on Daniel it should stay in for the reasobn that he clearly did not want it to be private at the time but as public as possible. I consider it highly relevant to the article, much more so than the fact that he was born in China (which arguably is much more controversial) which was out of his hands (he didn't choose where he was born, he did choose to publicly burn his draft card) or that he knows lives in San Antonio. I would delete a lot from the article before I deleted that draft card incident, SqueakBox 15:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Biographical fact relevance

Since both Brandt himself, his anonymous supporter, and occasional others keep making the point that, allegedly, biographical articles shouldn't include facts that are not relevant to the reason the person is currently notable, especially if they're facts that in any way reflect badly on the person involved. But, if this were actually the rule for biographies, then how come the Britney Spears article mentions her embarrassing first marriage and the annulment that soon followed? How is this relevant to her singing? And how come the George W. Bush article mentions his youthful drunk driving arrest? We can say that the media ought not to pry into the private lives of even famous people like that, but the fact is that they do, and we often repeat it in our Wikipedia articles. *Dan T.* 02:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should take that to WP:BLP talk? Basically W and Britney are very public figures from high profile politics and international celebrity, so they are notable for a lot of things, not just supporting PATRIOT act extensions or singing about being a girl and not yet a woman. Btw, out of general curiosity, can you really quote another encyclopedia which lists W's DUI arrest? --80.186.112.54 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

When you're a movie star, pop singer, or politician, you are officially a "public figure" by choice, and basically fair game for your personal dirt being dished. But Brandt is not Britney. Being in the paper a couple times doesn't make him a public figure by choice. He even tried to keep his name officially off the Seigenthaler incident. There is a different standard applied for the Brandts of the world and the Britneys of the world, in virtually every REAL encyclopedia and resource on the planet. wikipediatrix 04:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Same argument should apply to Kate Middleton (for whom I put up a failed Afd). Where exactly are you proposing to draw the line between the voluntarily famous and the involuntarily famous? Brandt clearly wanted or at least accepted fame when he burnt his draft card for the TV cameras, ie he has clearly sort fame in a way Middleton hasn't). We could argue his activities on wikipedia watch, google watch etc are also notable in that sense. How is Daniel different to Britney in this? (sure Bush is a politician which is different). BTW wikipedia is a real encyclopedia, and you can't credibly claim otherwise, SqueakBox 15:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Tens of thousands of people burned their draft cards for TV cameras - what makes Brandt so special? Hundreds of thousands of people out there run bloggish and cranky websites - what makes Brandt so special? Billions of people know who Britney is - can you walk down any street in any country, and find ANYONE who has ever heard of Daniel Brandt? Of course not. wikipediatrix 16:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What makes him special is having an article here. Wikipedia decided to keep the article not me but as we have an article we have to make the best one possible, SqueakBox 16:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict-written before above) Now it may be that Daniel does not now support his activism from the sixties (as has been implied here) but many people (including myself) still do support that stance. And because of this I am not willing to see public anti Vietnam activities from the sixties censored on this article as long as the article exists as it could be construed ascensorship from those who oppose(d) the anti-war efforts, ie were/are in favour of the US role in that war. This issue is a highly relevant and still chatrged political issue, and IMO we should not allow the pro-Vietnam war editors to suppress this highly publicised heroic action from his past. This article is not just about Daniel but about the world he lives and has lived in, and including lots of political issues that have touched and touch his life, and this includes not just privacy issues but the Vietnam war too, SqueakBox 16:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

... we should not allow the pro-Vietnam war editors to suppress this ... That's a cheap shot! Who is the "pro-Vietnam war editor"? Anyone who defends WP:BLP stance on right to privacy? Nobody is trying to stop you from writing about the draft card burning in the '60s, just don't use use names drawn from biased notability inferences. You sum your core justification for giving DB's '60s activities double standard treatment in comparison to other equally or even more notable activists of the era by What makes him special is having an article here. Which seems to really mean What makes him special is having an article here, disliking it intensely, and so we need to drop all our privacy friendly policies and do whatever he hates, because he needs a wake up call. --80.186.112.54 17:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As the originator of "he needs a wake up call" I suggest you look at the context of the original statement prior to using it to support a mischaracterization of Wikipedia contributors. Moreover, nothing is stopping you from detailing the '60s activities of other "equally or even more notable activists". However, since Brandt did things which brought his article to the attention of many editors; as a natural consequence it is getting more contributions than other (more notable) people. This isn't an attempt to invade his privacy; it is a consequence of Brandt's actions. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a completely distorted view of the facts. I am certainly not having a go at Daniel. Other more notable activists don't have that included in their wikipedia biographies? Well they certainly should, presuming they have an article and that information is sourced. Their are other issues here than personal privacy, and that must not be forgotten. I didn't choose to either make an article on Daniel or to keep the article, but wikipedia have chosen to do both, and as an experienced wikipedia editor I am ensuring that, given we have an article on him, that the article is consistent with other articles here, ie neutral, factual, sourced, unvandalised and containing all relevant information. If he didn't want people to write about his draft card burning he had the choice not to have pursued that action. He did pursue that action in front of a television camera, it is still politically controversial, what more do we need to put it in the article? So I agree with those who say if the article remains we need to include this particular sourced and clearly not private fact. Britney might want to sue for invasion of privacy when she is being private, but invasion of privacy when she has chosebn to go on TV. You have got to be kidding to say that going in front of the tv cameras voluntarily is a private act, SqueakBox 17:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Instead of working so hard on delineating this man's life history against his will, why not to try to make the article more concise, especially considering less than 0.0001 percent of the planet knows or cares who he is? The ONLY reason this article exists, and the ONLY reason it is so ridiculously detailed (more so than most movie star articles) is because people know it bugs him so much. I mean, really, what makes this guy notable? Let's see:

• He hates Google and Wikipedia. Who cares? So do thousands of other people.
• He has several small crank websites. Big deal. So do thousands of other people.
• He burned his draft card on TV almost half a century ago. So what? So did thousands of other people.
• He outed Brian Chase. This is all covered on the Seigenthaler article, no need to get crufty with it. I mean, this is hardly Deep Throat we're talking about.

wikipediatrix 22:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipediatrix, what's the point of having a article on a harsh Wikipedia critic right now. The only reason he has a article right now is because of that. That could be any other person. I don't see what's all the fuss against him now. Just ignore all his complaning and all his whining and that's it case closed. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Put an Afd on the article then? SqueakBox 23:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Been there, done that... twice. See notes at top of this page. *Dan T.* 23:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of that but there ios no policy that would forbid its renomination 6 weeks on, and I think one could argue there might be a different result, SqueakBox 23:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Public Figure or Not.

Mr. Brandt is a walking, talking contradiction. He thrusts himself into the media, yet claims he wants privacy. Mr. Brandt must face facts. HE IS A PUBLIC FIGURE! He thrust himself into this role 40-some years ago, and continues to do so with his creation of a controversial website. The World Wide Web is the new media. Anyone who has an opinion on something has the ability to post it on the web somewhere via blogs, forums, wikis, or whatever. Some manage to do it privately via a psudonym, Others who want to be noticed use their real name. I have gone by the psuedonym "DaiTengu" or something similar for almost 13 years, however my real name is quite accessable if you know where to look. If Mr. Brand did not want to be known for what he did, he would have done the same thing, it's a socially acceptable thing to do all over the Internet.

This all started because Mr. Brand was upset at Google. Google made billions of the free information that was available on the world wide web. Google organized it, and made it simple to access, and wound up making a TON of money off of it. In all reality, Mr. Brandt is just jealous because he didn't think of it first. That's what this is all about, Mr. Brandt is trying to get some notoriety off of Google, and it seems that he's succeeded.

Mr. Brandt is a public figure, and a notable figure. The argument over this article being deleted is rubbish, It belongs here as long as it has a NPOV.

--DaiTengu 04:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt can happily add this to his info about me on his Hive Mind page: he's basically a bit of a goose, and in my opinion somewhat unstable. I don't think reasoning with him will actually get you too far. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that thousands burnt their draft cards on tv it could be argued that to single Daniel out in whichever articles cover draft resistance and the Vietnam War would indeed be an invasion of privacy. I would oppose that and even remove his name from said article, given the facts I have to hand. I checked what linked to this article last night and am glad to be able to report that no privacy violation has occurred. Nobody reading about these issues will discover Daniel's past, they will have to either serach out this article itself or could reach it through links from modern day articles such as Google and Chip Berlet. Therefore I am of the opinuion that Brandt has not violated the privacy of the public figure Daniel Brandt, SqueakBox 14:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if you do use the argument that thousands of others did the same thing he did, he's still the creator of this current media circus. --DaiTengu 19:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason why his name is not mentioned in the SDS page for example is that the SDS page is not biased against DB. The same page doesn't mention the card burning incident at all or the names of the two other people involved. Your argument that Brandt's privacy is not violated because the incident is not mentioned in another page that deals with the '60s activisim is just plain absurd! What matters is that doing a search on "Daniel Brandt" on Google returns WP:Daniel_Brandt and an article that arguably violates WP:BLP in listing non-notable matters about a notable person. This is a typical example of you using whatever specious arguments to support your position, even when they make no sense, but at the same time refuse to address the main issue of why Brandt needs special harmful treatment by including outdated information for which he is not notable. --80.186.112.54 21:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything on this page is relative to Mr. Brandt's public life. I don't see anything in the current version of the article (as of the time of this posting) that would be objectionable. Each and every matter listed on the page is something that's quite public, and is linked to Mr. Brandt's name. --DaiTengu 09:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Judging the importance of a particular incident for inclusion in the article is relative to what the subject of the article is. With regard to SDS, Brandt is not a particularly important figure, so he isn't mentioned there (which has nothing to do with whether the authors there are "biased" for or against him). With regard to Brandt, his '60s activism is a significant part of his personal history, so it's mentioned in the article about him. *Dan T.* 13:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Replaced section

A vote was held here (now archived) only 2 weeks ago, and there was a clear consensus (c.13-6) to have a section on wikipedia. I have no strong feelings on the matter, but consensus must be respected. jucifer 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jucifer, that was before the formatting of the article was extensively redone. To have a "Criticism of Wikipedia" section when the other sections have been done away with makes the inclusion of this one suspicious. Also, it's redundant to have the "Main article: Wikipedia Watch" link when I already put a link to it in the course of the paragraph. But I see you've reverted THAT as well. For someone with no strong feelings on the matter, you've sure gone to a lot of trouble to re-complicate our attempts to simplify the article. wikipediatrix 00:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

NSA cookies

See this Register article. Brandt found some cookies and got them removed. 2nd time he's done this - 1st time was with the CIA (from memory). Can we add this info? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hang about! Where is the info that he got the CIA to remove cookies from their website? Someone has removed it! Why?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Getting around in lots of places. It was picked up by the Associated Press and carried by MSNBC. Would this not make him a public figure again, being defined as those who "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" in U.S. law? Toothpaste 05:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

But I believe that if Brandt has done the same thing twice, and both actions cause both agencies to change their behaviors, then that is really something that needs to be noted, so that was why I added the MSNBC link Toothpaste mentioned (but probably in the wrong section). Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 05:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think information on this recent scandal would best go in the Online Controversies section. Toothpaste 06:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The info is now in the proper section. I added that he did the same thing in 2002 with the CIA [1], mentioned by Ta bu shi da yu above. --bainer (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, now he is certainly notable and public. Broken S 06:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And an international public figure at that (see my latest edit). People on the street are beginning to have heard of him due to his successful efforts as a privacy activist, SqueakBox 18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Since all of the footnotes were removed, I combined those sources with the references and listed them alphabetically by author for now. I used the guide at Wikipedia:Citing_sources as a general guide, though it might be good to use generic citations as discussed on that page. Jokestress 18:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Today's revert

I see that Gamaliel has reverted to a version from 25 iterations prior. Perhaps we can discuss that? I rather liked Wikipediatrix' streamlined edit. Thoughts? Jokestress 20:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It seemed gutted, frankly, compared to the version I reverted to. Why remove all the footnotes? Why remove information on NameBase? I'm not sure how these changes improve the article. Gamaliel 22:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Lots of people have been editing the article since I streamlined it, so there was absolutely no reason to go all the way back to Squeakbox's edit. I don't really have a problem with NameBase being in there somewhere, but maybe in a single sentence. The idea here is to try to avoid devoting an entire multi-paragraph subsection to Brandt's every fart. wikipediatrix 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This article needs to reflect Brandt's real importance rather than being a mass of obsessive detail; furthermore, excessive detail makes the article less readable. I liked wikipediatrix' version in general, and would support about that level of detail. His being anti-Wikipedia does not make him worthy of greater attention, IMO. I'd also like to say that reverting back 25 revisions of an article without discussion is rather rude to other contributors ... —Matthew Brown (T:C) 14:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasonable note Morven. It really seems, looks, sounds and smells like a déjà vu. Remember the Coke Vs. Pepsi TV ads and vice versa in the early 90's?! One can't survive w/o the other! Honestly, this article has been treated in the most childish way I've ever seen in Wikipedia. We are just like kids w/ a new toy showing it off to our neighbours' kid. Shouting, playing, fighting, barking, etc... I even noticed many users showing off by being part of the so-called Black list. Are we thinking about HiveMind as a See also?

