Talk:Public Information Research/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Sourcing

An anon has added quite a bit of information, which we need sources for: for example, that he was born in China in 1947, that his parents were missionaries, his education, what he does now professionally, and that he introduced Philip Agee etc to microcomputing. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Brandt introducing Agee to microcomputing is covered in the CounterPunch source. Unsigned by User: 69.91.29.98
Thanks. Also just to point this out: Wikipedia:Autobiography. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Daniel, it would be appreciated if you would stop editing this article, as editors are strongly discouraged from editing pages about themselves; and in particular, please don't delete valid references or external links. I'm leaving this on your talk page too. --SlimVirgin (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


My edit got deleted...

... so I continue discussion on my own server: http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-10-29-n72.html. --Philipp

There was no reason for this article to be deleted. It did not go through AfD, and it did not qualify under CSD A7, because it asserts that the subject is notable. I have restored it. --Canderson7 20:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
This is good to know. I'll keep an eye on this article. --Philipp


Brandt

I think the article is no longer a stub. I looks pretty NPOV. This guy is definatly worthy of an article and protesting his own worthlessness is touching but only serves to add to his includability. The article seems neutral and sourced so I removed the tags.

Mr Brandt: Wikipedia demands that all article represent the point of view of a neutral bystander. This obviously precludes you from editing an article about yourself. "Blanking" an article is also very poor form. Congratulations Mr. Brandt: you have made it into an encyclopeida. If you carry on your many works you may get similarly "punished" by other encyclopedias too!

Yours truly, jucifer 02:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Huh? You call this knowledge?

I picked up this Brandt issue from a cross-link on Cryptome, which had led me to believe that the page had been deleted. However, upon looking at it, I have to agree this looks like a vendetta by someone with Wikipedia admin powers. Brandt, whoever he is, isn't important enough to merit an article. But apparently he has made some enemies who are not afraid, in a Scooter Libby-like manner, to publish a smear that can't be undone, due to the heavy scraping of Wikipedia pages by other sites. My opinion of Wikipedia has fallen dramatically as a result of witnessing this, which I would liken to a "database of enemies." The Wiki concept is flawed because it's too easy to abuse its very high ranking to smear people who are not public figures. Or is anyone who puts up a website or sends an e-mail now a public figure? This is extremely chilling, and if you don't create policies against it, will certainly lead to grief. Otherwise apparently I could ingratiate myself as an admin, and then assemble unfavorable public info on anyone I don't like. This is a road to hell. --Anon. Unsigned by User:ConcernedReader51

I'm not going to get involved in this, but I have to put paid to the nonsense that the original stub was created as a "vendetta by someone with Wikipedia admin powers." I wrote the original stub on September 28 because I saw Daniel Brandt's name come up in an article as a red link. My stub read: "Daniel Brandt is an American left-wing political activist and writer, and the founder of Google Watch and Namebase." That was all it said.
In the references section, I added links to Google Watch, Namebase, and for the sake of NPOV, Google Watch Watch.
It was the Google Watch Watch link that Brandt objected to. He started adding content, and as I recall, most of the content apart from the first sentence stub was written by him, and there was nothing derogatory in it, except a reference to the Salon article about him.
I have nothing to do with the current content. --SlimVirgin (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Y'know, anon, it is strange, but you sound like Brandt himself. Your use of "Scraping", your hyperbole ("This is a road to hell.", your bad grammar (which I've fixed, no need to thank me), and your peculiar insistence, that while Brandt has sought publicity through his google-watch thingy, been mentioned in articles (I see you mentioned in a Wired article on [1]]), and by most lights is a public figure, he nevertheless does not merit an article. There is a great difference between "puts up a website or sends an e-mail" and setting up a website and storm of publicity sufficient to see print in Wired. And your assertion that Wikipedia is a "database of enemies." is laughable- we have over 700,000 articles. That's a lot of enemies. --Maru (talk) Contribs 07:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I took a look for some POV in the article, and everything except this is either neutral or Brandt's own words:
"While his criticism is often harsh in style and some think Brandt's content is close to conspiracy theories, the articles also often focus on issues worthy of discussion. "
Strikes me as POV. --Maru (talk) Contribs 07:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Before I was getting screwed, but now it's a gang rape

I want to go on record and object to this entire article getting resurrected by a Google-lapdog blogger named Philipp Lenssen, who must be one of the only bloggers to get his blog covered enthusiastically by Google News. Yes, it could very well be a conspiracy. But of course, Wikipedia doesn't believe that conspiracies exist.

