Talk:Daniel Brandt/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


Contents

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. [1] 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 www.wikipedia-watch.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 wikipedia-watch is says "We like this anti-Wikipedia forum " implying multiple people. Also, the about us linke points www.wikipedia-watch.org/staffww.html (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)
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. [2]
  • For those concerned about Google or Yahoo keeping tabs on their search requests, Google critic Daniel Brandt has created a site called Scroogle. [3]
  • For almost 30 years, Brandt has operated a one-man intelligence operation, creating the one-of-its-kind NameBase database ... [4]
  • Brandt runs google-watch.org ... [5]
  • He has spent thousands of hours building a Web site that he believes is both useful and important ... [6]
  • In his day job, Brandt runs NameBase ... [7]
  • In an essay on PageRank, he writes (using the royal "we" ) ... [8]
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)
Wikipedia may not refers about itself, there is no possible autoreferentiality. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Therefore, Wikipedia articles can't cite other articles. There are many reasons for this policy. Thus, User:TBeatthy is right.Tazmaniacs 08:58, 25 May 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:
  • www.wikipedia-watch.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)
For the record, the time from Brandt discussing his indirect vandalism of hundreds of Wikipedia pages to URLs to namebase (and his other spam sites) being forbidden on all Wikimedia sites: 14 minutes. Come on guys, obviously we're slacking. Next time Brandt vandalizes huge numbers of pages on Wikipedia, lets see if we can recover faster than 14 minutes after he gloats about it. --Gmaxwell 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Simply de-linking them on this article is insufficient. There are brandt URLs spammed all over Wikipedia. As a result, we've spamblacklisted (some) of his domains, and will get the rest as we find them. You can include references to his site in this article with the nowiki method mentioned above, or better, by linking to them via archive.org. The archive.org link is preferred because it removes Brandt's ability to revise history without leaving a record, this is a matter of practical concern since he's demonstrated a willingness to pull the content out from under us with this Wikipedia review spam stunt. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Gmaxwell 22:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed comment by banned user. --maru (talk) contribs 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Aah. Makes sense. The middle click will have no history as it starts a separate stream. I use Maxthon and I don't know if middle clicks are standardized across browsers. --Tbeatty 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe, you could stop being vindictive and stop redirecting our links. BrokenSegue 01:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Just middle mouse click. It's not that hard. "Open link in new window" works for me and I am not redirected.
I am middle mousing and for some reason it still redirects (I'm using firefox). Anyways, what about the people who don't know don't know what Brandt has done? BrokenSegue 03:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a reference so make a note at the top of the reference section. The idea is to make it easy to validate the source. The link name is accurate and making it clickable is to make it easier but depending on ones browser, firewall, IP provider etc. we shouldn't make it harder for everyone. Imagine if this was China and it was blocking a link on a page about Democracy. We wouldn't go on a purge removing the link because someone might be redirected by the Chinese government. Wikipeida is not censored even if Brandt's page is censored to Wikipeida editors.--Tbeatty 03:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
We have no business referencing a site Brandt has shown that he will maliciously alter to harm Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 03:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
How is it malicious? It's annoying at most but not malicious.--Tbeatty 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Because it caused many of our articles to suddenly contain confusing and misleading links in a very non-obvious manner. We routinely block users for inserting junk links directly, that he accomplished it via referer matching is just a technical detail. It was clear from his post here that he did so in order to cause a disruption. --Gmaxwell 18:48, 17 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)

Spam blacklist

Okay, this is just stupid. Nobody wants to link to WR, so that's why we used nowiki tags. But now that DB's websites have been added to the spam blacklist, we can't even type in the url into the article or the talk page. The nowiki tags are more than sufficient and Wikipedia editors shouldn't be encumbered with this sort of nonsense. Register your opinion at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#Daniel_Brandt.27s_sites Gamaliel 02:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You're completely off base here. You can type the addresses in, such as wikipedia-watch.org, without problems you just can't link. The problem has little to do with this article, and every thing to do with the fact that brandt's sites now all redirect to a third party site unrelated to the orignal usage of the pages. This has in effect, spammed hundreds of Wikipedia articles in one fell swoop. --Gmaxwell 05:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that's just not true. The spam block would not allow the text of the urls at all, despite the nowiki tags. Gamaliel 05:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html ... it works fine and it's still blacklisted. If it allowed anything more we'd run into the autolinked I mentioned above. --Gmaxwell 07:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not the full text of the url. That's all the text that's necessary, I suppose, but it's still frustrating to have to work around this spam block. It was a pain enough for experienced users; imagine how confusing this would be for a newbie. Gamaliel 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Newbies would just external link the URLs like any other site, which is *exactly* what we need to prevent. Again, this is just one article where all the frequent editors are informed... the block is needed to protect other articles which will have links added by users who found them via google and don't realize that they will go somewhere else once included. The block message does tell you what you need to remove, but I agree that the text could be better. I'm looking into that now. --Gmaxwell 18:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wales response to violative comments and actions regarding Brandt

Removed the following from the note on some hostile responses:

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales denounced both attacks, describing the first as "completely unacceptable behavior" and condemning the second "in the strongest possible terms." {{fact}}

The comments were added on 20 December 2005 by User:FRS, but I couldn't find the original on the Jimbo Wales Talk archives (the source he cited). I suppose someone could have removed the comments, and they certainly sound like something he'd say, but until we can find it for confirmation, it should not be in the article. Jokestress 04:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've actually been doing some thinking about this material. I don't think it belongs. A couple web pranks aren't notable, they've received no coverage from any media, and DB's website isn't a reliable source for anything besides his own opinions, and even then I'm suspicious. I've placed the material here to archive it if this becomes notable later on due to media coverage. Gamaliel 04:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Brandt's tracking of personal information has been met with some hostile responses. A hoaxer tricked Brandt into misidentifying one editor using a Hebrew slur (Derbyshire, Callum "Daniel Brandt" Accessed April 15, 1006) and Brandt provided evidence that the Wikipedia-Watch website was the victim of a denial of service attack. (A denial-of-service attack on Wikipedia-Watch http:// www.wikipedia-watch.org/perp.html Accessed April 2006).

I disagree. It's the other side of how Wikipedia editors have treated him. It's as relevant as Brandt's desire to have his webiste revealed or his list of Wikipeida editors or any other comments he's made regarding Wikipeida. It's sourced to the same place as the other claims. We shouldn't cherry pick incidents.--Tbeatty 05:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we shouldn't also apply the criteria earlier stated by you on this page in regards to other material to this material as well. Gamaliel 07:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Which criteria are you talking about? You argued for inclusion of Wikipedia-Watch material. I argued against inlcusion of internal Wikipeida actions that are cited back to Wikipeida. --Tbeatty 14:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Brandt's stalking page is notoriously inaccurate, no wonder it draws ire.. the subject just isn't interesting. Brandt's every little exploit is not notable just because Brandt is... I think we're suffering from a seriously skewed perspective when we report on things like his stalking page, which is harmful to our users but nearly irrelevant to the rest of the world. Next will we report on Brandt's redirect attack on Wikipedia? How about what he had for breakfast? Many articles on people more widely known and more important than Brandt are just stubs... --Gmaxwell 18:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What stalking page? Do you mean Brandt's accountability page, called hivemind? 203.122.195.111 18:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Media coverage section

  1. Some of these are also cited in the footnotes. Should we remove duplicates?
  2. Also, some citations in this section have links to Mr. Brandt's responses, which should probably go with the footnotes if moved.
  3. Finally, I recommend we use templates for these citations.

Thoughts? Jokestress 05:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hostile responses

I agree with Tbeatty that if we are citing the Hive Mind page as a source, we should say something along these lines:

Brandt has catalogued what he considers hostile responses by Wikipedia editors and administrators, ranging from refusing his article removal requests to hoaxes and denial of service attacks against his sites.