IMHO, this is how I've seen it since it started. This is when Mr. Brandt was blocked and this is what Mr. Brandt answered Happy editing! Cheers -- Szvest 15:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

For the record I'm not interested in "a mass of obsessive detail", and I'm sorry if you think my revert was rude. However, I don't think removing footnotes and important information like the entire section on Namebase without any prior discussion is kosher either. Gamaliel 20:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonprofit

Other than the fact he says it is, what is the evidence that PIR is a nonprofit? 65.65.77.173 11:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Public Information Research" does not show up in a search of IRS Pub 78, but it could have been incorporated under another name or changed when he transferred pir.org to Public Interest Registry. Brian Mingus has been investigating Brandt's claims. Jokestress 15:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate to disappoint all of you, but this won't wash. Public Information Research, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) organization. Our determination letter from the IRS is dated March 14, 1994. We haven't filed annual reports with the IRS for a number of years because our annual revenue has not exceeded $25,000. Our status is not affected by the fact that we are not required to file the annual information form with the IRS. In December 2002, PIR sold the domain name pir.org to Public Interest Registry after they expressed interest in acquiring this domain name. We moved NameBase, which had been on pir.org, to namebase.org. "Organizations that are required to file annual returns, but have not done so for two years (extensions of time to file considered) before the last update to the Publication 78 data, may not be included in this listing. Excluding an organization from Publication 78 on this basis does not terminate its exempt status, however." [2] "Every organization exempt from federal income tax under Internal Revenue Code section 501(a) must file an annual information return except: 14. An exempt organization (other than a private foundation) having gross receipts in each tax year that normally are not more than $25,000)." [3] Daniel Brandt 18:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why on earth would that be disappointing? We are merely doing what editors should do, ascertaining facts. Are you now saying we shouldn't bother and take everything on face value instead? --Agamemnon2 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires facts be verified through a published source. A Wikipedian just sent the entry from GuideStar confirming a listing for PIR, though data there says that the ruling occurred in 1990. The description is as follows:

PIR was incorporated in 1989 by Daniel Brandt and Steve Badrich, who were active in the U.S. student movement during the late 1960s. Brandt began writing software and indexing books in 1982, out of his concern that the major media did a poor job of tracking U.S. covert activities, transnational corporations, global policy elites, and the rich and powerful from the private sector. PIR's database, called "NameBase," was available on floppy disks from 1987-1994, and became searchable on the Internet in 1995.

It's interesting to note that the self-submitted report there mentions the anti-Vietnam activism as well. Jokestress 19:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Initial determination was in 1990 and final determination was in 1994. New organizations have a four-year period during which they can receive tax-exempt donations, but after that period the financial data is reviewed to see if they qualify for a final determination. And just for the record, I have never been suspected of involvement with the assassinations of John or Robert Kennedy. Daniel Brandt 20:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the Texas Comptroller [4], Public Information Research, Inc. is a tax exempt organization incorporated in VA and registered (at least with TX) in 1994. However, if you try and visit the Virginia information system [5] and look up "Public Information Research" (Corp ID 0342689-7), Virginia reports that the incorporation was terminated 10/31/05 and has a delinquent balance with the state of $35. It would appear therefore that there is no longer such a corporation, nonprofit or no. VACIS 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's right, we're kissing off Virginia because we haven't had anything to do with them since 1993, except send them money every year so that they can screw up our records. For the last six years they didn't even bother to put new information about our directors into their computer -- all they did was cash our check. And for years we had to submit quarterly reports to Virginia with zeros on it because we have zero employees. We moved to Texas in 1993, and this year we decided to finally stop sending money to Virginia. Now that Virginia says we don't exist, that's exactly the way we like it. The Texas Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act says we do exist. You don't have to be incorporated to receive tax-exempt status. As long as the "instrument of organization" is legal in the state where you are located, any type of organization can qualify for federal tax-exempt status. Meanwhile, Texas knows where to find us if they want to, and so does the IRS. To hell with Virginia. Daniel Brandt 21:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

All right, that seems settled. Thank you for the clarification, I'm sure it's appreciated by the editorial staff. --Agamemnon2 12:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Privacy and latest deletion

How is doing something voluntarily in fron to TV cameras a private act? SqueakBox 16:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL - perhaps whoever watched him on TV was also "invading his privacy" ;-) Izehar 16:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe Mr. Brandt's concern about mentioning his anti-war activism stems from his misunderstanding of what might be "objectionable" and therefore legally actionable. Here is what he said on 21 December:

Invasion of privacy statutes and case law add the phrase, concerning the invasion-of-privacy issue, of "objectionable to a reasonable person," or words to that effect. No one cares where Jimmy went to school. Burning a draft card and membership in SDS might qualify, depending on the current political climate.

Case law makes it abundantly clear that this public fact is in no way near the threshold for "objectionable." It has nothing to do with whether the public might find his actions objectionable in a political sense; it has a very precise meaning when talking about public figures and published facts. Jokestress 17:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I find it interesting myself that the admin who reverted Daniel's edit using the rollback has not edited this article before and has an article about himself that he did not start either, all of which strikes me as yet further evidence that a reasonable person would not consider documenting this highly public incident to be an invasion of privacy, SqueakBox 17:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not an invasion of privacy, it can't be - what he did, he did in public. Straw man arguments can't change that. David was able to use the rollback button because deleting facts from articles is generally regarded as Wikipedia:Vandalism. Izehar 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, IMO too rollback was fully justified in this case, SqueakBox 17:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the confidence. FWIW I have lots of skeletons in my closet, but if anyone added them to the article I couldn't really complain. No-one can really claim that their public activity designed to win media coverage is in some way private, and no-one has the right to censor their own biography. Without going into WP:NPA terrotiry, I suppose I may get on Daniel's hitlist for this. David | Talk 17:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Get a grip, David. The incident in question happened almost five years before you were even conceived. On that basis, I think you should disqualify yourself, since you weren't even a molecule at the time. You have no idea of what things were like in the U.S. in 1968. Daniel Brandt 17:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're the one who needs to "get a grip". You're descending to new depths of irrationality now, disqualifying people as editors based on their date of birth. I guess none of us are qualified to edit the article on the American Revolution then, as we weren't born yet? *Dan T.* 18:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you write about someone who participated in the American Revolution, and that person shows up on Wikipedia and takes issue with what you have written, then yes, I think you and the rest of Wikipedia would be well-advised to consider this person's complaints. Daniel Brandt 19:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we would. You certainly can't claim we haven't considered your complaint, SqueakBox 19:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The tortured logic of Jokestress is depressing. First of all, I claim to be a private person, not a public person. I do not do TV, nor radio, nor give speeches, nor go to conferences. My photo is not on the web. Using the logic of Jokestress, the fact that I declined a number of TV and radio interview requests, as well as requests for my photo in December, means that I'm a public person. I claim that they mean that I'm a private person and am trying to maintain that status. My name was in a few hundred newspapers last week because I found a cookie after visiting the National Security Agency's website. I knew it was illegal, and I sent out a couple of faxes, and now the NSA doesn't issue persistent cookies. Using Jokestress's logic, this means that anyone who complains that an agency is invading privacy and breaking the law, is automatically a public figure. That's because if they wanted to maintain their privacy, they'd just keep it quiet and not complain, thereby allowing the agency to continue breaking the law and continue invading the privacy of others. I find this logic curious, to say the least. It's the same logic used by assorted Wikipedians who insist that the debate over my bio is enough, in and of itself, to qualify me as a public person. The sentence I tried to delete has to go. It's gratuitous and unnecessary, and borders on malicious. Actually, the entire bio has to go, but I thought I'd start with a more modest request this time to see how far I get. It lasted one minute! I don't want that sentence in there, because a huge fight over domestic surveillance and privacy is shaping up for 2006, and I want to fight for privacy. Already the Justice Department is investigating the NSA leaks that the New York Times published in December. That sentence in my bio that I tried to delete is a bit like painting a target on my back. I want it gone. Daniel Brandt 17:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you added David to your little dot org/hivemind.html hate list - very grown up, I must say. Well I'm afraid that your current attitude will get you nowhere; if you want to make changes, they must be made within policy: if you want the article deleted, there are certain channels you can go through - those sentences are not an invasion of privacy, as what you did, was done in public - are you saying that the TV channel who broadcasted the tape has also invaded your privacy? Wikipedia articles are supposed to be objective and neutral - if you want a self-glorifying article, you won't get it here; here we state facts. Izehar 17:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it wouldn't hurt to observe Wikipedia:Civility. Izehar 17:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's funny but I keep reading storiesa in the British press and then I later find out Mr Brandt is behind them, which makes him sound like a public figure who indeed would be of interest to the media. If the press could not comment on private people they would go out of business, IMO, but journalists, unlike wikipedia editors, are taught how to not write libellously. A battle is shaping up over privacy issues and I don't think one needs to be clairvoyant to see who is going to win that battle. The privacies people considered normal don't exist any more and my guess is privacy is a shaky concept that will mean less and less as this new internet age takes shape. There were Luddites in Britain who fought against the technologies that initiated the industrial revolution, and there are those who fight against the internet now. Personally I was inspired by Jimbo's message about wikipedia being a source of education for poor, third world children (an issue very cdlose to my heart) and remain personally committed to working hard to ensure that projects like wikipedia, and internet freedoms generally, thrive and prosper. What is certain is that if Mr Brandt decided to take either the wiki foundation or any individual wikipedia editors through any kind of legal process that he would become a very public figure indeed, SqueakBox 17:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this: if you search Google for Daniel Brandt, you get 61,200 results, whereas if you search for Daniel Brandt, but exclude the word Wikipedia, you get only 36,000 results - that just above half. This proves that Wikipedia doubled Brandt's notability. Perhaps he's looking for more. Izehar 18:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

All it proves is that Wikipedia is invading my privacy. And those Google counts are worthless, by the way. If you ask Google how many pages are in NameBase, [6] you get 6,870,000. But NameBase has never had more than 133,000 pages total, and Google is currently covering less than 70 percent of them, based on my sampling techniques. Anyone who uses Google counts for anything is skating on very thin ice. Daniel Brandt 18:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately if Mr Brandt wants to preserve his privacy all he can do is go through the legitimate wikipedia channels, as if he does anything else his actions would be highly public and would indeed beg the question of why he would do an activity that anyone could predict would attract huge publicity if what he actually wanted was to protect his privacy. And his privacy would be gone forever. A catch-22 situation. On the other hand and in my judgemnt there are editors on the hit list who would welcome the publicity of an international legal test case involving the web 2.0. Lets face it, we are not talking about the Brian Chase's of this world (of which wikipedia has to deal with a substantial num ber and which some of us have a good track record of fighting) but with law-abiding hard working editors and admins doing their best to make this project happen and working voluntarily for doing so, and who abhor vandalism on the site, SqueakBox 18:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about Brandt's arguments above, and elsewhere, that he is a private person. He typically cites that he doesn't do radio or TV interviews, but what about print interviews? Is doing a print interview fundamentally different from doing a radio interview? Or does Brandt also not do print interviews, but just doesn't happen to mention this in his list of reasons why he's a private person? The recent AP story on cookies has a quote from him ("but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say anything about doing it accidentally"). While this quote sounds like the result of an interview, I understand it is possible that it was just lifted from the text of the faxes Brandt sent to the press. --Allen 18:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he's sending faxes to the press (rather than just to the agencies and companies he's attempting to get to change their behavior), then he's clearly attempting to make a public issue of whatever he's writing about. *Dan T.* 19:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Which means, I think, that reasonable people consider him a pub lic figure, and the fact that he was a public anti-Vietnam activist is therefore in the public domain. The case seems very cut and dried to the majority of people editing, at least many of whom have a proven track record both on and off wikipedia of being reasonable people themselves, SqueakBox 19:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So it looks like his recent edit comments – I still pray that reasonable people will prevail. – are true; reasonable people are prevailing. *Dan T.* 19:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

HiveMind page

I see he's added an entry to his section about me on his dot org/hivemind.html HiveMind page, saying that [he] makes false allegations about the legality of NameBase on Philipp Lenssen's pro-Google forum. In fact, all that I said on that forum was: And, isn’t the concept of reproducing and disseminating parts of copyrighted books without the author or publisher’s permission one of the big things that Google is being criticized, and sued, for these days? It’s kind of funny to see the most prominent anti-Google person involved in such activity himself. Note that I do not actually say that such activity is illegal (either for Google or for Brandt); that's up to a court to decide. I was just raising the issue that some of his own activities were similar in nature to activities of his arch-enemy Google's, and that they were activities that were subjecting Google to legal action (even if Google might possibly end up winning the suits). I think it's his own characterization of my comments that constitutes a "false allegation". Apparently just raising questions about Brandt's activities is enough to get one on his "hate list". *Dan T.* 18:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Which, frankly, I hope he keeps up, because the more people he puts up on that page for juvenile reasons the less seriously anyone is going to take him. Ironically, the incident he's trying to surpress, namely an act of public protest against the draft system, reflects far better on him than his own web pages, which basically show him reacting frantically to the possibility that anyone could possibly say anything about him he doesn't like, no matter how small or within their First Amendment rights. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Which sounds like one more good reason for Daniel not to try any legal approaches suing wikimedia or individual editors as indeed it would then be for a court to examine all the evidence and draw its own conclusions. I firmly believe that unless we are diagnosed insane we are responsioble for all our actions, and especially those since we turned 18 which is why the fact that this tv event took place so long ago doesn't make any difference, and we must all take care of what we say and how we say it, SqueakBox 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I do like the sound of that - now can we get back to discussing the article, please? If we want to have discussions like this, we can go to IRC. Izehar 18:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hive mind versus Brandt is about right. This sems like a one-man crusade, SqueakBox 20:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Brandt's Hive Mind page is laughable. It's one man's whimpering plea on how he feels he's been unfairly treated. The irony is that he's fighting to maintain his privacy, but he's doing it in public. The more he fights over this, the more attention is drawn to him. It's my belief that he doesn't want privacy, and his actions prove this. Mr. Brandt demands publicity. He wants to be the center of attention, and unfortunately he's going about it in the worst way possible.