Before today I felt I was getting screwed, but now I feel like I'm getting gang-raped.

For legal reasons I will not try to improve the article. It should evolve without my intervention at this point. I've already established that my efforts to delete the thing will be unsuccessful, and I'd likely get banned if I try again. I beg some responsible administrators to delete it for me.

Everyone should read the Forbes Magazine cover story on blogging. My experience with Wikipedia tells me that the worst aspects of anonymous blogging are similar to the worst aspects of Wikipedia. Both need to be regulated by legislation. Daniel Brandt 10:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I guess now I'm part of the conspiracy as well; sweeet. As for me being the only blog in Google News... check your facts, you are wrong. --Philipp
I take full responsibility for the restructuring of this article. I think it is an exelent article and I will defend it. Phillipp Lennsen had no part in this whatever. Maybe I work for Google? You will never know. jucifer 21:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
We have every right to keep this page, if it contains verified, factual information. It is not a privacy invasion. The very fact that it can be verified, is in fact a sign that it is not a violation of privacy; for one it is likely you exposed yourself by starting your site in the first place as a side effect. Anyhow, it seems you like to make legal threats... --Natalinasmpf 02:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


Sources

Juicifer, I don't want to edit this page because Brandt has said I'm not neutral, but I have a few queries about the sources you're using. We quote him and so we need to cite a source. The quote seems to be on the main page of this website, [2] which in turn seems to attribute it to a book by John Cummings (although it's not clear what the attribution is). Then when we say that he attributes war and peace to NAAFTA, GATT and so on, we again link to that website [3] but it doesn't show that Brandt himself said this. There's an article on that site here [4] by Brandt, but it's not clear he says it there either. The person who maintains the website says above the article that he added something about Skull and Bones in square brackets. Similarly with the claim that he believes Google is involved with the CIA: that needs to be sourced either to a credible third-party source or to Brandt himself. Also, I wouldn't say he "describes himself as the operator of ..." Rather, he is the operator of. And "claims to have been an anti-war activist" should be says he was an anti-war activist, or better still, was an anti-war activist, according to X (Salon, Wired, his website - whatever the source is). And that his middle name is Leslie - are you certain of that? Sorry about all the questions. ;-) --SlimVirgin (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I might have made a mistake there- I'll check out posthaste. Yes his middle name is Leslie. He uses his middle initial sometimes. Eg. on amazon.com. He is in the public records as such, and the case below is also him.
You are right about the "claims to be", still, i can only find the antiwar in his own words in one way or another, but there is no reason to doubt it. --jucifer 15:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The citation was wrong: It should have been http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8425/, where the statement is attributed to "Daniel Brandt". I will now change it appropriately. --jucifer 15:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Jucifer, the GATT etc quote is:
"Spearheading the speculative thrust are organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, GATT, Trilateral Commission, NAFTA, and now the World Trade Organization. These organizations front for elites in the Northern hemisphere. The IMF and World Bank dangle much-needed loans in front of developing countries, which are granted only after the country's bankers and politicians agree to follow certain free-market policies. This policy wish-list is drawn up by multinational corporations and speculators, and results in a shift of power away from the workers in these countries. The multinational elites who dictate these policies amount to a de facto world government. Sometimes they call themselves the "New World Order.""
And it comes from here, [5] an article by Brandt from 1996. But he's not attributing war and peace to all these groups: maybe that's what he meant, but that's not what he said, at least not here. I'd say the website we're relying on [6] can't be regarded as a credible source, because it looks like some kind of personal website, and they've lifted Brandt's words out of context. Better to take the quote from an article that does seem to have been written by Brandt himself. --SlimVirgin (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Draft

I came across this info which is the transcript of Brandt's case appealing his convictions in the late 60s. For some reason it is only avaliable in cashe from google - going to the site direct is blocked. So for safe keeping here it is in full:

435 F.2d 324, U.S. v. Brandt, (C.A.9 (Cal.) 1970)

Page 324


435 F.2d 324


UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Daniel Leslie BRANDT, Appellant.


No. 25486.


United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.


Dec. 4, 1970.

Martha Goldin (argued), Alan Saltzman, Hollywood, Cal., for appellant.