This could have footnotes with some examples, like the two that have been added and reverted many times. I think Brandt's Hive Mind "Enemies List" compilation is notable (not to mention ironic coming from a self-styled privacy activist), but I am not sure these individual responses merit more than a footnote. They haven't been mentioned in the press and aren't really that notable. Jokestress 21:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The only sources we have are Brandt's webpage and some blog. There has been no 3rd party media coverage of the hoax and alleged attack. Per WP:RS, "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." Personal websites such as WWHM may be used to provide information about Brandt but "they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website", such as in this case the Wikipedians who allegedly attacked Brandt. Brandt's website is not a reliable source of information about other people, especially those he considers enemies. It has not been verified by any third party or media outlet. Gamaliel 01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
PIR makes the claim they were a victim of a DoS attack. WWHM is not a personal website. It is a 501(c)(3) corporation. They provide facts and a link. It seems pretty credible to me. It also about themselves being a victim which would qualify it even if it weren't considered a credible 3rd party source, but a personal website.--Tbeatty 08:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you think it is, it remains that it is operated at Brandt's whims and in an unprofessional manner, as exemplified by the redirect debacle. We can not consider it a reliable source. Furthermore, it's a trivial matter: I was DOS attacked a week ago, but I'm not writing an article about it. No evidence links it (presuming it happened) to anything discussed in the article, we might as well write "..and the next morning Brandt felt ill, and he believes that Linuxbeak placed a curse on him." --Gmaxwell 13:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
All the references in Criticism of Wikipedia are the PIR website. How is it that it is acceptable for making certain points but totally unreliable in another. I originally had it removed completely but others wanted more detail. We can remove all of it or none of it, but it is POV pusshing to cherry pick what is said and sourced. --Tbeatty 02:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sjakkalle additions

As part of the merge, Sjakkalle added some redundant and previously removed materials.

Brandt has also criticized recent changes to Wikipedia policy taken as a result of the Seigenthaler controversy, saying that they are a step backwards because they will decrease the number of users whose IP address will be visible. The new policy prevents users who are not logged-in (and who therefore can only be credited for their edits with an IP address) from creating articles. Such users are still permitted under the new policy to edit existing articles, and all such edits are still credited to their IP addresses.

Should this be included? Jokestress 08:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I incorporated that stuff and removed the "weasely" tag added by Boborok, since all the info in there is cited. If there's still a concern, please mention it here. Jokestress 08:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I feel the Wikipedia Watch section is the weakest part of the article. It's important to explain the controvery's chronology and its conflict, but I'm not sure we are doing this as clearly and as succinctly as possible. All the key concepts are there, but any tightening would be helpful. Jokestress 08:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to thank Jokestress for taking the time to go through this mess. Sometimes merges are easy and painless, sometimes, like here, they are much harder, and when I don't know much about the subject it is especially difficult. Thanks again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

This person's profession and name are indicated in a derogatory manner. Links to sites operated by him re not linked. (Boborok 09:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

Please site specific examples of the first part of your complaint, it's a long article. The second part is because Brandt has chosen to redirect all requests that come from Wikipedia to an unrelated third party site, so we can't link his site even if we try. --Gmaxwell 12:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
That's because he's a big kahuna and redirects our links to http://wikipediareview.com/. He also sets a cookie once he sees you coming from the wikipedia page, and redirects even if you copy and paste the second time around. Making users copy and paste is our only solution; it is also an interesting way to drive traffic to your public interest site. --Qviri (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. I double-checked and no cookie is sent. However, you still get redirected the second time around. I suspect a session-like mechanism on the server side. --Qviri (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Boborok, I think you may have a misconception of what "weasel words" are. They are used to describe vague, unattributed comments. For more, see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I am guessing that you think it is weaselly to put "privacy activist" in quotations because it could be misconstrued as scare quotes. The reason the phrase is in quotations is because Mr. Brandt uses the word privacy frequently to describe his complaints about online sites. However, he has lately tried to remove any evidence that says he "monitors privacy violations on the web" or is a "privacy activist." It's in quotations to indicate that this is a direct quote from a published source, the opposite of weasel words. The lack of direct links are explained above-- Mr. Brandt has been trying to disable Wikipedia's ability to link directly to his sites.
If those are the things you consider "weasel words," please let us know. If there are other concerns, please list them here. Jokestress 16:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I have been puzzling over what about Brandt's name is "derogatory" to Boborok, and I believe he may think that listing Brandt's full legal name is designed to be insulting because of his middle name. It is standard procedure to include someone's full legal name in an article. If that's what it is, you are reading something into it that is not there. I am removing the tag again. Jokestress 16:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia section

Could people please stop expanding this with silly details about the number of AfDs etc? We can't use Wikipedia as a source, and these factoids are entirely non-notable and insignificant. When The New York Times writes about our AfD procedures, then we can consider doing the same. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Well even if the NYT writes about AFD on Wikipedia, I still think it wouldn't belong in this article... this article really needs a diet. --Gmaxwell 12:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Tbeatty, you're acting as though you've taken ownership of this page. Those details are non-notable: "you got punked; own up to it like a man"? [9] It's non-encyclopedic to say the least, and you can't use a blog as a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why you replied to Gmaxwell (I corrected it as if it were by accident, undo if it wasn't) . I didn't add the AfD as I think they are non-noteworthy. The Blog entry was written by Brandt and Gamaliel. It is first person accounts (i.e. their entries and cites in this article are about them, not as a fact of anything else) and therefore fits in the Reliable Sources section concerning blogs. Gamaliel is the administrator who permanently banned him. They are unquestionably notable in Brandt's dispute with Wikipeida. The question is why you don't think spam attacks by wikipeida editors to his site as well as hoaxes perpetrated on him concerning Wikpeida editors is not notable as a response? It is certainly Daniel Brandt's position that it happened and should be notable on his bio as all substantial points of view should be represented in order to be neutral. So my position is to either delete all the wikipedia references (you were unwilling to do that earlier) or allow all the substantial points of view in order to be neutral.--Tbeatty 02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm done rv'ing for today so you get the last one for at least 24 hours :).--Tbeatty 02:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What are you referring to when you say "The Blog entry was written by Brandt and Gamaliel."? Gamaliel 05:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Daniel Brandt's Wikipedia Watch Victim of Hoax?--Tbeatty 05:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I forgot all about that. Thanks. Gamaliel 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Now back to original research

SlimVirgin you keep reverting sourced material that has already been decided is reliable about Daniel Brandt. I don't understand why. Please read the thread at the top called Original Research. I wanted to delete references to the PIR website. Either it is valid as commentary on Brandt or it is not. You keep deleting it. Either delete all the facts with this as a reference or leave it. Please don't push POV by selectively quoting only what you like. Also, it is weasel words to say "what Brandt believes is personal information." It is obviously personal information. What I think you might dispute is whether it's true. Since one of his bans was due to his publishing personal information, I find it strange that wikipeida would use weasel words to describe it. Here's an example: If I discover Joe Editor lives at 123 Main Street, Anytown, USA, that would be considered personal information if Joe Blow wasn't publishing it (and Wikipedia editors do not publish it). It may not be correct, but his address is still personal information. This is not a subjective intrepretation. It's weasel words to say it isn't. Your inserted words are classic POV in terms of Weasel Words. You are trying to insert truth or lack thereof by not stating fact. The easy test is that your qualification "what Daniel Brandt believes is" adds no new information. --Tbeatty 06:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I always took that sentence to mean "what Brandt believes is accurate personal information." Gamaliel 06:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. The word "information" implies or means that it's accurate (to call something "false information" is actually a contradiction). We have no idea whether the personal information is accurate, but Brandt appears to believe it is. It's quite standard to refer to material this way in Wikipedia: what X regards as/sees as/views as/believes is Y. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
That is still pure speculation. Is Wikipedia really in a position to vouch for what Brandt believes? The fact is that it is information. Most would say it's personal information. But stating what Brandt believes about the authenticity of the information is pure speculation. The fact that you want to add accurate is even more of an example of weasel words. It's an attempt to imply authority where there is none. --Tbeatty 00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
He has been described as a "privacy activist" in the press many times, including the referenced publication in the article. He has yet to be called an "accountability activist" (whatever that means) in a published source. This article is an interesting precedent for Wikipedia, and the standards of evidence need to be at the highest level. That means reliable third-party references, not autobiographical information. Mr. Brandt has been trying hard to remove information sources about himself that he does not want in the article, so we need to rely on other sources. He needs to get Mr. Orlowski or some other ally in the press to call him that, then we can use it. Jokestress 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Accountability activist