The entire internet is laughing at you, Mr. Brandt. Give up your usless crusade and fade back into the obscurity you came from. Most of us were perfectly happy not knowing you existed, and you can't blame the current situtation on anyone's actions but your own. --DaiTengu 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And whether you can hear it or not

The universe is laughing behind your back.

(Deteriorata)

*Dan T.* 13:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's get back to the point

Let's get back to the point. User:Daniel Brandt wants to make this edit. Is there consensus? If yes, let him proceed if no, let's discuss it. Izehar 19:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edit

Should this edit be made? Izehar 19:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• I'm unsure how to vote. I agree that Brandt is notable, and I agree that the draft-card burning in front of a TV camera was a notable act by its nature. Therefore I reject Brandt's arguments for the proposed edit. However, is it Wikipedia policy to include all notable acts by a notable person, even if the notable act has little to do with the reason that the person is notable? That seems to be the case here. Again, I'm not supporting or opposing, just discussing. --Allen 19:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced the two aren't connected as it shows he has a history of activism as well as being an activist currently, SqueakBox 19:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) David Cameron has stated that public figures are entitled to a private life, and has refused to answer whether he took drugs pre his political life. I fully support that myself, but if he had ever attended a pro-pot rally or made a public call to legalise drugs (eg in a public debate) that would have been very different, and firmly within the public interest. Peter Hain's article is full of details about his conviction for activism. Mr Brandt is not here because of what he did in the sixties but because of his recent and currenmt activities, and suppressing this public activity from the past would be unacceptable. I, like others it appears, am baffled as to why Mr Brandt doesn't take great pride in his past activism as if I ever became notable enough to have an article I would myself add (sourced details of) my past activism even though I currently wouldn't dream of engaging in such protest activities, SqueakBox 19:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk is cheap. Draft-card burning was a felony in 1968. Daniel Brandt 20:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk is indeed cheap, and when people do other things... which aren't cheap; that are notable and make some sort of impact, they get noticed and become notable. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case perhaps you shouldn't have broken the law? You certainly can't make others responsible for the fact that you did. Perhaps we should add the fact that it was a felony to the article? as I for one did not know that, SqueakBox 20:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I fail to see what the fuss is, really. Then again, I come from a country where protesting against prevalent political agendae is not something to be ashamed of. --Agamemnon2 11:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

All right! I got on Brandt's hate page without even taking a firm stance on the issue! Woohoo! --Allen 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yawn, why isn't User:Daniel Brandt participating in the vote, so that we can get to know the consensus and know whether to accept or reject his proposed edit? This refusal to go through the proper channels is disgraceful - it reminds me of the AfD. There is a system by which Wikipedia works; trolling is not a way to get around it. Izehar 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, he voted! Izehar 22:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I seem to have missed the "official" vote...Anyway I [would have voted to] Support the edit to remove this very old incident from the article as doing so is conistent with Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-public_figures, which I also support.--FRS 22:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If it had been an incident of the type mentioned in your link I would fully agree with you but this was clearly a part of his public life as an activist, and he is notable enough to be here at wikipedia precisely because he is an activist. Any incident that didn't involve his public life as an activist should indeed in his case not be added, SqueakBox 23:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

(response to FRS:) I looked at the proposed guideline you mentioned, but its application here seems ambiguous, at least from my point of view. Of course, some people here see the card-burning thing as directly relevant to what Brandt is notable for, and if that were the case this proposed guideline would clearly not apply. But let's assume that the card-burning is not directly relevant to what Brandt is primarily notable for, which is how I (and I'm guessing you) see it. In the given example of the physicist, the incident was not directly related to what he was primarily notable for, and the sources were not considered highly credible. In this case, the source seems highly credible. Does the guideline apply? (If so, perhaps someone should find an example for the guideline page that better isolates the important issue.) --Allen 23:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I take your point that the example is not on all fours with the situation we have here. But I consider that the guidance before and after the example

"...In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability.... In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm" "

is broader than the given example.--FRS 23:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

One should note, however, that the referenced policy/guideline is merely proposed, not actually enforceable. *Dan T.* 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(to FRS) That makes sense. After thinking about this, I agree with you that the card-burning should go, but only on the grounds that its connection with why Brandt is notable is weak. I'm still not sure whether a subject's wanting information removed should be a factor. --Allen 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) Mr. Brandt's anti-war activism has many parallels with his ongoing activism: use of the media and litigation as modes of activism. This public fact about his public actions seems tied in with his activism at the time and very similar to his privacy activism today. And he hasn't been reticent about the draft card activism, either: To wit:

"I admire Roger Morris for his principled resignation from Kissinger's National Security Council after the 1970 bombing of Cambodia. But as someone who burned my draft card two years earlier on national television, I have to ask what took him so long." -- Daniel Brandt, 1996 [8]

I believe that fact does no harm and is helpful for understanding the trajectory of his activism. I believe it gives good context for his current work. Personally, I admire him for the stand he took back then, and I have no problem with his criticisms of Wikipedia and other websites. His complaints (regardless of what anyone thinks about his tactics) have already led to important improvements to this site. Jokestress 01:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the 2 types of activism are very connected, indeed to claim they are not very connected would be strange. The fact that Mr Brandt has written about the experience himself also makes me wonder what his objections to our having it here are. The draft card incident shows him as a man with strong principles and I would have thought enhance his credibility as an important privacy activist, SqueakBox 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times article

Douglas E. Kneeland, The New York Times, October 5, 1968, "Muskie Urged Raid Halt; Muskie Confirms He Appealed To Johnson to Halt the Bombing".

"...But when [Muskie] finished his speech, which dealt largely with a proposal he made yesterday at the University of Colorado for a draft by lottery, three members of the Students for a Democratic Society, all with shoulder-length hair, burned what they said were their draft cards in front of the television cameras.

"The students - Bruce Peddy, Daniel Brandt and Dan Malone - had planned the action at at meeting last night. They set the cards aflame after taking micorphones at the front of the hall during a question-and-answer period.

"As the cards burned, boos overwhelemed the cheers in the hall. Senator Muskie calmly watched the flames, smiling slightly...."

I urge other editors to verify the accuracy of this excerpt for themselves by using ProQuest, which is available through the websites of many public and school libraries. I can also email a pdf file of this article to anyone who wants if, just email me and ask. Gamaliel 23:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

OK... he burned what he said was his draft card. Maybe he was lying, and it was actually just scrap paper, so he could make a big scene on TV without actually breaking the law. Anyway, the article text now reflects the source material and says that he burned what he said was his draft card, so this particular issue is now resolved. When anybody, including Brandt, makes a reasonable point here, it generally gets addressed. *Dan T.* 23:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing draft card incident

Here an interviewer with Mr Brandt is certainly under the impression thatb he burnt his draft card and I wonder why he didn't correct this "error" (if error it be), SqueakBox 22:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Here he admits to organising a draft card turning-in ceremony, which is not the same thing. He also admits appealing against a draft resistance conviction which effectively means he admits he was convicted, SqueakBox 22:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh my - is writing something that has been admitted in public an "invasion of privacy"? hmm :-) Izehar 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That's consistent with Brandt's double standards and contradictory speech. If the public information that has been widely publicized is in his opinion critical of his person, then it's "unrelated" and a "violation of privacy". However, when he wants to appear as "hero of the cause", he has no problem in posing for the press. I'm afraid the information about the incident is here to stay, as it has been doublechecked and verified by different users - no whining allowed. -- Phædriel ^Shoot 23:36, January 2, 2006 (UTC)

I have had a look at the New York Times article (photocopied) and can confirm that it does agree with our statement On October 4, ????, he was one of three members of Students for a Democratic Society who burned what they said were their draft cards in front of television cameras following a speech by Senator Edmund Muskie in all details except the year (which isn't in dispute) so this sentence, I feel, has now been fully sourced by Gamaliel, SqueakBox 00:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Downsize Microsoft"

Is it worthwhile adding his article dot org/boycott.html "Downsize Microsoft" in this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... it says some stuff about Microsoft that I actually agree with, but also has some misstatements (like calling Linux "public domain" instead of copyrighted but freely licensed as it is), and also says "No network manager at any corporation would dare suggest using Linux; he'd be laughed out of his job", which might have been true in some of the stuffier parts of the corporate world back when he wrote it, but certainly isn't true of those who run Internet servers, which are still largely under Linux despite Microsoft's attempts to dominate servers as they do desktops. But it was particularly interesting to see how he illustrated the article with the infamous mug shot of Gates from when he was arrested in the '70s (I've forgotten exactly for what). This seems hypocritical on Brandt's part to use that, given that it's exactly the sort of reference to a past activity of a currently-notable figure that's unrelated to his reason for notability, which he claims is an invasion of privacy to mention even if it has been published in the past. *Dan T.* 13:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the debatably-marginally-notable Daniel Brandt with the uber-mega-notable Bill Gates is preposterous. wikipediatrix 14:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Marginally notable! Maybe in October, not now. An American privacy activist with articles in the British press is hardly marginally noteable. Still it wouldn't look good if it were brought in front of a jury were Brandt to try to sue wikipedia for the alleged violation of his privacy. What with that and the hive mind page wikipedia would probably be awardede costs as well. Any guilt I might have felt about being involved in this article knowing Mr Brandt wants it deleted disappeared when seeing this Moicrosoft article (and there wasn't much left after the hive mind). Perhaps he should take a look at karma, SqueakBox 15:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There are tens of thousands of minor activists like Brandt out there who have had their 15 minutes of fame with a few paltry newspaper articles and dinky little websites, but they don't seem to merit their own novella-length Wikipedia article or accompanying Discussion page filled with character assassination. Why are you people devoting so much time and energy to this one and singling Brandt out, instead of creating articles about all the other Brandts of the world? Don't bother answering, I already know the answer even if you don't. wikipediatrix 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question (seriously) so if you do please can you enlighten me. Daniel Brandt became really notable when he got more than his 15 mins of fame which he certainly got at the end of last year when he was notable within 2 completely separate and very publicised cases that made the world media headlines. If you think there are thousands or even one or 2 other activists equally notable please let us know who they are. I already have Swampy on my watchlist and he isn't as notable, SqueakBox 15:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please learn how to indent your replies so I don't have to keep doing it for you. Then please tell me how you think Swampy is less notable than Brandt. Swampy has generated far more press than Brandt. Swampy was affiliated with a legitimate organization (Greenpeace) rather than being a "Lone Gunman" with an obscure research group. Swampy was the subject of the popular "Sod off, Swampy" t-shirt - is anyone selling Brandt t-shirts, and if they did, would anyone buy one? Swampy appeared on a popular British TV show but I don't foresee Brandt guesting on The Daily Show anytime soon. Swampy was well known to many people at his peak, whereas practically no one has ever heard of Daniel Brandt. wikipediatrix 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well to indent or not is a personal choice, please don't insult my intelligence by assuming I don't know how to do such a simple thing. Swampy was very recently associated with Greenpeace, the characterisation of him as an activist as being associated with that group is simply not true. How many articles did Swampy dominate in the US press? Plenty of people have now heard of Daniel Brandt as he has appeared in 2 separate highly controversial cases in the last 2 months with international significance, SqueakBox 04:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you specify the US press? I'm talking about worldwide press, not just the US. And you ignored most of my other points, so I'll just stop wasting my time now and file this conversation under what Mark Twain said about teaching a certain animal to sing. wikipediatrix 04:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A new federal law

A new federal law was signed on January 5, 2006 by President Bush. Section 113 of the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act" states that when you harass someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language: "Whoever ... utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet ... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person ... who receives the communications ... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.91.29.98 (talk • contribs) .

thats nice. 1.)it doesn't stand a chance against a 1st amendment challange 2.)I'll start worrying about it when I find myself subject to US goverment juristiction.Geni 22:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I live in England, does that law apply here as well? Izehar 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you post it at the Village pump as whatever implications this law has are relate to wikipedia as a whole, and the many vandals, trolls and sockpuppets that wikipedia is confronting on a daily basis, some of whom are on US territory while doing so. I cannot see any relevance to this particular article, though it does to wikipedia as a whole, SqueakBox 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The law does not apply to you unless you entre the US or have any US based assets.Geni 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the law making a distinction between articles and "Talk" pages. There are three long archives of "Talk" pages where I've been annoyed and harassed. Wikipedia brags in its privacy policy that users who use login names are more anonymous than those who don't. The "Talk" pages get indexed in Google. Daniel Brandt 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is very much true that registered users are more anonymous than the real "anonymous" users. You can easily trace an IP by using e.g. Geobytes' IP Locator. It would be fair if the IPs of registered users would be made available. --Thorri 15:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Those archive pages were written before Jan 5th so they don't aopply in this case, SqueakBox 15:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the law haveing a chance against the first amendment (depending on how it is applied. The text itself does make an interesting read:

SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.