David Fox (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before BARNES and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, District judge. *

PER CURIAM:

Defendant, Daniel L. Brandt, was tried and convicted for failure to report

Page 325

for physical examination and refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces of the United States. (50 U.S.C.App. 462) We reverse.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendant registered with the Selective Service on December 27, 1965. He was initially classified I-A, but appealed that decision and was reclassified II-S (Student) on November 4, 1966. On February 5, 1968, the Board classified Brandt II-S until October, 1968. The Notice of Classification form sent to defendant was returned in its original envelope marked 'Refused-- Daniel L. Brandt.' After receiving letters from the Department of Justice and the California Headquarters of the Selective Service System disclosing that Brandt had relinquished his registration and classification cards and had expressed support and sympathy for another individual who had been indicted for violation of the Selective Service laws, the Board sent a warning to Brandt stating that it was considering declaring him to be delinquent for failure to have in his possession a registration certificate. On June 6, 1968, Brandt was classified I-A and was ordered to report for physical examination on June 12, 1968. Defendant failed to report. A second warning of possible imposition of delinquency status was sent to Brandt specifically referring to his failure to possess a notice of classification card and failure to report for physical examination. Brandt was declared delinquent on December 20, 1968, and was ordered to report for induction, as a delinquent, on January 7, 1969. He reported to the induction station on that date but refused induction.

II. BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION

To qualify for a II-S (Student) classification, a registrant must request deferment and be satisfactorily pursuing a full-time course of instruction at a college, university or similar institution of learning (C.F.R. 1622.25). Brandt's Selective Service file reveals that he submitted a Request for Undergraduate Student Deferment on October 25, 1967. He also presented evidence to the Board showing that he was pursuing a full-time course of instruction at the University of Southern California. On these facts, after an appeal of his initial I-A classification, Brandt was given a II-S deferment which terminated June, 1967. On February 5, 1968, the Board, having been notified that Brandt was still enrolled at the University, renewed Brandt's deferment until October, 1968. At that time there was no question that Brandt was entitled to the student deferment.

Despite the fact that Brandt was entitled to a II-S classification, the Board discontinued his deferment and reclassified him I-A on June 6, 1968. The Military Selective Service Act provides three grounds upon which a II-S classification may be discontinued. They are 1) completion of the requirements for a baccalaureate degree; 2) failure to pursue satisfactorily a full-time course of instruction; or 3) attainment of the twenty-fourth anniversary of the date of birth; whichever occurs first. In reclassifying Brandt I-A the Board gave no reason for its action. Nevertheless, the district court found that Brandt's student classification ended on June 6, 1968, and that he refused his II-S classification when he returned the classification certificate to the Board. Neither of these was sufficient basis to justify reclassification.

June 6, 1968, the date listed on the Student Certificate from the University of Southern California as the close of the Spring semester, standing alone could have no bearing on Brandt's deferment. Selective Service regulations provide that 'in determining eligibility for deferment in Class II-S, a student's 'academic year' shall include the twelve month period following the beginning of his course of study.' Brandt's 'course of study' for his third year began September 18, 1967. Therefore, his academic year for purposes of qualifying for a II-S classification extended at

Page 326

minimum until September 18, 1968. In fact, the Board did classify Brandt II-S and in doing so did state that the classification would exist until October, 1968. Because Brandt was only in his third year of a four-year program, he would not complete the requirements for his baccalaureate degree on June 6, 1968. Nor could he be considered as having failed to pursue satisfactorily a full-time course of instruction as of that date. Nor was he twenty-four years of age. Therefore, the Board and the district court had no basis for finding that Brandt's student classification ended on June 6, 1968.

Return of the Notice of Classification marked 'Refused-- Daniel L. Brandt' did not constitute a basis for reclassification. As we stated above, the statute provides three grounds, and only three, upon which a II-S classification can be terminated. There is no provision for an implied rejection of the classification by a registrant entitled thereto. This is not to state that a registrant might not specifically request revocation of his II-S status. But refusal and return of an envelope containing a Notice of Classification falls far short of a specific request for revocation of the deferment which was provided by Congress and to which Brandt was entitled. 1

Since neither completion of the Spring semester on June 6, 1968, nor refusal of the envelope containing his Notice of Classification supported reclassification of Brandt, there was no basis for the I-A classification, and Brandt was entitled as a matter of law to a student deferment. Consequently, the Board acted in excess of its authority in this instance.