"Cloak-and-Dagger Database: Software Sniffs Out Secret Agents" in The Christian Science Monitor, July 31, 1989, page 8, by Gary Thatcher, staff writer. A photo of Brandt (copyrighted by CSM). The caption under the photo is this: BRANDT: "You can't hold them accountable unless you can identify them" In the text the quotation is repeated: "We have a right to hold them accountable," he says. "And you can't hold them accountable unless you can identify them." 4.230.174.198 00:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The CSM also says, "The 'Whole Earth Review' called it [the database] 'an outstanding example of political/infotech activism.'" Get it? ACCOUNTABILITY + ACTIVISM = ACCOUNTABILITY ACTIVIST. There is a copy of the article at http://clusterclick.com/gifs/db-csm.gif 4.230.186.229 03:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
From the cited article:
"Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies"... [10] (emphasis mine)
The reporter is offering an opinion, not a quotation. In fact, the Brandt quotation, as well as the entire article, shows that Brandt is trying to make the NSA accountable for using cookies. If he was a mere privacy activist, he would be telling us how to block the NSA's cookies. 4.230.171.25 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You might also look at the image he made for inclusion with his 16 October letter (on the front page of his Wikipedia Watch site). It says "privacy violation," and says nothing about accountability. Jokestress 13:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
More dissembling from Jokestress. The point of Brandt's appeal to Jimmy is to make SlimVirgin accountable for starting the stub on Brandt while doing so for ulterior motives, without so much as informing him that the stub had been started. Indeed, the entire last six months has been an exercise in Brandt attempting to make Wikipedia accountable. If you think Brandt is a privacy activist, then why does he use his real name on Wikipedia? 4.230.171.25 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you two write a proposed intro below. Here's what's in there now for reference:
Daniel Leslie Brandt (born circa 1947) is an American book indexer based in San Antonio, Texas [1] and a privacy activist [2] on the World Wide Web, particularly in relation to Google and Wikipedia.
In 1989, Brandt and Steve Badrich cofounded non-profit organization Public Information Research (PIR). In 2002, Brandt launched Google Watch, a website offering criticism of Google, and in 2005, Wikipedia Watch, a similar site focusing on Wikipedia.
Then we can discuss your proposed changes. Jokestress 18:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I recommend deleting the word "privacy," killing footnote 2, stick around long enough to defend your changes as needed, and then stop editing this page. According to your own User_talk page, Brandt considers two recent actions of yours to be hostile. 4.230.198.46 20:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Must we endure further wikilawyering from the likes of banned users Lir and Internodeuser/Zordrac? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Malber, if you know it's Lir (I'm less familiar with him than with Zordrac), just remove the posts wherever you see them. Banned users aren't allowed to post anywhere on the website. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
4.230.198.46, your suggestions are not acceptable. We are not going to remove sourced statements. We are trying to stabilize this article by including only verifiable sources. Brandt has been described as a privacy activist and infotech activist, among other kinds of activists. His concerns about accountability are mentioned in the article, but not in the heading. If you want it in there, add it along with your citation. If the citation is verifiable, we will keep it. Simple as that. Jokestress 20:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't really care what sort of activist he is, but my main question is, has Brandt ever offered the people he lists in his various sites and databases the option to opt out of being included? If not, he's being very hypocritical in demanding this of Wikipedia. *Dan T.* 22:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I think he said he would delete the hivemind page if we deleted his biography here. --Qviri (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
He not only said but in December he did it - in response to a compromise reached with Linuxbeak. But everyone jumped all over Linuxbeak, which meant that they actually liked their names on Hivemind. So the compromise fell apart, and Hivemind went back up. 4.230.162.238 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a collective guilt argument. -Will Beback 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Brandt started by asking SlimVirgin to be accountable. Next he asked Jimbo to be accountable. But by October 30 everyone was piling on, and he said, "Before I was getting screwed, but now it's a gang rape." (Archive 1) Hivemind tries to identify gang members, and specify the role they played in the rape. That's not collective guilt, but rather individual guilt. What's your problem? You're not even on the Hivemind page! 4.231.14.223 21:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be Lir quoting from WR. Brandt fails to point out that I deleted the article, and if he had kept quiet, it would likely still be deleted today. Instead, he posted about it on at least one blog, so the blog owner, sensing an interesting situation, came here and recreated it. That the article exists today is Brandt's own fault. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The only gang and the only rape are in your and Mr Brandt's fantasies. Why would someone not on the hive mind not be critical of Mr Brandt's behaviour. That is the thinking of a normal, reasonable person, SqueakBox 00:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with SqueakBox. A normal, reasonable person would agree with Brandt. GeeGoo 00:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I object to putting "reasonable" and "Brandt" in the same sentence. *Dan T.* 00:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin (talk); 03:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Brandt (or whoever you turn out to be), that header was recently added specifically to get it added to Wikipedia. Compare the current hivemind page with this archive (the archive doesn't have the header saying that it is an accountability project). Content added specifically to get into Wikipedia should be ignored. As an aside, I don't mind adding something alond the lines of "Brandt describes himself as an 'accountability activist' and his creation, NameBase, is intended to make public officials accountable to the public." BrokenSegue 14:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree; Brandt's self-puffery isn't worth our time including.
James F. (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like someone is building the record, and admins and editors keep obliging him with more evidence, due to careless commenting. Remember, everything on Talk is most likely admissible. It's all published, it's all mirrored and scraped, and it's all crawled and ranked well by major engines. From an external, non-Wikipedian point of view, there is no distinction that I can see between a biographical article, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the various other pages on Wikipedia that mention the subject of that article. GeeGoo 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If I say something mean about Brandt here, do I get a place on his hivemind page too? He has too much time on his hands. Molindo 21:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"editors keep obliging him with more evidence" Evidence of what? That we happen to think he's out of his mind? Heck, I can say that in court for him if he asks me nicely. Is including a sarcastic quote of his on my user page evidence as well? Am I going to end up on his accountability page because I post here? If I do, does it say more about me or Brandt? --Qviri (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

People please remember WP:CIVIL...we don't need things to get more acidic around here. Arguing about whether or not he is a "nutcase" is immaterial to this article and degrades our ability to report upon him from a NPOV. BrokenSegue 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've put privacy/most of the intro and the references back. There's obviously no consensus to remove large parts of the intro and regardless of who's PR spin wants us to use the word "accountability" trying to force the change isn't going to get them anywhere. If someone thinks accountability should be used instead of privacy, make a case for it. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 12:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Daniel not privacy activist, not activist. He good for future of wiki. I put back image of wiki watch.

Victim of Internet Stalking??

Is that warning tag for really?? Ahh, holy crap, am I now going to get stalked? CRAP!! j/k ;)Tom 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I thought Wikipedia was awesome the first time I joined, but after seeing this fiasco, I don't know anymore. You guys should've deleted this a long time ago instead of everyone getting so ill-mannered over a guy that doesn't like the way his Wiki is going. 'Oh, but it's puffery!' Then delete the stupid article and move on. What kind of example are you teaching other new editors if the people editing this article is so biased. C'mon, name calling, telling jokes, adding that someone is a conspiracy theorist? He's no David Icke or Alex Jones now. Seems some of the admins are just keeping this article just for spite. Hopefully you guys will rightfully decide what to do with this article. Until then, this whole place seems like a joke to me because of the way this whole thing is handled -_-) Keero 17:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