47 USC 232(a)(1)(C) and (h)(1)(B) clearly show that it is intended to affect harassing direct communications. "Interactive computer services", such as web forums, are explicitly excluded. The way it is written is probably broad enough that it does cover emails, but you are unlikely to to be able to make a case that anything posted on Wikipedia falls within the scope of the statue. VACIS 23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Google is the best stalker on the planet. This very page is indexed in Google, due to the fact that Wikipedia policy declines to place a META robots exclusion in the headers of "Talk" pages. Wikipedia knows very well that all their pages rank very well in the major engines. Anonymous editors know very well that if they cannot get something in an article, all they have to do is harass someone on the "Talk" page. That's not interactive. That's targeted cyberstalking. Daniel Brandt 00:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how any part of the law referenced here applies differently in any way based on how well indexed a particular site is in search engines. *Dan T.* 01:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What you are presenting is a premeditated plan of action on behalf of Wikipedia to defame the character of public figures. Now for the ten thousand dollar question: Where is the proof of premeditated malicious intent? Also: What is the motive for this? For the record, if you search on Google for "Daniel Brandt", the article and your user page are fairly prominently shown on the list. This talkpage, on the other hand has not yet come up in my going through the results (mind you, I'm only on page 25 of said results, which I consider far deeper than the casual surfer would bother delving into). So, in light of the above, I cannot agree with your claims. Feel free to add this difference of opinion to the Hivemind page, and make sure you spell my name right, it's P-a-i-n-u H-e-l-v-e-t-t-i-i-n. --Agamemnon2 07:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't know much about how Google works. This page was last crawled, indexed, and cached on January 4. Google shows only two pages per domain unless you turn off the filter. Right now the two pages it shows on a search for my name are the article and the User page (this page would show as number 3). My User page is empty, because I'm not allowed to edit it. (What does that do to the definition of an "interactive service"?) However, being empty, it will also show up ONLY in a search for my name. This page, by contrast, is ultimately more likely to show up because it has lots of other keywords you can hit on in addition to the two keywords of my name. Daniel Brandt 15:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed these talk pages (inc archived) have far more keywords than the article itself, especially as they links to so many different user pages, some of them repeatedly, and some of which have thousands of links within wikipedia (I myself have signed my name about over 6,5000 times, and they don't get deleted) not to mention those mirrors which include talk pages. And Google won't find me under Richard weiss but it will for SqueakBox. If you are saying Google and its search engine are a bad idea (which I imagine you are) I for one would beg to differ though I think Google could improve on their algorithms a lot to allow people to search for what they really want to know. Perhaps you dislike the existence of this page for violating your privacy even more than the article itself? SqueakBox 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you are currently unblocked, I have unprotected your user page. Gamaliel 18:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please make a request fro your page to be unprotected at {{Wikipedia:Request for page protection]]. If you do drop me a line on my talk page and I will give my support to a move to unprotect your user page, SqueakBox 15:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that I think you'd add the above, since you've always been very precise about adding only edits that paint adversaries in a bad light and have that easily-dealt-with, soundbyte quality. I'm also concerned that there is not a link from said page to, for example, to this talk page, so people could see for themselves the criticism taking place in situ. One cannot claim plausibly neutrality in response to criticisms leveled at oneself.

To elaborate. My statement on the Hivemind page "Brandt is inherently non-notable" took place in the deletion discussion of a Brant-related article (I believe Wikipedia Watch, but I could be mistaken). To claim the non-notability of Daniel Brandt in the context of a deletion discussion is advocating the removal of Daniel Brandt from Wikipedia, is it not? It also makes, when removed from context, quite a spiffy though totally lacking-in-content soundbyte. --Agamemnon2 11:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Many users have a similar experience of being harrassed by people on wikipedia so in theory there could be literally thousands of court cases involving wikipedia alone let alone all the other web 2.0 forums where people harrass each other anonymously, but of course the first case would be highly publicised. I think people will inevitably lose their right to act anonymously online, and I am sure you could address this issue of anonymity in other places in wikipedia. Some have argued that only those who give an IP-based email address should edit, much as say the digital spy forum only allows contributors using an IP-based email address. What I still fail to see is what this has to do with the article. Lets try and keep on track here, and try to act at all times in a professional manner. One thing you cannot criticise wikipedia about is its policy on recording every action that occurs on the site, while developers are empowered to check the IP address(es) of anonymous signed in users in special cases. Wikipediais also making an active effort to block IP addresses used by IP proxies. I personally think the policy of AOL and other dial-up companies of changing the IP address every connection encourages anonymous editing while ultimately it is the ISP's who are responsible for the confidentiaslity policy regarding IP addresses (and of course people edit this encyclopedia from certainly more than 100 different countries with different policies on anonymity (ie it is not the same in China as it is in Honduras which is also not the same as it is in the United States, SqueakBox 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Does Mr Brandt think the law is retroactive? 4 archived talk pages? That is being utterly ridiculous as the laws are not retroactive in the US, even I as a non-citizen no that. There have been 2 sections written since 5th January. On the other hand User:Daniel; Brandt is, IMO, very close to making legal threats in his above statement, implyinbg falsely that the law was retroactive and that anonymous were breaking a law that did not exist. I would also point out that he has falsely labelled at least 4 wikipedia as anonymous John Doe's, including Jimmy Wales, and including myself in spite of my asking him to remove my name from the Hive Mind as I am extremely unconmfortable with his false accusation of me as an anonymous user. He falsely claims certain editors are anonymous and then starts to mention a law againsyt anonymous users. Clearly were there ever to be a court case his false labeling of people as anonymous would be an important issue, as would his attempt to portray the law as retrocactive, This looks like a legal attack to me, and from someone who is probably committiing libel in his hive mind page (as far as I am concerned labelling of me as an anonymous editor is a damaging and false allegation designed to slur my character, SqueakBox 15:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything on this page, the associated article, or elsewhere on Wikipedia, that would break this law whether or not it is to be applied retroactively. The law is aimed at direct threats and harrassment aimed at an individual, not the writing of articles and discussion about an individual, which is protected by the First Amendment. *Dan T.* 16:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the first amendment is but I didn't for a second imagine that it would have been relevant in this case even if the law was retroactive, though there are many cases on wikipedia where it is highly relevant. I am concerned that we stick to wikipedia policy which, while it certainly doesn't forbid talking about legal situations, does srtictly prohibit the making of legal threats,a nd IMO any statement likely to cause legal fear in the minds of other users could be considered a legal threat. We desperately need this policy otherwise the atmosphere on pages deteriorates significantly, making the place unpleasant for honest editors, and I am concerned to make sure that nobody feels threatened while participating here, SqueakBox 16:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You must mean the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and it does indeed look as if you US people are rpotected from governments making laws that deny you freedom of speech. Excellent, would that UK citizens were conferred similar rights, SqueakBox 16:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears from User:Daniel Brandt that the new law forbids annoying someone else anonymously. Essentially this law will either fail as a violation of the US constitution or it will mark the end of anonymous editing in the United States as it doesn't take a lot to annoy someone or be annoying. Any bets which way this will go? It does say a lot about US society in 2006, thank goodness it doesn't effect the rest of us, SqueakBox 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Lamest edit wars ever

This article has made the list at WP:LAME. Congrats all around. :) Gamaliel 17:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Whoo-hoo! --Agamemnon2 07:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a "privacy activist"

For the last 39 years, I have been an "accountability activist." When the Internet came along, journalists started calling me a "privacy activist," because the Internet had no place for accountability. Over the last three months, my experience with Wikipedia has taught me that I should start correcting journalists so that they use the term "accountability" to describe what I do, rather than the term "privacy." The only time "privacy" comes into the equation is with issues where a person is completely passive -- for example, search engines should not track the search terms that a searcher enters by using cookies with a unique ID in them that expire in 2038. Privacy considerations have a role to play on issues such as this. With Wikipedia, the issue might be privacy for the subject of an article, but for those editing a biography of a living person, it becomes a question of accountability for the editors. You cannot hold someone accountable if they remain anonymous. Daniel Brandt 16:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm the words "privacy activist" do not appear in the article. We do say that Public Information Research "specializes in monitoring privacy violations on the web" (I'm still not sure what it did pre 1991 but no matter) however where or not this makes you a "privacy activist" is something the article doesn't venture an opinion.Geni 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

PIR wasn't interested in the Internet until 1995, so you actually have six years of PIR that you are unable to explain. It stikes me as conveniently self-serving for an anonymous Wikipedia administrator to characterize my activism as privacy-related, rather than more accurately describing it as accountability-related. What did anti-Vietnam War activism have to do with privacy? Nothing at all. What did public non-cooperation with the draft have to do with accountability? Everything. Daniel Brandt 17:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't characterise your activism as any sub groups since it appears it covers quite a number of differen't areas. The article doesn't either. Going by the stament PIR is only interested in part of the internet. I'm sure if PIR did anything of importance in those 6 years somebody will have reported it.Geni 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't help it if Wikipedia editors are incompetent. I've been doing NameBase for 23 years, and Wikipedia-Watch for three months. Guess which of these two make it into the first paragraph? Daniel Brandt 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The one that appears to be better known.Geni 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Only to Wikipedians -- I wonder why? Maybe because it's in the first paragraph. Daniel Brandt 20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

News stories mention both google watch and wikipedia watch. I don't think there are many mentions of NameBase.Geni 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool it down guys. Daniel, if you want to call yourself an accountability activist as well, you're going to have to define what that means. I think some of the resistance to "accountability activist" is because it sounds too much like PR-talk. Geni, if you're going to make reverts saying "NOR someone else needs to publish this before we can use it", then don't revert to a version including unsourced quotations ("specializes in monitoring privacy violations on the web"). --bainer (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm missed that. Where did it come from in the first place? It's been there since at least the 21st of december.Geni 01:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sourced per bainer's request from dot org/gifs/rush1.gif this letter dated 5 December 2005 at the bottom of dot org/usatoday.html this page. I have seen no published sources indicating Mr. Brandt is an "accountability activist." Jokestress 01:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture removed

It seems that Brandt has taken down dot org/gifs/rush1.gif Rush1.Gif which is the letter sourced in the first paragraph (saying that PIR "specializes in monitoring privacy violations on the web") [see the above discussion]. I expected this and saved a copy on my local hard drive. Can I (Should I) upload it (under fairuse?) to serve as the reference? It seems he is actively trying to make it hard for us to write this article (at this point he knows it won't get deleted). Of course, it could be that he just moved it. Can anyone find it? BrokenSegue 01:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that would be fair use. No matter it was referenced. Not our problem if the reference has gone walkabout.Geni 02:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, if anyone wants it I'll email them it. On another note: why do so few of the references link anywhere (the arrows are all dead). Can those refs (note templates though) be removed? BrokenSegue 02:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To do

We need to add his creation of namebase to the article and I think a reference for his education would be usefull. BrokenSegue 15:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I just added back in the NameBase info (which got taken out recently by someone) and added a bit about his studies at Graduate Theological Union. Though it's in Berkeley, it's not part of UC Berkeley, as an editor pointed out last week. Jokestress 18:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So that you don't screw it up: 1965-69: undergrad at Univ.So.Calif; graduated with a sociology major. 1972-1974 was spent at the Univ.So.Calif School of Religion, a cross-disciplinary graduate program. Cross-disciplinary means that I was able to take grad courses in the political science department. 1975-1976 was spent at Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley in a Ph.D. program. This was also cross-disciplinary. I took a grad course in Marxism from the UC political science department, and a couple courses at Pacific School of Religion -- one taught by Robert McAfee Brown and another by John C. Bennett. About nine religion schools or seminaries make up the GTU program, and Ph.D. students can cherry-pick from any of them, as well as from social science and liberal arts grad courses at UC Berkeley. Of course, any financial support quickly disappears if you don't form an advisory committee and become academically conventional, which is why I only lasted one year there. 1979-1980: electronic technician school, courtesy of Jimmy Carter's CETA (Comprehensive Employment Training Act) program that paid me $2/hour to retrain. These days it would cost thousands for an equivalent trade school certificate. Daniel Brandt 23:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If we add any of that stuff, are you going to come back later and start whining about how we're invading your privacy by publishing "personal" things about you that you, yourself, revealed? You've done this before, after all. *Dan T.* 23:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and avoid personal remarks, Dan T. Pointing out an editor's past behavior and characterizing it as "whining" is not productive. Thanks! Jokestress 00:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

SProtect

I protected because of an apparent attempt by a bunch of socks to edit the page. I don't have a problem with their edits (other people apparently do), but using multiple accounts to make it harder to track them is unacceptable. BrokenSegue 02:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand

Brandt was blocked from editing Wikipedia for over a month for engaging in conduct that many Wikipedia editors considered to be violations of Wikipedia policy or otherwise inappropriate, especially compiling personal information about Wikipedia editors on his website - is this sentence correct or my English is sooo poor? A.J. 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And wasn't he blocked forever? I'm confused. A.J. 20:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

he wasn't blocked forever...he has edited this talk page in the last week. BrokenSegue 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

as I understand the sentence, it means that Wiki editors thought they were violations, apparently Brandt didn't? -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edits to page to revert back to 4th November

I reverted back to a 4th November version of the page because it is the most fair and NPOV way of presenting the article. I'll let the guy behind the page explain:

Jucifer, I *did* discuss my edits and my reasons for them on here, but there's been no further discussion of them from you.