III. COUNT ONE

Section 1628.11 of the Selective Service regulations provides that the Board shall mail an order to report for examination to registrants classified I-A, I-A-O, and I-O. Additionally, the Board may order for examination registrants classified other than I-A, I-A-O, or I-O, if it determines that induction may occur shortly. In this instance, the Board acted beyond its authority in classifying Brandt I-A. Brandt by law was entitled to a student deferment. Because his I-A classification was invalid and because he was entitled to a status other than I-A, I-A-O, or I-O, Brandt could only be ordered to report for examination if the Board specifically determined that Brandt's induction would occur shortly. (Section 1628.11 Selective Service Reg.) That determination was not made. Consequently, Brandt's order to report for examination was unlawful, and therefore he was not under a duty to report. 2 Brandt's conviction for failure to report is reversed.

IV. COUNT TWO

Subsequent to Brandt's failure to report for pre-induction examination, the Local Board declared him delinquent, pursuant to 32 C.F.R. 1642.13, and ordered him to report for induction as a delinquent. This regulation requiring accelerated induction of delinquents was held unlawful in Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U.S. 295, 90 S.Ct. 506, 24 L.Ed.2d 532 (1970). Furthermore, in United States v. Thomas, 422 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1970), this Court held that a presumption exists, absent a showing to the contrary, that the induction was accelerated. The government made no attempt

Page 327

to show that Brandt was called for service in the normal course. Therefore, Gutknecht and Thomas together support reversal of Brandt's conviction for failure to submit to induction. Nevertheless, the instant case was tried prior to Gutknecht, and the government now requests that the case be remanded for a hearing on the issue of acceleration.

We find that the facts of this case are inappropriate for consideration of a remand for hearing. Here, Brandt's I-A classification was without basis in fact or law. He was entitled by right to a II-S deferment of which he was unlawfully deprived. His induction order based on the erroneous classification was invalid. For this reason, Brandt's conviction is reversed. In so reversing, this Court does not reach the Gutknecht claim which would provide an alternative ground for reversal. Because the reversal is not founded on Gutknecht there is no reason to remand for a hearing to determine the issue of acceleration.

  • Hon. Fred M. Taylor, Chief Judge, United States District Court, District of Idaho, sitting by designation.

1 If the Board questioned Brandt's desire to continue his student deferment it could have made inquiry to ascertain the facts of the situation. Lewis v. Secretary, Dept. of the Army, 402 F.2d 813 (9th Cir. 1968)

2 This decision does not conflict with the dictum of McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969) which indicated that an invalid classification would not be a defense for failure to report for physical examination. McKart involved an erroneous interpretation by the Board of the statutory provision establishing deferments for sole surviving sons. Here, the statute was not misinterpreted. Rather, the Board acted in direct disregard of the clear deferment standards. A conviction resulting from disobedience of the Board's unlawful order would be an injustice.

--jucifer 15:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Protected

Due to some serious vandalism as of late, I've protected this article. I'll unblock in a while

I have just unprotected it. This article is new, and it shouldn't remain protected for too long. --Canderson7 19:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
From WP:ANI:
There's been some tag-team blanking of this page after it was unprotected earlier by Canderson. It didn't take long for it to draw attention. I'll leave it alone for a little while and leave notes for some of the involved admins. If people can help us out and keep an eye on it I'll unprotect it again, or if someone has some ideas on how to treat this. --Rx StrangeLove 22:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll take the protection off again in a bit. Rx StrangeLove 22:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I unprotected it for now, please work out issues here. --Rx StrangeLove 16:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to try unprotecting the article again. As you've seen by now, vandalism will have no effect on the content of this article and will just result in more blocking and page protection. The best approach is to provide verifiable corrections to this article on the talk page, without resorting to legal threats. Rhobite 16:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Brantdt at it again

It appears that Brandt has been editing his own article again. Removing the google-watch-watch link as usual. I will review the changes made. --jucifer 21:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

X-Y-Z-Watch Vs Wikipedia

A simple comment to the author of wikipedia-watch.org:

You have all rights to defend your case here by discussing everything you find not fair to you. Still, here you can speak loudly, argue, discuss and contribute. The problem is that it is not the case at the X-Y-Z-watch.orgs! Nobody can blank them, nobody can contribute to them as nobody except their author got access to that! Anything can be said and argued there without any interference. That's the right of the author. Wikipedia is not the case. If there are POV statements, they should be discussed and removed. At least, we are not telling the world here that the subject of this article is a secret policeman! Besides, I like your websites. I really do! So please thank nature for being that lucky!