  • Okay, then I vote for a delete. Anyone else with me? ...No? Dang. >_> Keero 17:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would vote delete on this article to get it over with but sadly people like Brandt are notable and he's notable by trolling google and wikipedia and he gets goggle hits because of his crap. Jaranda wat's sup 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of people with you. Unfortunately others see this as way to punish brandt for his audacity to reveal the name and employer of Brian Chase, the person who used Wikipeida to libel John Siegenthaler. Many editors believe that Brandt's revelation (and violation of wikipedia personal information policy, although how wikipedia policy is extended beyond the pages of wikipeida, I'll never understand) was worse than the libel that Chase created. To some, this type of violation was akin to religious sacrilege. The obvious crucifixion was to subject Brandt to as much privacy invasion as could possibly be concocted through the pages of Wikipedia. Brandt retaliated by publishing personal information about those who published about him which only enraged the editors more. Ironically, the "Wikipedia as a Religion" warriors are often the longest contributing editors which extend to administrators. Consequently, we know way more about Daniel Brandt than we do about privacy activist Phil Zimmermann --Tbeatty 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortuanately, on Wikipedia what's notable is notable and just doesn't get deleted because someone doesn't like it. If that was the case, the Gay Nigger Association of America would have been deleted long ago. It has so far had fifteen AFDs, six of them which were joke AFDs. This article has four AFDs so far and a Jack Thompson-type mentality in trying to take this page down. When it comes down to it, Wikipedia seem to protect what is the most hated. Hbdragon88 04:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is why some question Brandt's motives, his antics smack of self promotion and as a direct result of this his article is about as likely to get deleted as George W. Bush, SqueakBox 05:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its so much an issue of notability as it is an issue of what Wikipedia and those loyal to the project want to include here. They want to include smears on people who have said or done things against Wikipedia's best interests. Even before Wikipedia Watch, Brandt's views on Google, per his Google Watch site, hurt Wikipedia, who uses Google searches to justify the vast majority of their articles, and in return Google lists Wikipedia as the top or a high-ranking hit for most topics, and if that wasn't enough, the vast majority of Wikipedia's mirrors manipulate Google's adsense to make money from scraping Wikipedia. All of this makes Brandt an enemy of Wikipedia. Therefore, anyone who is loyal to Wikipedia must demonise him. Therefore, any article on Daniel Brandt that is published on Wikipedia will be nothing more than a smear campaign. Therefore, this article cannot exist. You've also got a choice of labelling him as a hypocritical privacy activist who actually invades privacy, or else labelling him as a very consistent and honest accountability activist. If you were interested in accuracy, accountability activist is the only way to go. 203.122.231.195 08:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging of Google Watch, Scroogle, and Public Information Research into this article

Hi, Jonathan_666 here, still bizarrely unable to use my account, despite the fact I'm unblocked. Anyhow, I'm unsure of how to close the afd nominations for the Google Watch, Scroogle, and Public Information Research articles. From what I can see, there appears to be a majority in favour of merging these articles in with this article.

I also believe we need some more information on Brandt's work with other websites, that is to say Yahoo Watch, NameBase and Wikipedia Review, basically giving a detailed account of what they are and how Brandt has been involved with them. Then we should hold a 6th AfD on this article in which I propose that we remove anything that is considered to be a violation of Brandt's privacy (which in my view covers the first section entitled "Student activism" and then merge the rest into a brand spanking new article entitled "A List of Websites Affiliated With Daniel Brandt" This has the effect of killing four birds with a single stone (copied and pasted from the Google Watch afd):

We cannot complain that Brandt is over represented in his articles in Wikipedia because he will only really feature in one as this proposal details; it will end the controversy in the Criticism of Wikipedia article over the inclusion or not of Wikipedia Review because now we will have information about it; Brandt will most likely cease to complain because what he feels to be "private matters" will no longer be on Wikipedia for everyone to see; and it can stop this bitter war that exists between Brandt and Wikipedia: Brandt can be left to his own devices and Wikipedia can finally have a Brandt article free of controversy and one which they can be truly proud of. Jonathan_666 217.33.207.195 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't close AFD nominations you start and it is generally reserved for admins in most cases. They should stay on AFD for 5 days after they were listed in the AFD log (April 23rd). Kotepho 20:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot is okay to use

Gmaxwell claims that the screenshoot has copyrighted elements in it. He is mistaken. The image of Wales was cropped from a photograph of an appearance at the Univ. of Florida earlier this month, and it is marked "public" at http://www.flickr.com/photos/puggles/ The cartoon was created by Public Information Research. PIR has released all rights to this screen shot. Gmaxwell should assist new users with getting proper documentation for images in order, rather than summarily deleting something he finds politically objectionable. Strangeland 01:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The author of the photo did not release he work into the public domain. You are indeed violating copyright with that image as it stands. --Gmaxwell 01:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You are indeed mistaken. The author says it is "public." Even if he hadn't, it is legal under Kelly v Arriba Soft Corporation, 7 July 2003, U.S. Ninth Circuit, to use a reduced-resolution thumb without permission. This is reduced three ways: 1) it is a tiny crop of the original; 2) the cropped portion is reduced in size from the original; 3) the color depth is reduced from JPG to GIF, which is only 256 colors. I'm shocked that you don't know more about copyright law in the U.S. JoyessEdit 02:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that still just fair use, then? --maru (talk) contribs 05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you please not restore this, Strangeland? Brandt is apparently trying to blackmail people into restoring it or not deleting it or not protecting the page (I've lost track of his various demands) in connection with this image, offering to remove their personal details from his website if they do what he tells them. It is ugly behavior and, for that reason alone, the image is best left off the page until the situation passes. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It's ugly behavior when you use libelous statements such as "Brandt is apparently trying to blackmail people." You should strike that out and apologize. Maybe the words "negotiate with people" would be preferable. JoyessEdit 02:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Proof that your statment is correct is an ironclad defense against claims of libel. So here: [11]. --Gmaxwell 02:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not blackmail. Read the entire thread. It was a negotiation based on an editor's claim that he did not realize that his revert had deleted the image. The editor initiated the negotiation. Now we have Gmaxwell endorsing SlimVirgin's libelous statement. Here's the story: The editor did not understand why he was on Hivemind based on the Hivemind description of his actions. Brandt reviewed the record and basically said, "You did something and the image disappeared." The editor then conceded that it was his revert that deleted the image, but he wasn't aware of this at the time. Then the discussion turned toward how to rectify the situation. The obvious remedy was to restore the image and delete the Hivemind entry. You call this "blackmail"? I call it a negotiation. I agree with JoyessEdit that your effort and SlimVirgin's effort to characterize it as "blackmail" is libelous. JennyLoo 03:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, you would, given that you're the same person. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed post from banned user. --maru (talk) contribs 05:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious to which "copyrighted" works you refer to Gmaxwell. While the picture of Wales is copyrighted, the photographer has released it under cc-by-2.0. Thus, all you need to do is attribute the photo to him for its use to be valid. Kotepho 04:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I said above, it's the photo of Jimbo. --Gmaxwell 04:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying we cannot use any work that is not public domain? The image clearly says it is cc-by-2.0 <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" title="Attribution License"><img src="/images/icon_creative_commons.gif" style="border:none;" alt="This photo is licensed" width="15" height="15" align="left" /></a> Some rights reserved.. Can we not use CC licenses now? It is even more free than the GFDL! Kotepho 04:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that, I said that our current use of that image is not legal. --Gmaxwell 04:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
How can we currently be violating its copyright when it isn't even on the servers? Kotepho 04:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the person who uploaded the screenshot is Daniel Brandt (or a sock puppet of him) and that Daniel Brandt owns the site, therefore the screenshot is NOT copyright. How more obvious do you need to get? 203.122.231.195 08:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the copyright arguments against use of that screen shot are highly bogus, and are merely an attempt on the part of some editors to grasp at straws to find any possible excuse to remove the image because it's favored by Brandt's fans and friends. As far as I can see, the image is freely licensed, and is valid fair use even if not. And I'm certainly not saying this to support Brandt; I'm even on his Hive Mind page myself! *Dan T.* 14:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dan, SqueakBox 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted post from banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No one has addressed the copyright issue, and an additional issue is that we would be linking to a page that purports to reveal the personal identities of Wikipedians without their consent. As our policies say, IDs are almost always revealed for the purposes of harassment. We should not be linking to, and in part displaying, material that it would be a blockable offense to post on the website. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No one has expressed a copyright issue that isn't spurious. The photo is cc-by-2.0. Slap a message on the image page that says "This screenshot contains works by puggles from his Flikr photostream." I would, but someone just outright deleted the image. You do know you are edit warring over a redlink, right? Kotepho 08:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
If the image remains deleted, the link to it still needs to be removed, and apart from the copyright issue, the other point remains. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin says, "We should not be linking to, and in part displaying, material that it would be a blockable offense to post on the website." On that basis, the entire section on Wikipedia-Watch must be removed because it provides information that leads to the Hivemind page. I will attempt to make this necessary correction on the article page. 68.90.178.200 14:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The image should stay. We use fair use images all the time. These thumbnails are fair use for a description of wikipeida-watch.. And if the images are really that offensive, they can be blacked out or deleted (except the wolf picture, I like that one.) --Tbeatty 01:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hivemind is illegal