I fail to understand why you felt it necessary to remove every single improvement I made. You say you don't understand why some paragraphs were combined and others removed - the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps. Evidently you prefer the spin.

I give up. As long as people like you are going to hover over this page day after day and remove any constructive changes made by others, there's no point. I can't keep hovering over this page myself, though, because I have a life. Nor do I have time to waste arguing about what constitutes coherent writing with someone who can't even spell the word "coherent".

And what gives you the audacity to not only remove every single change I made, but then request that no one else remove YOUR changes without discussion?? I begin to see now why Brandt and others are blanking the page out entirely.

While there is little to add to this, I should point out that articles such as Britney Spears, George W. Bush and the Ku Klux Klan articles, despite the fact that the subjects have significant hate proportions, the fact remains that this doesn't stop the articles from being NPOV and not offending them. Why? Because these guys have had no conflict with Wikipedia. Therefore, Brandt gets demonised in the existing article, whereas the proposed revert to 4th November is a great deal more neutral, and if the thing is not gonna be deleted, the least that can happen is that he is painted in a fair light. Jonathan 9 12:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is he "demonized" in the present article? It seems like a well-referenced account of the activities he has been involved in. Whether they're positive or negative things depends on the beliefs and prejudices of the reader. Burning a draft card was a heroic act to some, treasonable to others. Starting an anti-Google or anti-Wikipedia Web site may be considered useful or silly. The article just recounts what he did and lets you make up your own mind about it. Edit-warring using sockpuppets is hardly the way to make other editors sympathetic to your different (seemingly more biased and less informative) version. *Dan T.* 13:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jonathan here. I think the difference between the revisions is that the existing article on Brandt does appear to have several negative connotations about it. Too much gets made of Brandt in the existing criticism section. The suggested version of the article is NOT biased, for as the guy originally behind it points out:

"You say you don't understand why some paragraphs were combined and others removed - the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps."

I agree that the Brandt article can no longer be in a state of deletion, because he's a notable persona. However, the least Wikipedia could do is to enter into some sort of compromise with Brandt. Create a version of the article that pleases both camps. I do believe he said he would be satisfied with a Stub on himself at least. While the suggested version is not a stub, it's at least not as intruding onto his privacy than the current article. 217.33.207.195 14:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why the proposed edit is justifiable (and why I'm NOT a sockpuppet of Brandt)

Okay, so Brandt has been involved quite a lot with this article, as the archives do tell us. And he has had a tendency to point out that information published about him is either inaccurate or incompetent. In response his views are often criticised, but he does have a valid point. You see, if I was to suddenly achieve fame for being a Wikipedia user or a famous Wikipedia critic, I would make DAMN SURE that the person who was writing the article was someone I either knew or was able to trust, or hell, I would write it myself.

Let us take, for example, Jimmy Wales. The same principle applies here. I'm going to be willing to bet that the article was not written by Mr Wales for the purpose of NPOV, but was written by someone that he knew he could trust.

In Brandt's case though, I do believe his article was originally written by one SlimVirgin, who, correct me if I'm wrong, has been nothing but critical of Brandt. Isn't it rather odd that despite the fact that people such as Britney Spears, George W. Bush and the Ku Klux Klan have significant hate directed toward them, the connotations of hate towards them are not nearly as addressed as much as in the present article. Hell, even other Wikipedia critics don't get as much negativity as Brandt. His only "crime" it appears is to have set up a website opposing Wikipedia practices.

What are the advantages of this proposed version of this article? Why, I do believe that's already been covered:

"the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps."

Plus, Brandt has previously expressed the desire that if there is to be a Wikipedia article on him, it should be restricted to the status of being a stub article. Obviously deletion is impossible because Brandt is a notable persona, but what this proposed version of the article is something that can help to achieve a compromise between both camps, a more simplified version of the article that both Brandt and Wikipedia can be satisfied with. Just keep the current versions of Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch as they are, and of course the reference to Brandt in Criticisms of Wikipedia, and voila! All the basic necessary information on Brandt that you need. Everyone's happy.

Of course, you know, disputes like these could easily be resolved if Wikipedia were to be a reliable source of information. But it's not. The key distinguishing feature of Wikipedia is that it does not have any moderators. While other websites are able to provide accurate information due to the fact that they are strictly moderated, Wikipedia is crippled by the fact that it has no moderators. As a result, exchanges such as when Brandt made an edit labelling pieces of information to be "utterly incompetent". Someone then reverted this by saying "no it isn't" Excuse me? Just who is more likely to hold accurate information in this regard? The man to whom the subject is about, or someone who clearly has something against Brandt?

Finally, seeing as how my previous account was suspended because I was allegedly acting as a sockpuppet or impersonator of Brandt. There were several problems wth this theory:

One: Not once had I ever met Daniel Brandt, nor have I ever had any email correspondence or similar with the forementioned person. Sheesh, it's not so abnormal or unusual that someone can generate support for their cause - even the British National Party gain votes.

Two: Unless I am into to extreme extensive travelling, it should be noted that the IPs that Brandt and myself use are very much different, so therefore any theories that I was the same person as Brandt were invalid.

Three: There didn't appear to be any "evidence" to support the assertion that I was what was being claimed, otherwise the "evidence" part of "It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Daniel Brandt. Please refer to {{{evidence}}} for evidence." would have been filled in. Therefore, it was an unfair ban.

Four: From the very beginning, it appeared that Curps must have had some political, social, or absurdly personal agenda against myself to warrant that even now, he has never given a proper reason to revert my edits more than three times, and yet he was not banned for breaching the 3RR rule, a showng bias on Wikipedia's part.

Five: I already tried to explain that I was not the same person who gained notoriety for randomly proclaiming "WikiFascists!" and repeatedly blanking the page, and yet Curps seemingly has no idea on the concept of "diffentiation" as he appears to enjoy lampooning both myself and the forementioned vandal as being one and the same.

Thank you for your time. Jonathan 99 13:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay so we know your politics. Please can you now justify your edits in detail then we can debate any of your proposed changes. What Brandt wants does not dictate this article any more than what Wales wants dictates that article or what Bush or Spears want dictate their articles - welcome to the real world, SqueakBox 13:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No one involved with a dispute or the person referenced in the article should make edits. Period. I'm on that nutjobs wikipedia-watch hitlist, therefor I refrain from editing his article. I have certain opinions of him that would probably leak out in an edit. I do not support anyone mentioned on his site editing here, and I sure as hell don't support Brandt editing here. As for Jimbo, well, I don't support that either, but back in the day the rules were different. -M^ask 06:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. You imply Mr Brandt can stop people editing this article by putting them on his ghastly page. Not true, SqueakBox 14:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't implying anything of the sort. He can't make anyone do anything. I feel though, that a subtle POV would come out in the article if someone involved in the dispute edited. Doing that just proves his point about 'problems' with the wiki. The best response is to make a damn nice, very factual entry, with no bias, and no regard for the things Brandt doesn't want in there. He can not control his page.

-Mask 

We now have a category for living people and must indeed take special care with them. The wiki has problems as does the modern internet age, and Mr Brandt is taking a political stance on these issues. Whether one agrees with his political stance or not one should of course keep within NPOV but that is the case with any article. I am affected not by his watch page but by his politics, SqueakBox 18:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"monitoring privacy violations"

Someone had replaced a footnote with a link to a forum critical of Wikipedia. Citation for the quotation in the intro is a letter Mr. Brandt published on his website in December 2005. [9]

Since this was previously published online by Mr. Brandt and is no longer available on wikipedia-watch, I linked to an offsite version. The only real use is to cite the quotation, which seems completely harmless. Jokestress 04:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What Jokestress is trying to say is that once the image was removed from wikipedia-watch.org, for reasons that she has no knowledge of, she then posted it at imageshack.us in violation of copyright and linked to it from Wikipedia. What if it was removed from wikipedia-watch.org for good reasons? Now it's back, just because some Wikipedia editor needs a footnote for a quote. I notified Brandt that he should request a takedown at imageshack.us, and he said he would. 68.89.128.29 04:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pledge for AfD

Considering the recent controversies which have come Brandt's user page, I would suggest that an AfD is in order. Jonathan 777 16:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're free to create one if you so wish, but it's my impression that since the last attempt at this, Brandt has become more notable rather than less. *Dan T.* 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Unquestionably so, SqueakBox 19:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

His actions lately has made him very very very notable. Mike _{(T C)} 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

His actions on wikipedia have made him notable? That's an interesting concept. But unfortunately is anthithetical to the whole notion of Wikipedia and anonymous editors. --Tbeatty 19:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying his actions on wikipedia make him notable, SqueakBox 15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would clearly vote delete on that troll page, wikipedia don't honor vandals/trolls and did he did anything notable but to harass this site, I don't think so --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Crappy web sites

Mr Brandt is not the only one who can set up crappy websites. This, of course, was released under GFDL, meaning people like me canj even try and make money out of it. Whoppee! SqueakBox 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research

Aren't the comments about Brandt being blocked "Original research." I know of no external sources that have published this information. I don't think policy allows wikipedia to reference itself as a primary or secondary source. Comment before I delete it for violating WP:NOR? --Tbeatty 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR was not designed to prohbit discussion of things everyone knows is true. I imagine that Wikipedia would a primary source about what happened on Wikipedia. If you need a secondary source, go find the Register article where Andrew Ihatewikipediaski discusses Brandt's block. Gamaliel 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone outside of Wikipedia would know whay Brandt's blocked. Wikipedia is not designed or setup to be a primary source. In fact, I think it's against policy. If it's newsworthy. It's up to the poster to provide the source. As per the Living Bio policy, it should be deleted immediately pending sourcing. --Tbeatty 04:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not properly sourced claims: It was created in response to a Wikipedia article about himself, which he stated violated Florida state statutes on privacy (the Wikimedia Foundation is based in Florida). He emailed and wrote (via fax) to both the Wikimedia Foundation and Jimmy Wales personally demanding that this article on him be deleted from the Wikipedia; a copy of which he posted on Wikipedia Watch. [10] Brandt was later blocked from editing Wikipedia for engaging in conduct that many Wikipedia editors considered to be violations of Wikipedia policy or otherwise inappropriate, especially compiling personal information about Wikipedia editors on his website dot org/hivemind.html and legal threats.

--Tbeatty 04:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include the following text: Brandt may or may not have edited Wikipedia under a user name which may or may not have been User:Daniel Brandt and may or may not have been blocked for reasons which we are not allowed to specify. Gamaliel 04:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia should not say anything about it at all. There are lots of policies that should prevent Wikipedia from referencing itself in regard to facts about the ban including:

1. Verifiability, not Truth
2. Burden of evidence
3. Self-published sources
4. Self-published sources in articles about themselves
5. Primary and secondary sources (as it relates to Original research to form a conclusion about the ban)
6. What counts as a reputable publication?