And a simple advice:

2 things are facts; we cannot remove this article as no one can remove the watch.org's. Therefore, participate in the discussions so we can avoid POV and enhace this article. -- Svest 00:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

My lawyer says I should not add to the piece this time around

This article began on September 28. I was not notified that it existed, despite the fact that SlimVirgin had contact information for me. I discovered it by accident about two weeks later. After a few days of working on it together, SlimVirgin and I agreed to a deletion. Jimmy Wales was aware of the situation at that time.

A few days ago, a Wikipedia secret policeman undeleted it. This is a fair description of Canderson7. He told me himself that his identity is secret, and his own user page describes his police functions at Wikipedia: "I mainly spend my time patrolling for anons' vandalism and rolling it back."

Now editors, anonymous and otherwise, can edit it. My position is that the entire article should be deleted permanently. My lawyer says that I should not participate in the editing at this point. For one thing, it has been made clear to me that while I am free to express my opinions on this "Talk" page, I have no business editing the article. It is very unclear to me that my opinions will have any positive bearing on the article under these conditions. But the main reason is that legal counsel advises me that to try and improve the article at this point, I will in fact be weakening my case for deletion. I am advised to let it develop, and then see if there is cause to sue for damages.

If I can make a case for defamation of character, then Wikimedia Foundation might be required by a court to provide IP addresses for those who made defamatory edits. Next, their Internet Service Providers might be required to identify them by name and billing address. The trustees of the Foundation might also be liable, for allowing this activity to go forward.

Right now I don't see any damages worth the expense of a lawsuit. But if this article ends up number one on major search engines in a search for my name, while remaining in its present condition, then it would be in my interests to sue for damages. If Canderson7, the secret policeman, regards this as a legal threat, then he should do what he feels he must do to remedy the situation.

All I have to say is that I want the whole thing deleted, permanently.

By the way, Jimmy Wales, or the Foundation, or any of you are welcome to sue Wikipedia Watch, just as I am entitled to sue you. But remember, I didn't start this whole thing -- you did. I'm trying to finish it. Daniel Brandt 01:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Will your supporters stop blanking the article if we unprotect it? We should be able to work this out here on the talk page. As far as I know you're free to edit it as long as you edit within the guidelines set forth here WP:POL. Rx StrangeLove 02:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Good deal Dan. Indeed, why Wikipedia would sue WikiWatch? -- Svest 02:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
  • The only reason that this article is "remaining in its present condition" is because of your supporters' vandalism of it. If you are willing to call them off, I'm sure that you will be able to work with us to create a neutral and informative article. Canderson7 02:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh for goodness sakes, stop with the empty threats and stop violating WP:NLT. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
So ban me, Mr. Asche, but stop insulting my intelligence.
How have I insulted your intelligence. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I tell my supporters the same thing I just told everyone: I want the article deleted permanently.

There's a massive problem with your assumption that the article can be made "neutral" before it shows up on the search engines. The problem is that the search engines show a snippet and a link. Just before someone clicks on that link, the article may have been changed to a non-neutral state by some anonymous editor. The number of search-engine users who consider the search engine's cache copy, or study the history of the article, are probably less than one percent.

Moreover, scraper sites will grab the article, and "freeze" the article in whatever state of disrepair it happens to be in at that moment. The scraper sites are trying to sell ads, for the most part, and are not interested in the latest or the best version of anything on Wikipedia. All they want is some content -- any content.

The article must be deleted permanently. My supporters don't need me to tell them whether it's deleted or not. They can see for themselves. If they click on edit and blank the page, then that's their vote for deletion. They are fully capable of deciding for themselves whether it is a proper thing to do in this case. Daniel Brandt 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We have a deletion process in place, why don't you show that you're willing to work with us and at least try it. Bullying us isn't going to work and it's no fun for anyone. We can work out a version that we're both happy with, I'm sure. But we can't do that when the article is always protected, and it's protected because your supporters keep blanking it. The longer it stays in this version the more time it has to replicate to all the content user sites. If you're not happy with the state it's in you're not doing yourself any favors by vandalising it like this. It just perpetuates the vandal/blanking-protection cycle.
People that are blanking the page aren't "voting" for deletion, they are vandalising it. Vandalism is a blockable offense and if that's the only way to stop it that's what's going to happen. No one wants that but we need someway to break out of this cycle we've found ourselves in. So how about stopping blanking and start working on a version everyone can live with? Rx StrangeLove 04:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Could any users who think this article needs work please indicate what needs to be done? Simply saying that there are problems, without specifying, makes it hard to address the issues. And yes, if anyone wants to nominate this article for deletion, then they are welcome to do so. -Willmcw 04:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the problem

The problem Brandt appears to have is not the content of the article. His problem is the existance of the article at all, since it can be changed by anyone at any time, and he is afraid that it will achieve high google ranking, perhaps even be the first result for his name.