As written by User:Avillia on http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=979 . Feel free to copy text here, as appropriate. Is Hivemind illegal? If so, given that wikitruth.info has been blacklisted and deleted due to illegality, perhaps Avillia has a point that this article should not exist because of the possibility that it could be seen as Wikipedia encouraging illegal activity. 203.122.231.195 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about it being "illegal"; the First Amendment probably gives just as broad a protection to his activities as it does to Wikipedia's, even when people on both sides sometimes act like jerks. And that's how it should be; the presumption should always be in favor of the right of free speech, even though its exercise sometimes can get ugly. *Dan T.* 14:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is particularly pertinent to the article. You could discuss this within the thread. Ashibaka tock 01:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Brandt's lies

Brandt claims on his hivemind page that I removed the screenshot yesterday. this is a lie [12] I wonder why he is committing clear acts of libel on his hive mind page. Perhaps trying to antagonise users intosuing him for libel, thus he could get all the publicity he wants in the national newspapers. certainly given he is spreading such lies affects how I see this individual. He is a trolling liar, SqueakBox 19:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed post from banned user. --maru (talk) contribs 05:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

Maybe I'm missing something, but why do the external links have to be copied and pasted into a browser instead of just being regular links? --TheMadTim 18:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Brandt is redirecting the links from Wikipedia to another site. By typing them in you avoid his redirection. See above. --BrokenSegue 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Could the hyperlink not contain one of those URL redirection thingies, so that the script on his server would think it was being redirected from somewhere else? I'm not sure what you call it. If I find it, (or if anyone else does) I'll post a link to what I'm talking about. --TheMadTim 21:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you need a server at wherever you're redirecting from. Besides, Brandt'd probably just add those to the list. --maru (talk) contribs 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If you use a tabbed browser, open the links in a new tab. Works just fine. --Tbeatty 18:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What was your "user idiocy" comment referring to, Tbeatty? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Some guy was using something you said to justify removing links. --maru (talk) contribs 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


That's true...but we can't expect all of our users to have tabbed browsing capabilities or to know how to use a tabbed browser. It's easier if we just advise that they type it in manually. I mean Brandt is just hurting himself, now fewer people will go to his webpages and hear "his side". We could use tinyurl, but that's temporary and Brandt would just block that as well. Meh, it's fine as it is. BrokenSegue 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's on the Wikimedia spam blacklist. DonnyTheKing 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It's on it because it redirects. Cutting and pasting defeats the spamming so therefore a cut and paste link should be allowed. The alternative is censorship.--Tbeatty 00:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why no mention of ejections/resignations from Brandt's PIR advisory board?

Some years ago several people (including me) were ejected or resigned from Brandt's PIR advisory board after I raised qustions about fellow board member Fletcher Prouty working oepnly with antisemitic and Holocaust denial outfits.

Here is how Brandt described the matter in Lobster (An Incorrect Political Memoir)

  • "The first hint of a PC crack within Public Information Research came in October, 1990, when Chip Berlet resigned from our Board of Advisors because he objected to the fact that Fletcher Prouty was also on the Board. We did not discuss the issue because I was putting in overtime on my technician job and wasn't in the mood to call him back. I whipped out the white-out and removed his name from the letterhead, and thanked him for his past support."
  • "In July 1991, Martha Wenger resigned from our Board of Advisors after reading something about Prouty in a leftist publication..."
  • Then in January 1992, Holly Sklar resigned from our Board, stating that "I find Chip Berlet's objection to sharing a board with Fletcher Prouty compelling, even more so at a time of increasing right wing efforts to build insidious alliances with often unwitting leftists."

This is a one-sided rendition, but the matter should be mentioned here. There is a cite to the Lobster article in the entry, but the text is fee-based.--Cberlet 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the reason is that while at least some of use knew it had happened we didn't know any references.Geni 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Cite for above quoted text from Brandt: Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," Lobster, No. 24 (December 1992).
I asked Brandt to consider the appropriateness of Prouty as a board member of PIR since Prouty was working openly with Holocaust deniers and the antisemitic Liberty Lobby. Brandt simply ejected me from the board.
Text below from "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected." [13].
  • Prouty's topic at the opening session of the 1990 Liberty Lobby Convention was "The Secret Team." The new Institute for Historical Review's Noontide Press edition of Prouty's book The Secret Team was released at the Liberty Lobby conference. Prouty assured the audience it was an "enormous privilege" to have his book republished by the Institute for Historical Review, a group, Prouty claimed, that keeps people "from revising history." Prouty thanked Willis Carto and Tom Marcellus of IHR for the "guts and good sense" to republish his book.25 Following Prouty to the Podium was the infamous anti-Jewish bigot Eustace Mullins, who spoke on "Secrets of the Federal Reserve."
Hope these help.--Cberlet 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Removed post from banned user. --maru (talk) contribs 05:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
No one is doing battle here (and if they are then they should leave). We only strive to reflect reality. Whether you are banned or not does not effect that fact (especially since you are apparently capable of commenting on the article despite your block). Please be aware that it is within policy to delete messages from banned users. Also, I doubt your appeal will be sucessfull (they rarely are). BrokenSegue 23:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you are going to be blocked for a while Mr.Brandt, probaly still indef because of your legal threats and alleged sockpuppets you made even though some of the socks can be useless trolls trying to deframe you even more, until you apologize to wikipedia for them. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • From Larry Sanger's Talk Page: The principle on Jimmy Wales was that Jimbo asked not to be on Wikipedia. If Larry Sanger asks not to be on Wikipedia, then I'd agree not to include this page either.

Now, Daniel Brandt has repeatedly asked his biography to be deleted. Why don't you delete the Daniel Brandt article? Just because you like bashing him? --24.144.84.178. 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not delete articles merely because the subject of that article asks them to. Repeated attempts to delete this article have failed (as seen above). If Brandt qualifies for WP's notability guidelines, he qualifies and thus has this article. It won't be removed merely because he requests so. Hbdragon88 22:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Doing a text search on the talk page for that text fails. Even if it were there, Sanger hasn't made policy for a very long time. And if Wales asked to not be on Wikipedia, then your post is even more pointless: behold Jimmy Wales. --maru (talk) contribs 22:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A few points. The flap over the PIR board of advisors probably only rates mention in this article if it is also mentioned in the Chip Berlet article. All of the content in the Chip Berlet article on criticism of Berlet from the left, criticism of Berlet by Laird Wilcox, the controversy (shitstorm was more like it) over Berlet's "Right Woos Left", and Berlet's criticial attacks on Ralph Nader, Alexander Cockburn, Ramsey Clark, Antiwar.com, Mark Lane, et al, has been deleted. This hasn't gone unnoticed, and the users responsible for deleting this content are being watched closely. As for whether the Daniel Brandt article should be deleted, why was the Will McWhinney article improperly speedy deleted right after the vote for deletion had barely commenced? He's at least as notable as Brandt. Finally, why is Brandt banned? The two most disruptive admins here have proven to be SlimVirgin and Will Beback, and there are several others who have also been playing mean-spirited games over the Brandt article who also need to be reprimanded and sanctioned. They are the ones who should be banned, or at least have their admin privileges revoked.

Please, SlimVirgin is one of wikipedia best admins and so is Will Beback. They will never get banned or their their admin privileges revoked just beacuse you want them to, stop trolling. Jaranda wat's sup 23:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How is SlimVirgin one of the best admins when she improperly deleted the link to Alex Jones (radio) from a whole bunch of relevant articles, calling it "linkspam" in the edit summary, and when she insists that Laird Wilcox who is one of the most respected researchers into extremist movements is not a proper source for Wikipedia articles? She's extremely biased and a pusher of the POV that academic intellectuals no matter how fringe their actual ideas are acceptable sources because they're supposedly "peer reviewed".
Actually the statement IS in Talk:Larry Sanger, maru. I provided the wrong link. 24.144.84.179. 23:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, Jimbo locked Brian Peppers from being edited until February 2007. You can live without Brian on Wikipedia. Don't say you can't live without Brandt.