--Tbeatty 04:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Knock yourself out if you want to hunt down reputable 3rd party sources. --Tbeatty 04:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that his ban and other dealings with Wikipeida that are not covered by outside sources belong on his user page or talk page, but not his encyclopedia article. --Tbeatty 20:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's internal actions can be used as references. It's not original reasearch, because the subject is Wikipedia and the people who interact with it. Wikipedia's logs are freely accessible so its not like the information isn't freely available. BrokenSegue 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe that there is an exception for "internal actions?" I think it is recogized as a higher standard in living person bios. Wikipedia itself recognizes that it is not a reliable source. It seems odd that adminstrative actions taken by wikipedia become part of the encyclopedia article. It would be like writing about a revision that happened. Can you imagine how long articles would become it aciotns became noteworthy in encyclopedia action. "On April 9, Joe Blow's Wikipedia article survived another Articles fo Deletion test. Many wikipedia editors felt he was noteworthy enough to be in the encyclopedia." Or "On March 31st, a Wikipedia editor reverted the changes that showed that Jow Blow was lying." Please. This could be done for every single article for every edit. It is simply not encyclopedic to include this information. It is a talk and user page item, not encyclopedia item.--Tbeatty 21:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

These are primary sources. Wikipedia is a reliable source about what happens on Wikipedia. Is the block log not an accurate and reliable source about who is blocked? Where do you think these supposedly reliable third parties will get their information to write about Wikipedia? From the primary sources here. Gamaliel 22:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. That's the basic premise. It requires a thrid party to a) validate that what is in Wikipeidia is noteworthy and b) factual. No reporter would simply quote wikipedia logs. They will interview and verify with sources. Wikipedia can cite those sources. Please tell me where an exception in the policy exists when we are talking about Daniel Brandt's bio. It's simply not there.--Tbeatty 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That's just absurd. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for who is blocked on Wikipedia? What sources will they use to verify this? How could they possibly do that? Who are they going to interview that won't simply look at the log? Reporter: Is he blocked? Jimbo: (looks at block log) Yes. Gamaliel 23:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Use common sense... I'm just saying... -Obli (Talk)^? 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think common sense is that Wikipeida shouldn't write about itself. --Tbeatty 23:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, no, but sometimes things happen. When something notable happens on Wikipedia, we shouldn't refrain from documenting it fully, completely, and accurately. To not do so is to fail at our fundamental mission, being an encyclopedia. If you feel strongly about WP not writing about itself, I suggest you start by putting Wikipedia up for AfD. Gamaliel 23:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think if it's notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, then a third party would cover it. "Wikipedia" article cites external references extensively for all claims. From the reliable sources I quote: "Note that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines." Also, the Wikipedia article is not about a living person which has special policies about unsourced material. --Tbeatty 23:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming it's an accurate interpretation of our rules, which I contend it is not, it's also a completely myopic one. It's one thing for Wikipedians to use WP articles to respond to charges and events by entering their opinions and arguments into articles (this happened a lot with the seigenthaler controversy and they were rightly deleted), it's quite another for us to let your interpretation of these rules hamper us from putting simple, easily verifiable facts into articles. This would render this article one-sided, inaccurate, incomplete, and POV. It would also, by a natural extension of your ultra-strict intepretation of "reliable sources", etc., prohibit us from recording Brandt's responses to certain articles and charges (Salon, etc.) because they appear on his website and not in some newspaper, which I think would also render this article one-sided, inaccurate, etc. Gamaliel 01:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We can record Brandt's responses on his website per WP:V#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. We can't reference internal Wikipedia actions because this article is about Brandt, not Wikipedia. Gamaliel, if I understand your argument, you're saying we can reference these actions here because that part of the article is about the subject's interactions with Wikipedia. By my reading, the rules don't make an exception for such a case. If it were really common sense that this should be included, as Obli suggests, then perhaps we would be forced to WP:IAR and include it. But common sense is subjective, and my common sense on this issue is similar to Tbeatty's. --Allen 02:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The rules make exceptions for common sense in that if the only possible primary resource for a fact is hosted in one of Wikipedia's logs then we may reference it. For example, lets say a senator unleashes a vandalbot on Wikipedia. It would be quite fair to reference the user contribs of the vandal bot because that's where all the journalists are going to be looking anyways. We should always point to the most primary resoucrce (that should be the principle and underlying rule when all else fails). If that resource happens to be on Wikipedia, too bad. Thus, the block log can be referenced. Also, it is entirely objective and nobody doubts its accuracy. BrokenSegue 02:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

When the press covers it, then we will know it's important enough to include in the bio of the hypothetical senator. And I doubt that the res[ponse of Wikipedia when taking action against a user can be totally objective or NPOV, whence the rules. THis is a big test. If the rules only apply to things other than Wikpedia, what's the point? This all seems like material for his User Page and not an encyclopedia article. Brandt is not notable because he was banned from Wikipedia. Certainly other banned users don't get their own article because they were banned. --Tbeatty 03:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't even know where to start arguing with you. I just don't hold whatever your trying to enforce (NOR, no self reference or both) holy. Maybe this is just a case of IAR. Why do we make an exception for Wikipedia? Because Wikipedia's logs are an authority on Wikipedia. (might I add that because the records are not written by anyone besides the computer, they don't suffer from some of the problems with self reference or NOR). (via edit conflict) Also, nobody is arguing that he is notable for being blocked from Wikipedia. It's just a fact about him and his relation with Wikipedia. Don't try to argue notablity, we have already had, what, 3 AfDs? BrokenSegue 03:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't make an exception for Wikipedia in any other case. The issue is that Wikipedia is writing a Bio about someone it has taken action against. The references must be rock solid. The content must be notable. For wikipedia to solely determine that a). banning was justified, b) banning was a noteworthy event in his life and c) it is a NPOV presentation of facts is not a defensible position. It can be resolved by having this event covered by a reputable source that can investigate and present facts, just as we do every other article. The rules are very clear. Reputable sources. No original research. Verifiability, not truth. Living bios are given exceptional scrutiny for these rules. --Tbeatty 04:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You're raising an army of straw men. No one is asserting that he is notable because he was banned. It is just a relevant fact related to his notable activity, i.e. Wikipedia Watch. No one is interested in presenting a POV argument that his banning was (or was not) justified. We just want to note the relevant, neutral fact that he was banned. The readers can make of it what they will. You aren't removing some POV line of argument, as you seem to be asserting, you are removing neutral, relevant, easily verifiable facts. It's utterly ludicrous to assert that when somebody like Andrew Ortawhateverski mentions it, what we already know and can verify easily suddenly becomes more reliable when he uses the same source as we do to verify that fact. Gamaliel 04:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am doing no such thing. The policy is very clear. Find a reputable cite to justify all the straw man arguments that you have presented. But quit trying to invent new rules to justify including what reputable sources have declined to include. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of random facts. --Tbeatty 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You haven't addressed anything here. And yes, this is an encyclopedia, we can agree on that, but your pointing out the obvious doesn't explain anything. Perhaps you could explain how removing relevant, neutral, easily verifiable information makes this a better encyclopedia article instead of just quoting rules and obvious statements over and over again. Gamaliel 04:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Because on it's face, I don't think it can be defended that Wikipedia writing about Wikipedia is relevant or neutral in a bio about someone who is critical of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is ultimately charged with who can participate and that is not in dispute. But to claim a point of view in someone else's bio is beneath the objectives of Wikipedia. His banning from Wikipedia is not relevant. Just as including a paragraph about why Sieganthaler didn't correct his own bio wouldn't be relevant no matter how factual or neutrally it is presented. It has a place in discussion or somewhere else, but not in his bio. This incident is relevant to Daniel Brandt, the Wikipedia Editor and belongs on his User page, not on his Bio. Why do you think there is a NOR polciy? If everything could be researched factually and presented neutrally we wouldn't need such a policy. --Tbeatty 04:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you were around when the Sigenthaler controversy was going on, but many editors attempted to insert such a paragraph, and those paragraphs were rightly removed. (I think I removed a few myself.) But there's nothing wrong with merely noting that he did not edit, just as the article mentions Sigenthaler associates who *did* edit the article. Not a defense, not an argument, just a fact. The same thing here. I have no interest in presenting a POV justification of a troll's banning. The place for that is, as I'm sure you've mentioned before, a talk page or WP:AN or the mailing list. But what you insist on removing is not a POV argument, as I think you are claiming, but the simple fact that he was banned. I can't imagine anything more directly relevant in a discussion of a person's criticism of something to mention that person's interactions and relationship with that something. Gamaliel 05:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly your opinion that it is relevant. It isn't, however, a reputables sources opinion that it is relevant. That is the standard for Wikipedia. This is a living person Bio. Wikipedia has rules for exactly this reason. Find a reputable source that shares your view. Put it in the article and cite it. But please don't make up a reason to include "facts" and justify it outside the rules and policies. I disagree strongly that being banned by adminstrators at wikipedia is a relevant event in anyones life regardless of their criticism. Forcing inclusion against Wikipedia's own rules of citing reputable third party sources shows it to the world to be petty and vain. --Tbeatty 14:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to interpret the facts in that manner, but your personal interpretation should not be used as a basis for removing relevant material. You still have yet to explain how your removal of facts improves the article, other than presenting your interpretation of the rules. We're not here to interpret rules, this is, as you pointed out earlier, an encyclopedia, and removing relevant, neutral, easily verifiable facts does not further the goal of creating a better encyclopedia.

Gamaliel 14:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not relevant, neutral or verifiable according to the policies of Wikipedia. I am not interpreting the rules. I am asking for thrid party, reliable sources for your claims in a living bio. This is not my interpretation at all, it is written wikipedia policy. YOu do not make a better encyclcopedia by bringing petty administrative actions into the bio of it's critics. If it's not worth a paragraph in a reviewed source, then it is not worth a sentence in an encyclopedia. Take the adminstrative actions to his user page.--Tbeatty 15:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, would you agree that Brandt's own webpage is a reliable source about himself that we can quote from and use as a reference in this article? Gamaliel 17:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to put up his "Hivemind" editor identification page/list? I think his page is more of a rant than a reliable source. I would stay away from it completely. It would be a slippery slope. "Daniel Brandt posted the following enemies list and this is why he was banned: Name1, name2, etc" It's all a factual statements but I wouldn't take his identifications to the bank, therefore I wouldn't cite his page. I also don't find it particularly noteworthy.--Tbeatty 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A screenshot of the hit list appears in Wikipedia Watch, which is fine by me. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, other than that we shouldn't be reprinting his list or dealing with it point by point. I don't find WW particularly notable either, but it survived AfD, so that point is settled. I don't think either issue addresses the central point: in general, is Brandt's own webpage is a reliable source about himself that we can quote from and use as a reference in this article? Gamaliel 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if we wouldn't use his webpage as factual for anything else, why would we use it at all? I wouldn't take as factual that the names of editors he has are correct. I don't think we could cherrypick information and claim a certain section is true but another isn't. And the Article survived AfD, not any particular section. I still think it would have to be in a reputable third party source before Wikipedia treats it as verifiable and notable. Why do you think an adminsitrative action by wikipedia is worthwhile notable event in his life? I think it adds a lot more credibility to Wikipedia if the "sausage making" part is let out of bios. --Tbeatty 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a notable event is his life, I think it is an important and relevant fact related to his criticism of Wikipedia, which WP consensus has deemed notable by preserving the WW article. As a reader, I think it is fundamentally important for me to know the relationship of a criticiser to a criticisee when I read criticism of something. It is standard practice in journalism to note such relationships, and I think this article loses credibility and accuracy if we are too afraid of showing the "sausage making", as you put it. To return to the original point, we do use his webpage as a source of statements from Brandt and for his responses to various things. Do you disagree with this use of Brandt's webpage as a source? Gamaliel 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's not notable in HIS life, why have it in his bio? Put it on the Wikipedia page. Daniel Brandt wrote:" ...". Being banned is not notable. No credible journalist would rely on itself as a source. I don't believe his dispute with Wikipedia is what makes him notable. --Tbeatty 20:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No credible journalist would write a story about something that happened in their own institution and not use any information or person from that institution as a source. Plenty of credible self-reporting is done. The New York Times produced a significant and lengthy piece on the Jayson Blair scandal, a piece that would have been impossible to write under your kind of restrictions. That aside, we must disagree on the notability of his banning, and I've repeatedly explained my reasons for supporting its inclusion, so if you want an answer to your question, I refer you to my previous statements. Gamaliel 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As for using his web page, I would think bylined items would be okay (i.e. "by Daniel Brandt") as long as it referred with correct attribution. It would almost certainly have to be quotes and not interpretations. I don't think unbylined information is acceptable to attribute to him. --Tbeatty 20:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Watch

This circular argument isn't getting us anywhere. I've inserted a new version of the WW paragraph solely based on information on Brandt's own website. Please let's discuss what problems you have with this paragraph and, more importantly, what you propose that will satisfy everyone as well as further the goal of improving this article. Gamaliel 21:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed some attributions as non-bylined articles may have been added by anyone. "About Us" identifies the page as a PIR page so I attributed general content to them unless Brand explicitly takes credit (just like any other company website). I also added some content for NPOV.--Tbeatty 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no evidence that it's anything other than a personal website, or that anyone other than Brandt is involved, so I've attributed it to him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The about page as well as the domain registration says it is. IT is also a legitimate 501(c)(3) org and is covered by wikipedia. The fact is that you have no evidence that it IS him except for bylined articles. --Tbeatty 03:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tbeatty on this one. If he wants us to think other people are working on the site, then we have no reason to think otherwise. BrokenSegue 03:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In what way has Brandt or anyone else indicated there are multiple employees of PIR? Has anything been done to give that impression? -Will Beback 03:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of dot org/ is says "We like this anti-Wikipedia forum " implying multiple people. Also, the about us linke points dot org/staffww.html here (which lists multiple people). On a different note, why is our link to Wikipedia Watch pointing to Wikipedia Review? Is that on purpose? BrokenSegue 04:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