If Brandt will relent on this, this article should be fine. Otherwise there is quite an impasse. Has this ever happrned in wikipedia before?

jucifer 05:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Juicifer is making a good point. In fact, despite my lawyer's advice, I would like to make a minor correction to the article. Jimmy Wales did make the comment in an email to me that it was "an impossible and absurd request." That is reported under "Wikipedia." But the comment that Mr. Wales made was not to my request for permanent deletion, but rather to my suggestion that the only way I could allow an article to go forward is if it was agreeable to me, and it was also locked against future changes. That's what he considered "an impossible and absurd request." It wasn't the deletion question. On deletion, he declined to take a position.

Here's the bottom line: Let's delete my article and take up the problem of live-person-defamation by anonymous editors, in the context of today's reality of everyone "googling" everything. This is a massive potential liability problem for Wikipedia, and it is quite possible that my case is the first time it has come up. That's probably because I am conscious of search engines, and I have experience with aggressive search engine marketers and optimizers "namebombing" me just because it was possible and fun for them.

Delete my article, and when you get new policies in place that address this issue, start up a new stub on me and notify me that it has been started.

This isn't just for me. I'm simply someone who is hypersensitive to this issue. If you don't address it here, sooner or later it will come around and bite Wikipedia. My reading of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 tells me that Wikipedia does NOT qualify for the protections granted to "service providers," because Wikipedia is the originator of the material that might be defamatory. Google, on the other hand, does qualify -- they simply "pass through" whatever they find. Therefore, this is an issue that must be addressed by Wikipedia, and soon.

Procedures need to be put into place at Wikipedia so that live persons cannot be defamed by Wikipedia through clicks that come from a search engine. Let's face it, almost all of your clicks come into Wikipedia this way. For articles on live persons, it seems to me that you need to do this: a) attempt to notify the person that an article is in progress if they are less famous than, for example, Jane Fonda or Bill Gates; 2) work with them and negotiate the content if they want to participate; and 3) lock it down against further editing, until or unless the cycle needs to be repeated due to new information.

Let's stop fighting and recognize that there's an opportunity here to nip a huge problem in the bud, simply by instituting some new, common-sense policies for live persons.Daniel Brandt 06:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We only publish material that has already been published by credible publications. See our policy Wikipedia:No original research. This means there should be no material in anyone's bio that doesn't already exist in the public domain. You'll recall during our discussions regarding the first version of your article that I was asking you for published sources for your edits; this wasn't because I didn't believe you, but simply because our articles are not allowed to contain any original material. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
"We only publish material that has already been published by credible publications." Cmon, now. At any one moment in time Wikipedia is awash with all sorts of conjecture, hypothesis and misremembering. Adrian

You want to make a minor correction but you can't because the article is protected, and it's protected because of all the blanking that's been happening. Can you help with stopping the blanking? Then maybe we can make some progress. Rx StrangeLove 07:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, you make it very hard for any progress to happen on this article when you repeatedly blank the page and issue legal threats. Further legal threats could lead to you losing your Wikipedia editing privileges. Rhobite 13:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone put this on my talkpage:-

Brandt files a "John Doe" lawsuit against Juicifer for defamation of character, and stipulates that by information and belief, Wikimedia Foundation has access to John Doe's IP address. The court orders Wikimedia Foundation to provide said IP address.

Brandt gets another court order requiring Juicifer's Internet Service Provider to provide Juicifer's name and address.

Brandt sues Juicifer and collects damages, because in the two years since the lawsuit was filed, the Wikipedia entry has been number one on the search engines. Juicifer portrays Brandt as a common felon for "refusing to appear for a physical" and "delinquency," when in fact the information that he was a draft resister who publicly opposed the draft, and refused a student deferment, and refused induction, is clear in the Ninth Circuit decision that Juicifer either hasn't bothered to read, or deliberately spins to defame Brandt.