Dude, it may be that you feel Wikipedia is very important and the doings of its community are exciting, but the world largely ignores the latter and doesn't pay much mind to how the former gets made. Daniel Brandt is "notable" to people active in the project space but not to the outside world. Why not give the guy what he wants? Other articles have been censored on less ground. We can't even have one about Brian Peppers and Brandt is less noted than Peppers.|Grace Note 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You deleted Peppers (because JIMBO WANTED IT TO BE DELETED) and Peppers mustn't be edited until february 2007. Brandt doesn't even appear on YTMND (as of now), and is CLEARLY less notable. Can't you live without this Daniel Brandt until february 2007 at least, like Peppers? Why not give the guy what he wants? Perhaps you enjoy making him angry. Would you like your biography to be put here? Maybe yes, but others might say no. Daniel said no. Grant his wish. Or make a deal: you delete the biography, Daniel kills the Hivemind. A simple agreement. 24.144.84.179. 00:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is YTMND now the standard of what is notable? I seem to have missed that memo. *Dan T.* 17:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, I don't think the biography will ever be deleted, unless Jimbo deletes it which I doubt, just live with the article already, no big deal Jaranda wat's sup 00:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My edit

Cberlet| reverted this edit and called it a sanitization. First off, please take the time to slectively revert. My edit also had a formatting change that I assume is non-objectionable (blockquote is the preffered way to offset quotes). Anyways there are no references in the section of text I deleted. The paragraph breaks self-ref by directly linking to a wikipedia-space page (a big no-no) and has an ambiguous, parenthetical and one-sentence paragraph which seemingly has no connection with the article or Brandt's activities. Anyone care to tell me why my edit was not justified. I'd welcome someone to come in and re-write it, but for now that text is inapropriate. BrokenSegue 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see a lot of value in your edit: you've removed some weasel words, and you've cited a source - both really useful additions to the article. Some things were lost as a result, though - there's some talk about our procedures to mitigate against what Daniel Brandt complains about that's been lost, for instance. I think your best bet is to make the edit again, but this time being careful to keep those bits. --Hughcharlesparker 12:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that this page already is a sanitized version, lacking sufficient criticism of Brandt, and lacks both a proper defense of Wikipedia and what steps Wikipedia has taken to respond to criticisms (not just from Brandt). I agree with Hughcharlesparker, and meant to post a discussion comment but am going through some technical problems with my Internet connection. Didn't intend to hit and run. Apologies.--Cberlet 17:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I think something like the following should be added to the bottom of the "Political activism" section:

  • Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board resigned or were removed after complaining that another board member, L. Fletcher Prouty, was openly working with and defending right-wing anti-Semitic and racist groups including the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review, which republished Prouty's book Secret Team. Brandt defended Prouty, and brushed off complaints that he (Brandt) was promoting alliances with right-wing conspiracist groups, some of which were antisemitic or even pro-fascist.
  • Cites: Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," Lobster, No. 24 (December 1992); Chip Berlet, "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected," Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1991.[14].

Since Brandt published an article complaining about this incident, it is entirely appropriate to add it to the entry. I look forward to a lively discussion.--Cberlet 15:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Support. I don't see a good reason why we wouldn't add this in. --Hughcharlesparker 15:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Support. A poll, good idea!--Cberlet 16:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Support -- Malber (talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose (Daniel Brandt is banned for legal threats and thus cannot leave comments, but in this case I will restore his comment for transparency. After all, it's his biography. Ashibaka tock 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)) Prouty's book is considered a classic on CIA covert activities, and had nothing to do with anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, or racism. No one else offered to reprint the book, which was already difficult to locate, having been last published in 1974 by Ballentine. I defended Prouty on the grounds that Prouty had no interest in anti-Semitism whatsoever, and was only interested in exposing CIA misdeeds. Berlet's group, Political Research Associates, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Ford Foundation in recent years. The Ford Foundation has a long history of collaboration with the CIA, beginning in the early years of the cold war. Chip Berlet himself, while ostensibly a leftist, worked for the National Student Association in the 1970s -- even though it has been exposed as CIA-funded by Ramparts magazine in March 1967, in a story that generated headlines around the world. In more recent years, Berlet has shared intelligence information with the Anti-Defamation League, a Zionist organization that spied on American groups on behalf of Israel, according to a spy scandal that was exposed in early 1993. --Daniel Brandt 68.90.164.207 20:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose because one, "conspiracist", "antisemitic", and "pro-fascist" are the POV of one person, John Foster Berlet (aka the Chipster), and two, all Berlet writings constitute WP:OR from an extremist left-wing (pro-Enver Hoxha's Albania) POV and are not appropriate sources for an encyclopedia. 70.108.57.95 02:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
comment It identifies the source of the POV.Geni 03:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough but the above wording is straight out of Berlet's writings. The wording should go something like this: "Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, Chip Berlet, Holly Sklar, and (whoever the other one was) resigned or were removed after complaining that another board member, L. Fletcher Prouty, was associating himself with Liberty Lobby. Brandt defended Prouty from charges by Berlet that this association in itself somehow made Prouty right-wing or unworthy of associating with." 70.108.57.95 03:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Problem is that we have no source that those were the actual acusations.Geni 03:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
According to both of the above sources, those were the actual accusations: That L. Fletcher Prouty had spoken at a Liberty Lobby conference and was associating himself with them. 70.108.57.95 03:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup but you include a secondary statment "that this association in itself somehow made Prouty right-wing or unworthy of associating with." which is not supported.Geni 03:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It's supported by Brandt's article and by numerous other Berlet writings on Prouty. Berlet's position on Prouty (and anyone else who ever associated with Liberty Lobby) was they should be shunned. Berlet called Prouty right-wing many times. 70.108.57.95 03:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
source?Geni 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Berlet calls progressive radio stations that interview Prouty only "nominally" progressive, and implies that Oliver Stone and Daniel Brandt should not have associated with Prouty Berlet calls Prouty right-wing:"a number of right-wing critics of U.S. intelligence operations, including Prouty" There is also another article Berlet wrote in the early 1990s stating that we should not read Prouty's 1974 book The Secret Team and that it, a 1974 book, was suddenly disreputable because he had begun to associate with Liberty Lobby in 1990, but I can't locate this article. It's likely he took it off the web.70.108.57.95 04:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I never wrote anything like that. It misrepresents my actual arguments--Cberlet 21:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC).

Comment. LaRouchies aren't allowed to edit or have any say over the content of the Chip Berlet and Dennis King articles because they have an obvious axe to grind against them. For that same reason, User:Cberlet should be required to recuse himself from any part in editing or discussion of the Daniel Brandt article. 70.108.57.95 03:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason was they were being a pain in the neck.Geni 03:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
And Chip isn't? Look, this guy shows up on Wikipedia complaining that the article on him might hurt his reputation as a "journalist" because it contains things he doesn't like. He's somebody who has made a career of dishing it out but apparently can't take it. Sound familiar? Somebody else whose article's talk page we just happen to be on was banned for exactly the same thing. 70.108.57.95 04:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The cases are not the same.Geni 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It's worth noting that CBerlet has, I assume because of his involvement, suggested his change on the talk page, rather than editing the article. It's also worth noting that WP:NPOV doesn't mean that we don't state points of view, it means that we state all available points of view, and cite references for them. --Hughcharlesparker 15:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It also occurs to me that we should leave discussions of the Chip Berlet article to its own talk page, and use this page to discuss the article in question on its own merits, in reference to the relevant wikipedia policies. --Hughcharlesparker 15:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Why? SlimVirgin will just delete any such discussion. It's called page blanking and it's usually considered vandalism, unless it's done by SlimVirgin. 70.108.136.19 15:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, let's deal with things as and when they happen. If someone blanks a discussion then yes, it's vandalism, and we'll warn them a few times (in a civil manner), then get them blocked by an admin. In the mean time, lets use this page to discuss this question. While I'm posting, I'll take this opportunity to link to one of wikipedia's most important policies: WP:Assume good faith - I don't think it's fair for you to question CBerlet's right to make his observations and suggestions here. Each of us needs to remember to remain objective and to discuss and edit on the basis of what is said, not who it's said by. After all, that's why it's ok for you to comment here anonymously - no one here should be responding to who they might guess you are, or what previous edits you may have made, only to the points you make. --Hughcharlesparker 15:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
What I question is the inclusion of this material worded in such a way that it shows apparent support of the critic's POV or overwhelms the article. Both would be in violation of WP:BLP. The wording proposed above by User:Cberlet doesn't just show apparent sympathy to the POV of the critic, it is the POV of the critic in question. Again, here would be a good way to include the material: list PIR's original board of advisors, which included both Chip Berlet and L. Fletcher Prouty, followed by this: "Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board including Chip Berlet resigned or were removed after complaining that another board member, L. Fletcher Prouty, was associating himself with Liberty Lobby". That's all that is necessary. 70.108.136.19 16:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLP is a guideline, not policy. The way Reviewies throw this around is getting tiresome. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - sourced and relevant. Be Bold. jucifer 17:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