By itself, the editorial "we" does not imply multiple editors. -Will Beback 04:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The other link does imply multiple people, but if they have no bylines then I'd assume they are simply support. -Will Beback 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This article has to be written in a way that neither talks him up nor down. It's absurd to say that "the President of PIR, Daniel Brandt, said that ..." There's no evidence that the website is run by anyone other than himself. Please see V and RS: personal websites may be used in articles about that website or the person who maintains the website so long as, inter alia, the material is not unduly self-aggrandizing. Saying he is the president of PIR, which launched the website Brandt kindly agrees to comment on, is to turn the site into something it's not. Brandt created the site, and Brandt is the only person who posts to it. If you want to claim a second person is involved, please provide firm evidence, and not just a post from Brandt using the royal we. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is absurd. It's clear from all the evidence, including Brandt's own comments here and elsewhere, that WW=DB. If you have contrary evidence, please post it here. Gamaliel 16:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[here|http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=www.wikipedia-watch.org]. It's the first link. There are bylined and non-bylined pieces. Just because you suspect Brandt is the only one behind it, doesn't mean he gets cited differently than anyone else. This website is owned by PIR and is responsible for it's content. It is Original Research for you to claim otherwise. Find an external source that says the website is really all Brandt and not PIR and post it. You have no evidence, except for bylined material that Brandt is the only contributor. --Tbeatty 16:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because Brandt set up the website in the name of PIR doesn't mean we simply repeat that PIR wrote this, and PIR wrote that, because clearly Brandt wrote it, regardless of who he claims he is writing it for. WP:V and WP:RS allow us to use personal websites and other self-published material as sources in articles about the author, but the policies insist nevertheless that we do so with caution, and that we don't use self-published material when it's unduly self-aggrandizing, which this clearly is. If you have solid evidence that someone other than Brandt is writing this material, by all means produce it, but until then, we must attribute the material to Brandt alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How did "he clearly write it"? Cite it. Otherwise the citation for the words on the website should be attributed to who owns the domain and who is on the "about Us" page. I see no evidence that Brandt is the sole editor. I don't care if you choose to use the website for it's opinion, but it needs to be cited accurately. Believing it is Brandt when they clearly say otherwise and there is no other citable source to say otherwise is just making stuff up. --Tbeatty 03:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have decided that Wikipedia Watch is a citable source and he says there that he writes the material e.g. "Why did I put up the information about administrators on this page? Simply because if I ever decide that I have cause to sue, I'm not sure who should be sued." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, you're way out of line here. You edited that section and actually edited a quote to suit your own theory, changin "if I ever decide that I have cause to sue, I'm not sure who should be sued," to "if (Brandt) ever decides that (he has) cause to sue, (he's) not sure who should be sued." That's out of order. He's used the first-person singular. He is the author. Please don't alter the section again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not "not way out of line". PLease read it again. I clearly said "Brandt said". I changed it to third person so it would be clear who it was he was speaking about and who was speaking. I put the third person changes in parenthensis to show the changes and this is standard journalistic practices. It did not change quotes meaning and is accurate. I have no "theory". The website clearly has bylined and none bylined section. I think that since you are a target of his anger, it is inappropriate for you to edit his biography. There are plenty of Wikipedia editors who have no stake or personal history with Brandt that can edit his biography. Pleaes quite reverting to inaccurate versions. PIR has a wikipedia page, it is a registered charity. IT owns domains. Just as we wouldn't attribute every word on the Democratic National Committee to quotes of Howard Dean we shouldn't attirbute them to Brandt unless he clearly takes ownership of them personally. --Tbeatty 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You edited the quote to fit your theory that there is something called PIR over and above Brandt that writes this stuff, even when he says "Why did I put up the information about administrators on this page? Simply because ..." etc. You can't make editorial changes to a quote, with or without parentheses, in order to push a POV. Brandt wrote that material and he uses the word "I" to refer to the person who added it. That IS him taking ownership. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a citation that PIR is only Brandt. The website which clearly has bylined reports and non-bylined reports. I have no problem changing that quote back, it's just less clear who the pronouns refer to. There is no "permission" necessary and there was not editorial content nor is it POV. That particular quote comes from a "bylined" article. Other material on the site is not bylined. I clearly said "Brandt said" for the bylined items. I will change it back to the pronoun version of that make you happy though since it doesn't change anything. --Tbeatty 15:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly and I can't keep commenting on this single point. The article doesn't say that PIR is only Brandt. It says that Brandt launched the website and that Brandt has written the material, and that's why he used the first-person singular. He has written elsewhere that he set up the website and writes it. PIR appears to have no staff and claims an income of only $20,000 a year. It may have a legal existence but there's no evidence of anything more than that. It certainly doesn't employ a team of writers. If you think it does, the onus is on you to show that. In the meantime, we're relying on Brandt himself saying that he added the material. I think this has to be my last comment on this point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to revisit the website. Your speculation about the staff is OR. Half the website is written third person. For example it's "Hivemind vs. Brandt" not "Hivemind vs. me". There is no byline on that page. It is not Wikipeida's place to judge what is true. Wikipedia needs verifiability. Your complete specualtion MAY be true but it is not verifiable. Wikipeida is Verifiability, not Truth. The website has bylined articles that are clearly Brandt and it has thrid person sections that are not bylined that cannot be attributed to Brandt. And BTW, Wikipedia uses thousands of unpaid people to update it's pages. We would not attribute all of Wikipeida as a quote of Jimbo because of pure speculation that Wikipeida's budget doesn't support the amount of edits.--Tbeatty 15:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:V

Okay, that was my second last response. You can't quote V not T to me as though I'm somehow violating it, because I'm one of its biggest supporters. But all the content policies assume a degree of common sense, and with respect, you're not applying any here, in my view. Whenever the concept of "verifiability, not truth" comes under attack, and I'm defending it, the editors who oppose it often argue that there are editors out there who use it for WP:POINT, or at least who go too far in applying it. I always ask for examples, and no one can ever give me one. But I think you just have. :-) In my view, we shouldn't be using that website as a source at all, or even mentioning this issue in any detail, but if we're going to use it as a source, then we have to apply common sense, and also apply the policy correctly. Brandt is not the president of something called PIR which is setting up websites with banks of professional writers. When Stormfront and Vanguard News Network insist they're white nationalists, not supremacists, racists or anti-Semites, we don't roll over and say okay because that's what they call themselves. There are limits on how and whether self-published material may be used. If you're going to quote the policies back to me, make sure you know them thoroughly. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I know the rules and I quoted them accurately. I am not disrupting Wikipeida, in fact by treating subjects like DB as we would other subjects lends credibility to the project. Just by reading this talk page (not this discussion) a third party would get the impression that this whole page is to antagonize DB, not document his bio. To get back to your example, Wikipedia should not just presume "white supremacist" for Stormfront but in fact source it to someone who makes that claim or the orginal source. They are a "white supremacist" and it is easy to find a citation for that particular tag. It is true that Wikipedia shouldn't roll over to self-published sources, but in this case you want your cake and eat it too. My original input was to simply say that Wikipedia-watch was created. Now you want to cite all sorts of stuff from that site and attribute as Brandt's own words when in fact there is no verifiable proof that it is just Brandt. There certainly are articles by Brandt that are citable as his words. There are other sections of the website that are not citable as solely Brandt. I think you are too close to the subject to objectively edit this page. The fact you cited above that this is the first time you see WP:POINT says a lot. I have no "Point" to make. I neither know DB or have contact with PIR. I am not on his site. I personally am diagonally opposed with almost all of his political beliefs and his POV. However, if he is going to have a bio on Wikipedia, he deserves the same NPOV and the Verifiability as everyone else, regardless of his contentiousness with certain Wikpedia editors and administrators. THis is an encyclopedia, not someone's blog. --Tbeatty 16:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all close to this issue, and haven't edited this page since, as I recall, October, except perhaps once to protect it. And I agree that it should conform to our policies, which is why I think this section shouldn't be included at all, but I'm probably alone in thinking that, so I'm not here to push that position. However, I do want to see the policies adhered to and common sense used. V says (emphasis added):

Self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources about themselves in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source about itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources.

I am saying that to interpret Brandt's use of "we" and registration of PIR that he is the "president" of a "charity," which has established a website, on which Brandt may (or may not) write some of the articles, would be "unduly self-aggrandizing" if he were claiming it himself, and at least two other editors on this page agree with me. Just because Brandt sometimes says "we need help" (when asking for money) does not mean there really is a we. Of course, we also must not say categorically that there isn't. But we don't repeat like sheep that there is. We simply bear in mind that HE has written explicitly that HE added the material, and so we don't state or imply anything to the contrary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

V also says (see above) that information may be taken from a self-published source "so long as the information is ... not contradicted by reliable, third-party, published sources." Here are sources stating explicitly or implying that Brandt runs these sites by himself, and that he uses "the royal we" (emphasis added):

• Yahoo and Microsoft's MSN are quiet about how much user data they save, and for how long, but Google makes clear that it wants to store more and more user data on its servers, said Daniel Brandt, founder of a privacy-advocacy Web site called Google Watch. [11]
• For those concerned about Google or Yahoo keeping tabs on their search requests, Google critic Daniel Brandt has created a site called Scroogle. [12]
• For almost 30 years, Brandt has operated a one-man intelligence operation, creating the one-of-its-kind NameBase database ... [13]
• Brandt runs google-watch.org ... [14]
• He has spent thousands of hours building a Web site that he believes is both useful and important ... [15]
• In his day job, Brandt runs NameBase ... [16]
• In an essay on PageRank, he writes (using the royal "we" ) ... [17]

In accordance with V, we must go with the third-party sources, not what is claimed by Brandt on a registration form. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are correct, then his website is of dubious reliability in which case it shouldn't be quoted at all. You can't have it both ways. You want to say his website is correct for quotes and as a resource but you doubt it's most basic premise. And I don't doubt that Brandt runs it. I just don't think it qualifies as self-published. Calling him the founder and president of PIR does not unduly aggrandize him. HTat's what he is. IT's a real corporation whether you like it or not. Corporations are separate entities and have separate legal responisbilities and accountabilities. The fact that as president, Brandt runs it doesn't change the fact that it is separate. I go back to the Wikipedia example. Jimbo created it. He ran it. But Wikipedia and Jimbo are separate enitities and policies and beliefs of wikipedia are not necessarily those of Jimbo. And I could cite plenty of articles that don't separate Wikipedia and Jimbo but that is not the same as attributing everything Wikipedia states as coming from Jimbo. --Tbeatty 17:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your first sentence means: "If you are correct, then his website is of dubious reliability in which case it shouldn't be quoted at all. You can't have it both ways." Please read the policy. "Self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources about themselves in articles about them." They may be used, but material from those sources that is contradicted by third-party sources, is unduly self-aggrandizing, or is not notable, may not be used. Brandt's claim (if he does claim it) that he is not alone in writing this material is contradicted by the third-party sources I quoted above. Therefore, that claim (if Brandt makes it) may not be used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If a political or public figure wrote his manifesto and published it on a website, why would quotes from said site not be suitable sources for a section of a bio article that outlines said figure's beliefs? I see it as comming from the horse's mouth (or ass in this particular case). The article isn't taking facts from the source, it's quoting him to demonstrate a fact. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Malber, yes, it's acceptable to do that, subject to the three rules I outlined above, i.e. so long as the material is not contradicted by third-party sources, is not unduly self-aggrandizing, and is notable. And of course, it can only be about the subject, not about third parties. See WP:V, which is policy. And then also that we're supposed to use caution generally when using self-published material, because if it's notable enough, and if the person is notable, someone else is likely to have written about it, and if they haven't, that ought to tell us something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Go to the website. Their are basically two kinds of content. One kind is articles written and bylined to Daniel Brandt. The other kind (such as the HiveMind list of wikipedia editors) is not bylined and written by an unknown person (who probably is Brandt but there is no verifiable proof that it is all him). Quoting the unbylined sections of the web page and attributing those comments to Brandt is not verfiable. Attributing the bylined quotes to Brandt is verifiable. The first reference to Alexa shows that PIR is the responsible organization of which Brandt is President and Founder. It is not Wikipedia's place to suppose or conjecture that PIR is solely Brandt or that he doesn't have enough money to have more than himself contributing, etc, etc. So you are correct if a person publishes a bylined manifesto on a blog or website it is perfectly acceptable to attribute that to him. However, if it is not bylined, it should be attributed to the owner of the website which in this case is PIR. If someone goes on a rant in wikipedia and doesn't sign his name, we don't go around saying it must have been Jimbo that wrote it.--Tbeatty 22:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the problem I'm having here, Tbeatty, is that you were rightly insisting we stick closely to the verifiabiity policy, but then when I showed you that it doesn't support what you're doing (because third-party sources contradict the impression Brandt sometimes gives that he doesn't work alone), you continued to argue your point and simply ignored the policy.