url links

I have no take on his tactics or on this article in general but just as a matter of form either external links should be in proper format or not be there at all, as such I have fixed the links. I also removed the statement at the top of the external links section since I don't think it applies anymore, though I may very well be wrong and if I am please let me know. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes. There's a consensus further up this page that this is the right thing to do, for the reasons explained in the first line of the external links section. I know that the manual of style says that links should be links, but there is a very good reason in this case why that should not apply - see Wikipedia:Interpret all rules and Wikipedia:Use common sense. The links are still redirecting without notification; I've just checked. It may be that, even after reading this, you think that you should make your changes for a fourth time. That's fair enough, but there needs to be a discussion and a consensus on this page first. --Hughcharlesparker 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't notice that it was still redirecting. In that case then there is a good reason to keep it the same, but maybe the note above the links should be clearer to why it is doing that. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 17:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. I've changed it a little - does that seem clearer? If not, could you suggest something? --Hughcharlesparker 18:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that looks good. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Audi alteram partem?

Wikipedia isn't a court, is it? Besides that: POV, no source, "weasel words", so I reverted this edit. A.J. 10:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Audiatur et altera pars is a principle that must be generally adhered to in fair discussions. Wikipedia isn't a witch hunt, is it? --DenisDiderot 10:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Please keep that paragraph out of the article, as it is not encyclopedic. Keep it here on the talk page please. NSLE (T+C) at 10:17 UTC (2006-05-22)

Here's the paragraph:

Blocking the user Brandt from Wikipedia and nevertheless keeping a biographical article about him anyone can continue to edit is a strong violation of the principle audiatur et altera pars. No one should be condemned without being given the opportunity to respond to the accusations against him. Brandt is an involuntary public figure.

What's your definition of encyclopedic? Check out the paragraphs above mine -- why do you consider them "encyclopedic"? They contain personal attacks and would certainly not be found in an encyclopedia. Concerning the ban of self-references to Wikipedia -- they contain many more of them. In my view, Wikipedia is abused for a witch hunt against Mr Brandt on that page. I'm very disappointed about Wikipedia and I begin asking myself why I contributed so much to an institution that doesn't adhere to elementary fairness principles as audiatur et altera pars. --DenisDiderot 10:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Main problem with that paragraph: it countaints your point of view presented as a fact. If it was a quote from external source presenting point of view of some person or organisation it would be encyclopedic, neutral and verifable. Compare paragraph above: "JW said that DB is A and isn't B" to "Blocking is... Brandt is..." that's the difference. A.J. 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't hide behind formalities and metadiscussions (discussions about the discussion)! You still didn't answer to the point itself. Don't you consider it extremely unfair to talk in public about a person who is banned from defending himself? --DenisDiderot 12:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a public place. Brandt is free do whatever he wants. Just not on wikipedia. In any case WP:NOR.Geni 13:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia is a public place. Don't you see that it can be abused to pillory someone? --DenisDiderot 13:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
wikimedia is not goverment owned. Therefor wikipedia is not public.Geni 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

NSL, how can you accept this violation of fairness principles even though you seem to be a member of Wikipedia:Esperanza which also links to the Wikipedia:Kindness_Campaign? Please think it over. There must be another solution to the problem at hand. If not, then Wikipedia is indeed seriously flawed. --DenisDiderot 13:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Brandt is hardly an "involuntary public figure." He writes published articles, is quoted in the press, and is highly opinionated and confrontational in his criticism of well-known institutions and individuals. His entry here should be fair, accurate, and NPOV. But it should not be censored due to his relentless threats and vandalism--which is what got him banned in the first place--not his complaints about content or the existence of the entry.--Cberlet 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Denis, the fact that Wikipedia is on the internet does not make it a court of law. This is a medium, like a newspaper. Newspapers do not afford people to publish rebuttals of their criticisms (or do so only very rarely), nor are we required to do so. Principles of fairness are good, but we have as a m:foundation issue, other principles we must consider first, which your text do not meet. -lethe talk + 05:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Those foundation issues don't mitigate against fairness, they tell us what the process is for striving to be completely fair. We don't allow anyone to publish a response here, or a criticism here, or anything else here - that's what the Wikipedia:No original research policy is about. We just report sourced material from elsewhere. We have included Daniel Brandt's rebuttal's of other people's criticisms in the article, we've also included other people's rebuttal's of Daniel Brandt's criticisms. That what the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy is all about - an article should include any relevant, sourced material. DenisDiderot: we most definitely do not want to pillory anyone. If there is any statement in the article which you think does not reflect the sources available, mention it here and we'll discuss it. If there is a source that represents a point of view that isn't represented in the article, then mention it here and we'll discuss it. Fairness is paramount. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about the States, but in some European countries there is something called "right of response", fr:Droit de réponse in French). This means that a newspaper must publish the response of a person who feels that an article has been incorrect or injust toward himself or his activities. If the newspaper does not do so, than the person may depose a courtsuit on charges of libel. This is why if you go to the TAlk page of fr:Imad Lahoud ([15] you will see that the French Wikipedians Administrators have published a denial from none other than Lebanese president Emile Lahoud's staff concerning the alleged family links between both persons. Although vandalism is certainly not allowed on Wikipedia, I do agree with User Diderot that it is very dangerous & should be forbidden by Wikipedia policy, if it's not, to ban for long period of time a person from editing his own article & correcting alleged mistakes, of course in cooperation with others users as in classic NPOV problems. Wikipedia is of course public, the public sphere is by no means restricted to the state, and Daniel Brandt should definitely have his ban lifted. If this ban is kept for still more time (it has been very long it seems), than we should question ourselves on the way Wikipedia accords authority to some users (administrators are, after all, ordinary users) to ban somebody against the will of a persistent minority. There should be no case of tyranny of the majority in Wikipedia, this goes against all of Wikipedia's philosophy, and makes it possible to instrumentalize Wikipedia for libel & lynching.Tazmaniacs 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lobster claws/clause & Brandt

By all means let's get some more quotes from Brandt from the Lobster article and other articles where he complains about political correctness and other issues.--Cberlet 19:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including Chip Berlet, resigned

Where is this sourced? The cite on the article page links to an article about Prouty not about board members being removed??