The caution over relying on self-published websites as sources is that if you have a biography of a subject, all he has to do in order to exercise control over his Wikipedia entry is to add or delete material from his site. Therefore, the policy places restrictions on when such sites may be used, and there are three rules we must stick to, which I listed above. Brandt's case definitely violates one of those (the impression given by his site that there is a "we" is contradicted by third-party sources, as I showed above, and explicitly so by salon.com, which says he uses the "royal we"), and arguably violates one other (unduly self-aggrandizing). Therefore, as the policy is clear, and the sources are clear, any references to PIR creating these sites and not Brandt, should be removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Then source the article with 3rd party sources. I don't dispute anything the 3rd party sources say. But none of them says the content on the website is solely Daniel Brandt. There is no evidence it is solely self-published. He deserves credit as President and Founder of PIR, a real corporation with it's own Wikipeida entry. But do not attribute positions to him that A) he doesn't attribute to himself and B) isn't attributed to him by a thrid party. You are trying to have it both ways: Namely that his site is self-aggrandizing and therefore not valuable as a source and that is his own source and therefore emminently quotable. You cannot logically support the position that it is both authoritative in one aspect but completely ignorable in another aspect because of views that you hold. Like I said, I was all for removing all references to his site as I don't think it should be used, but that means everything, and not just cherrypicking what you want to report and how you want to report it. The whole point that he is somehow notable for a Biography but his main achievement, PIR, is not worthy of mention in his bio is laughable. --Tbeatty 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, you're not understanding our editing policies, and most of this boils down to the writing anyway. If there are third-party sources saying that Brandt is a one-man band, as they do, you CANNOT state as fact that PIR did this, and PIR did that, and Brandt is the president of PIR. That is not allowed. What you can do is add somewhere that, according to registry X, the website was registered by PIR, and that Brandt registered himself as the president of that organization. However, when all the published third-party sources are saying Brandt is a one-man band, you can more or less state that position without attributing it to a source every time. The problem is that with all the reverting, the writing suffers, and nuanced editing becomes impossible. Also, please stop attributing claims to me that I didn't make. I haven't said the whole site was unduly self-aggrandizing or that the whole site is worthless as a source, and I believe this is the third time I've explained that to you. Personally, I wouldn't use it, but it's compatible with the policies so long as the exceptions I noted above are adhered to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nor did I say anywhere that there should be no mention of PIR. You're putting words in my mouth, which is worrying because you say you respect sources, so please read what I actually write. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slimvirgin. It's really too bad that Wikipedia Review is blacklisted because we could always link to Brandt's post where he threatens to put anyone on "his" hive-mind page who votes keep in the latest AfD. Alas, that would mean giving publicity to that attrocious site. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. We'd also have trouble calling it a reliable source. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand the editing policies just fine. Verifiability not Truth being the major policy. What can you verify about NameBase, Google-Watch and Wikipedia-Watch? The answer is that the domain is owned my PIR. PIR is a real corporation that lists three officers as contacts and it's at each of their websites. It's the registered domain owner (not Brandt). They are all liable for content. They may all contribute. I don't dispute that Brandt runs the sites or that he founded each of them (indeed he founded PIR). But you make the leap that the content can be directly attributable to him when in fact it can only be attributed to PIR. PIR MAY be solely Brandt but unless he takes sole credit for it (which I have not yet seen), it is your speculation that all the words on the page can be attributed to Brandt. In all his quoted interviews he uses "we" which implies more than one contributor. I have no reason to doubt that. I bring you back to Wikipedia: Jimbo Wales created it. "Solely" according to Jimbo. Yet we don't attribute non-bylined wikipeida words to Jimbo. We don't make that leap no matter how many external sources say he founded it or runs it. It is not the same to say founding and running means content can be attributed to them personally. I have no idea how many people contributed to the HiveMind site. Neither do you because it is not sourced or attributed. Second, if the PIR site is not reliable (i.e. the "royal we" is not valid) for information about itself, why is reliable for quotes you attribute to Brandt? What makes it invalid in one instance and not in another? You are splitting the sources test so that you can make your Template:WP:POINT. You are choosing the "truthfulness" based on your POV. You believe that the external sources give you more insight into PIR than the PIR site itself but with no real reasoning other than you have chosen to be believe they conflict (which I don't see as a conflict) and you have chosen the external source. I am not putting words in your mouth, I am questioning your logic which I believe is fatally flawed. This is Daniel Brandt's biography, not a blog for accusations or insinuations. Brandt's main career is PIR and he uses PIR as the corporation that creates the content they put on the web. His work on PIR is his main claim to fame. If you really believe that Brandt is PIR and no one else, why not propose the two articles for merger? --Tbeatty 04:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think there should only be one page on Brandt. We've currently got four, I believe, so they should be merged in my view, but probably under his name. If anything else were suggested, it wouldn't fly. Please review NPA and CIV. I'm not engaged in WP:POINT, and have no idea what point I could be making. As I've said probably 20 times to you today, we go with what the third-party sources say, which doesn't mean we don't include what Brandt says, but we don't prioritize it over other sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't follow your logic: You want to use third party sources so that you can attribute quotes to Brandt that come from the PIR websites even though the PIR websites don't say that Brandt said them and the third party websites aren't the source of the quotes? That's an inference of truth and not a verifiable fact. It's extremely speculative. For example, the quote "potential menace to anyone who values privacy," is attributed to Brandt. But no third party has listed that as a quote of Brandt. It's from the wikipedia-watch website owned by PIR and run by Brandt but these words are clearly distinct from the three articles written directly by Brandt on the same page. You have no sources that say Brandt himself said that and you are inferring a relationship to those words that may or may not exist.

And now it appears that someone has deleted all the sources. Interesting. --Tbeatty 04:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I can't keep repeating myself, but please stop attributing words to me that I neither stated nor implied. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't attributed anything to you. I asked a question. I gave an example. Please tell me why you think "potential menace to anyone who values privacy" can be attributed to Brandt as a direct quote? Why isn't isn't it a PIR quote from the Wikipeida-watch website? Brandt hasn't claimed he said it. No third party has claimed he said it. The PIR website doesn't claim he said it. Yet it's attributed to him as a direct quote and it appears that you support this. I have shown the flawed logic in claiming that PIR websites and Daniel Brandt are the same regardless of your interpretation of third party sites. --Tbeatty 04:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of prolonging this ridiculous argument, if you feel so strongly about this why don't you find statements which communicate similar sentiments and information that you feel can be undeniably attributed to Brandt. Gamaliel 05:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My interest is accuracy. I already found and used statements by Brandt. If you recall the initial accusation was that I clarified pronouns so that it was clear a quote was both by Brandt and about Brandt. I object to atttributing quotes to Brandt that aren't verifiably his. --Tbeatty 06:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any interest in working to find a mutually satisfactory solution to this supposed problem? Gamaliel 07:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I only have interest in finding mutually satisfactory solutions to real problems. Supposed problems are for people who don't Assume Good Faith. In this case, there is a real problem with not following wikipeida policy on living bios. There is an attribution of a quotes that don't exist.--Tbeatty 14:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you work towards a solution instead of repeating yourself ad nauseum? I suggested a potential solution to your supposed problem. If you don't like that suggest another one of your own. Posting the same comments here over and over and over again doesn't get us any closer to a mutually satisfactory resolution. Gamaliel 18:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I see

I just realised why Brandt is suddenly so agitated again.

This article has finally become the top result for his name on google, as he himself once predicted.

It's quite beautiful really: his two nemesi (?) have come together to vanquish him in perfect concord. But at least it pushed Google-watch-watch into second place.

Poor sod.

Martha Ramsey 01:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you asserting that the article is in error or is biased, or are you just lamenting the fact that it is highly ranked on Google? First off, this article is the top hit for Daniel Brandt (no quotes) on Yahoo!, AOL, MSN (is MSN still using Google, I can't remember), AltaVista, Mooter, Excite, Clusty, Live.com (I believe that uses a different engine from MSN, but, again, I'm not positive) and alltheweb. Every other engine I tested put this article in the top 3 (that accounts for about 3 engines). So, it's not like this is Google's fault (or anything close to a conspiracy). Also, Wikipedia didn't ask for this article to be listed so highly. It probably is so highly ranked because of the number of people who linked here. Finally, unless you have specific complaints about the nature/quality of this article, your input is unecessarily divisive (isn't "vanquish" a bit much) and useless (we aren't going to delete this article). BrokenSegue 02:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't read that conclusion, I see it as delicious irony. What's wrong with pointing that out? Lighten up! Just zis Guy you know? 11:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes! That's what I meant. I think there is great beauty in this turn of events. The two things that he hates most in life have come together in a totally unplanned way to really piss him off beyond belief. It really is a web: the more the little bug struggles the more he is entangled. Presumably, unless he becomes very famous or notorious (more likely) this article will follow him beyond the grave as someone noted above. I feel slightly sorry for the guy on that point, since he is clearly somebody who really cares about his Google results. In fact, the first page of his results are tremendously bad, I have never seen someone with such a litany of shitty results, all apart from one (google watch) being critical. Gosh! Maybe it really is a conspiracy! Maybe there is a Daniel Brandt line in the google algorithm....

I mean this as no criticism of Google or wikipedia at all. I just wanted to explain why he has suddenly gone nuts again. Martha Ramsey 13:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Careful, or you too may end up on his "hive-mind" page. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Better even than Martha said: Google Watch Watch is now three places higher than Google Watch! Does anyone else think it's ironic that, having banged on endlessly about Google's privacy violations, Brandt violates the privacy of Wikipedia editors and admins? The guy is a certified kook! Just zis Guy you know? 15:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen his Hiave-mind page recently? Daniel has added a Donations button, and a plea for wikipedians to help him complete it. I just love this part: "This will discourage irresponsible editors from applying for adminship, and encourage others to be more more considerate of those who would rather not have an article about themselves that has to be watched for the rest of their lives."

How low can a man get...honestly... DrPoodle 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious: Brandt seems to think WP should delete his article because he asked. Would he remove my "hive-mind" entry if I politely asked? Would he grant me editorial control? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I misinterpreted Martha Ramsey's comment. My apologies. BrokenSegue 19:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

To add to what Just zis said about Brandt violating the privacy of Wikipedia editors and admins i have to add that when I first intervened to explain to the subject of this article teh situation and how their websites disrespect the privacy of others months ago X-Y-Z-Watch_Vs_Wikipedia, i ended up by being added to his stupid list on Hive-mind. Because of what i said i've been condemned and my JoeDoe name listed. I've been patient all along and i am still but just wondering if he's a real kook. -- Szvest 12:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Tweak header

From:

• Role in the Wikipedia/Seigenthaler controversy

to:

• Wikipedia/Seigenthaler controversy

or since its a sub to Wikipedia header even:

• Seigenthaler controversy

- RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Implemented that good suggestion. Jokestress 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo Watch?

In the "Criticism of Google and Yahoo!" section, there isn't actually any mention of Yahoo Watch, why is this? And shouldn't it be fixed? Jonathan_7 86.129.35.152 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes throughout?

Since many external links to primary sources involving Mr. Brandt are now altered as redirects when linked from this site, and for consistency's sake, I recommend we turn all notations to numbered footnotes listed in the References section, rather than a mix of those and externally linked notes. This allows for explication when needed. Thoughts? Jokestress 21:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The footnotes and references must be restored to comply with Wikipeida policy on Living Bios. Why were they removed? --Tbeatty 06:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we set all footnotes to the <ref> style. As it stands, the numbering is all messed up because of numerous kinds of footnotes. Thoughts? Jokestress 00:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the [style] because it takes you to the link directly but ^[1]

OK, I have made all of those consistent in terms of type and matched numbering, but the footnotes and refs need a standardized format. I usually see this:

• Author (date). Article name--linked if applicable. Publication.

However, there's a few ways to do them. See citation templates for examples. Thoughts? Jokestress 07:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirected to wikipediareview

I don't think everyone is directed to wikipedia review as I have clicked on the links and they went to wikipediawatch. But I will leave the nowiki tags as it appears others are redirected. --Tbeatty 06:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make links like this:

• dot org/hivemind.html http://www.wikipedia-watch dot org/hivemind.html

with a note saying "Some readers may need to cut and paste the URL to avoid redirects." Jokestress 07:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it depends on if you open the link in a new window or not (middle mouse click vs. left mouse click). We could put a note in. --Tbeatty 23:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I believe it depends on whether the page of my site that you are trying to reach from *.wikipedia.org/* is already in your browser's cache. Also, I'm not redirecting just the English Wikipedia, but all of them. There are dozens of NameBase links in Wikipedia, not to mention my other sites. Be sure and track them all down. --Daniel Brandt 68.89.136.118 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Attributing quotes to Brandt

It is clear on the web page that he makes a distinction between what he coutns as his own material and what he counts as material from his organization. This is no different than any other organization. PIR has three responsible parties for content. Quotes from the site that aren't bylined "Daniel Brandt" should be attributed to "Wikipedia Watch" or PIR. It is incorrect from a citation standpoint to attribute them to Brandt. It is clear from the article that DB is the Founder and president and the reader can make any conclusion about the author that he wants. --Tbeatty 07:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of people who could reasonably be presumed to have contributed to the content: "Directors are listed as Daniel Brandt (president), Martha Moran (vice president), Steve Badrich (secretary), Dennis Brutus, Randy Guffey, Kathleen L. Kelly, and Bob Richards. Advisors are listed as Robert Fink, Fred Goff, Jim Hougan, John Loftus, Carl Oglesby, and Peter Dale Scott" All of them or none of them may have written or formulated the various un-bylined and third person written material on the site. Without specific claim to the words, the citation must be generally attributed to the organization. --Tbeatty 07:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Birth year

The Seelye article says he was 57 on 11 December 2005. That makes the likely year of birth 1948. The only way it would be 1947 is if he was born between 12 and 31 December and turned 58 after the Seelye piece came out. Possible, but less likely than 1947. This assumes he is providing accurate biographical information to reporters. Jokestress 13:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, he registered with the Selective Service on 27 December 1965. Maybe it was 1947, with a birthday in mid to late December... Jokestress 15:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)