Also, were they removed or did they resign?? That sentence should be removed unless a specific source can be provided. Sorry if I missed it in here, this thread is getting pretty messy imho. Thanks --Tom 21:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, NOW I see the thread, but I read the sourced article and still see NO mention of board members being removed or resigning. I must be thick, I'll go grab a meal, re read the article and do MY OWN research on this :). Thanks! --Tom 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, good work. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Brandt's own article implies we all resigned. Read it carefully and it is clear that when I (Chip Berlet) asked Brandt to consider the appropriateness of what Prouty was doing and if he should be on the PIR board, Brandt simply tossed me off the PIR board. I do not consider that resigning. See: Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," Lobster, No. 24 (December 1992). Relevant text posted above on this discussion page (not online).--Cberlet 22:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I STILL don't see ANY source for this staement..."Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including Chip Berlet, resigned or were removed "....Is this the article you are referring to [16]?? I have now read it twice and see no mention of ANY board member being removed. I must be looking at the wrong article. Can you post it again here. I admitt I am NO expert on Daniel Brandt, but this article needs sourcing. Text from this talk page doesn't count, does it?? Thanks. --Tom 23:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Where are the papers available, in case anyone else wants to read them? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This is apparently going to come as a shock to some editors, but some text exists printed on paper, or in proprietary online archives, but is not posted for free on the Internet. The standard for citation on Wikipedia is text that is published by a reputable source. In this case, the Lobster magazine is a reputable source, because the article was written by Brandt himself. I have a copy of the printed article. I posted the relevant text on this page. If folks want to check it, I suggest they get a library card, or pay for access to the online Lobster archive, where the Brandt article is readily available.--Cberlet 23:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
So my local library will have this article?? This needs to be verified. Guess I'll be the one to go look for it unless somebody else wants to? Thanks --Tom 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It is likely that a local library will not have a back issue of Lobster as it is an obscure conspiracy theory alternative magazine. It may be possible to obtain a copy through inter-library loan, but it will be difficult to find it in any library. Back issues are available online for a fee. Or, for a refreshing change of pace, one could assume good faith, and assume that I have not posted phony text on this page from the copy of the Lobster article that I have already obtained.--Cberlet 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, but your repost doesn't mention that you were "removed" rather that you "resigned". Can you source that you were removed? Thanks --Tom 14:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello! For users who haven't followed all the talk issues, would you (Chip Berlet) be able to point us approximatively where is the relevant text about the Lobster article? Else, as an outsider's view on this controversy between "removed" and "resigned", it must be noted that "to resign" is frequently used in politics although it was obviously a "removal" (thus, while "removed" will precise the conditions of resignation, "to resign" does not necessarily implies that it was a "voluntary resignation", and it frequently isn't, although on the paper it seems like it is voluntary). Tazmaniacs 16:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Search this page for the name "Sklar" for the text snippet from the Lobster article. I am not going to contest just leaving in the word "resigned." I first contacted Brandt about my concerns about Prouty. Brandt contacted Prouty, and then informed me Prouty disagreed with my complaints. When I pressed Brandt, he notified me that he had simply removed my name from the board. I then wrote a formal letter of resignation to commemorate my compliants. So in the long run, it is probably fair to say I "resigned," even though I had already been kicked off by Brandt. I think I did write this all up for publication, but finding it will be a challenge. It was during the BBS days - pre-Web. So without a published source, "resigned" will have to suffice.--Cberlet 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, sounds good to me. Thanks, carry on....--Tom 14:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to pick a fight, but...

Why is there no criticism section on this article. I'll be honest, I haven't visited this page in a while, so I don't know the struggles to get it to this point. However, there are criticisms about him outing (no, not in the gay sense, Daniel) the wrong people, actively trying to harm not just Wikipedia, but the editors themselves by threatening to "run to mommy and tell on them", presenting false information as fact, etc. I know I could be more civil, and for that I apologise, but this guy has had enough criticism to warrant it. By no means do I mean to antagonise Brandt in the article, rather, simply present a referenced look into his alleged shortcomings. I am just a little tired of him, to be the truth. Night all. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 01:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, if you add in anything slightly inaccurate or biased, Daniel Brandt will threaten Jimbo Wales with a lawsuit, and Jimbo Wales will permanently delete this article via WP:Office.70.48.250.32 05:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
YKW: I suppose the reason must be that no-one yet has found the references to do so. If you know where to find them, then go ahead. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 08:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'll be good for now. I was just a little exhausted last night and didn't use my best judgment. I'll try to do better in the future. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 13:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Brandt

Moved here. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 02:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

..."sending another inocent into the flames without a reason"..what the heck did he do to user:Katefan0? I see that she retired?? Thanks, --Tom 03:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[this link] Will (E@) T 10:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the link. Sorry, Will, but as it's a link that gives personal information about her, and as she left because her privacy was violated, I think it's better not to spread the damage. All people need to know is that she received a message from Daniel Brandt on her talk page, giving her name and other details and asking her to identify herself on her user page. This was followed by lots of nasty, gloating posts on another website, with serious violations of her privacy, and references to messages being sent to people connected with her professional life. I would ask people not to post links to websites that enable the stalking of other editors, and not to get round it by referring to these websites in such a way that people can find them easily, even without being given the URL. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 22:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Brandt is making a point about anonymity, not about his page in particular. I don't think it had as much to do with Katefan0 as it did with hiding behind anonymity. His thought process is apparently that those who post material or contribute material (espcecially subjective material such as bographical data) should not be anonymous, especially if they wield power. This is diametrically opposed to what Wikipedia stands for but it is a legitimate position to have. Anonymity is antithetical to accountability. This is sort of like the "Sunshine Laws" that exist to make sure that the process lawmakers use to form laws and policy are on the up and up. It is why the Bill of Rights allows the accused to confront their accusers. Personally, I hope Katefan0's contributions to Wikipedia do not jeopardize her employment, not because I hope that anonymity protects her but because I hope her contributions would hold up to the scrutiny of examination when her identity is known. Case in point is the "Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer" saga. Phil came back after he shed anonymity after anonymity and outing caused him the same problems (actually worse) than Katefan0.--Tbeatty 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Emile Lahoud, president of Lebanon, and Wikipedia

Interestingly enough, the French Wikipedia obviously has taken another path from this one. Thus, on fr:Imad Lahoud's talk page (here it is) you will find an official disclaimer from Lebanon's president Emile Lahoud's staff: the Wikipedia article had copied a sentence from a newspaper which said that both were related. Lebanon president denied any family links, sent a "right of response" to Wikipedia admins, who put it on Imad Lahoud's talk page. A few days later, the newspaper persisted in its claims: what might have first appeared as a mistake from the newspaper (simple common name) was actually confirmed after the president's disclaimer. Thus, this was noted in Imad Lahoud's biography. This shows a very different way to approach such concerns: if Lebanon's president disclaimer certainly didn't entitle to "delete history" on Lahoud's biography, it proved to be handy in pointing out a possible error from the press — thus publishing Lebanon's president Emile Lahoud's disclaimer on Imad Lahoud's talk page actually enforced the credibility of Wikipedia, since one VIP directly concerned by the article sent his personal answer about it! And the fact that Imad Lahoud's article included both the first newspaper article, the official disclaimer (which may be read on the talk page), and the second news article reiterating the same accusation (family link) has allowed the article to point out a very real controversy that wouldn't have been perceived eitherwise; it gave both president Lahoud & the newspaper the possibility to justify themselves, and Wikipedia included, in accordance to its NPOV policy, both reactions. I point out again that I do not know about US law, but in several European countries, a newspaper is usually required to publish the answer of a targeted person in his columns, or is else liable for prosecution for libel. Wikipedia is not subjected to legal threats, which is a good thing for us; it would protect itself the better against such threats if it itself accepted to publish answers on its talk page: Brandt should be allowed, if he wanted so, to publish on this page any corrections he considered important to the article, a statement which shouldn't be modified or contested. Although it is clearly against the workings of Wikipedia to allow him to disrupt the article, it is also against Wikipedia's ethics to exclude the subject of an article from any reaction to it. NO MEDIA IN THE WORLD WORKS LIKE THAT, there is a good reason for it. It can be only to Wikipedia's credibility to enforce what has been enforced in the French Wikipedia. I hope it is clear for everyone here that I am not taking sides into Brandt's particular case, but am trying, with good faith, to help thinking about a very real privacy & ethical issue. Tazmaniacs 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Personally I don't think that would work. If you allow a 'right to respond' on your own site, with no right to modify the response, that would allow the 'responder' unlimited pulpit to villify anyone and anything, without the subjects being able to respond in the same context. I think setting up Web sites is trivial and inexpensive nowadays. All that's needed to be fair is a link to the subject's site where he or she refute any accusation and make their own case. Letting them have free reign in your own site does not make sense and is not practical. Crum375 19:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/n/Talk%7EDaniel_Brandt_Archive_5_f364.html"