Felony convictions are not taken lightly by employers, and in those two years Brandt has not been able to get a job because all the applications ask about felony convictions, and he is no longer able to deny this on applications.

Juicifer showed incompetence and/or malice by emphasizing the conviction in a manner that suggested criminality, rather than emphasizing the reversal by a higher court, and properly treating the whole situation as public, nonviolent, civil disobedience against U.S. policy in Vietnam. Juicifer claimed at the time that she did this that "Brandt has no say in the matter whatsoever" with respect to how his history is described by Juicifer.

Brandt then sues Wikimedia Foundation for allowing Juicifer's incompetence and/or malice to remain uncorrected on Wikipedia, after Brandt took all reasonable steps to try to get the article on him deleted, and despite being aware that Wikipedia articles are ranked very highly on all major search engines. Brandt collects more damages, this time from Wikimedia Foundation.

Does this sound like fun to you, Juicifer? 67.18.208.251 01:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is very threatening and unpleasant and I graciously request the support of contributors and administrators in dealing with this bile.

jucifer 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

PS: this is the relevant passage:

He was convicted of failure to report for a pre-induction examination and delinquency after his student deferment classification was erroneously withdrawn by the local Selective Service System in December 1968. Brandt appealed [5] in 1970 and his convictions were quashed on the grounds that he was entitled to student status as an undergraduate at USC and this had been erroneously withdrawn.

That is an accurate perspective on events. I think it paints Brandt in a near heroic light. I read the case through, and this was precisely the implications of the case-report.

I must respond to Brandt's false claim that he "refused a student deferment". Brandt did not refuse a student deferment, in fact, on the contrary: he asked for one and his request was refused - a descicion he contested, at which point he was granted one - he held one for two years and when he was deprived of it he sued for its retroactive reinstatement - which was done. It is all outlined with prefect clarity in the case conveniently reprinted above under the title "Draft". To be generous I am sure that this misrecollection was innocent on his part - it has been 35 years after all. I on the other hand read the case on Sunday.

It appears to have been withdrawn through the error of the SSS. He was convicted on two counts which were overturned. There are 31 words detailing his conviction and 30 detailing the successful appeal.

I think it is utterly fair and balanced, to borrow a phrase. If there were more details available about Brandt's resisting the draft, it would be great to include them. If he could furnish some sources, I bet they could add colour to the article.

PPS: This whole turn of events in quite upsetting. I started on this article since I was rather taken by Brandt and his non-conformist provocative and sometimes well informed writings on Google. The idea of one man - on his own - taking on "God" as many see it is an heroic image.

Instead it appears that as always, freedom of expression is a one way street in the mind of a narcissist.

jucifer 06:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


SlimVirgin, I appreciate your input because I have high regard for your editing and writing abilities when you are not biased. But for every source you come up with about me, I can show you several that are more credible on the very same topic. I don't understand your point here. Who knows better what various sources are available about a person than the person himself? What I've suggested can still be based on external, independent, reliable sources.

From my perspective, the problem is that when the person himself is not involved in the process, other editors are not aware of the sources that may be out there, and everything can easily get skewed. This was illustrated in my case. There are books -- BOOKS -- that mention me, but since they are not on the web, with convenient links, they get ignored. What IS on the web, to take the place of books, are namebombers and Google-lovers who specialize in making money by spamming Google with affiliate sites, ads, and blogs. Which do you consider more reliable? In the absence of knowing about the books, you don't have much choice, do you?

Juicifer, I wrote "Refused" on the envelope containing the 2-S deferment card. The Ninth Circuit decided that the draft board should have inquired further about my intentions -- was I refusing an envelope that had been unopened, or was I refusing the student deferment? Instead, they declared me delinquent and accelerated my induction. Then I refused induction. Anyway, it's a small point. I was a member of the nationwide organization known as "The Resistance," which advocated noncooperation with the draft. I organized draft-card turn-ins. I organized speeches by David Harris at USC. I burned my draft card on national network television when Edmund Muskie, who was running for vice-president, came to speak at USC (look it up in the New York Times, October 5, 1968). I was an active draft counselor. The thing about courts and the draft law is that you could not introduce big issues such as "justifiable war," or "the draft as sex discrimination." You go into court on very technical issues. If you win, you stay out of prison, and you get two extra years of organizing. I was a draft resister.Daniel Brandt 07:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We never turn down information from the person the bio is about. I've written and contributed to a few and I often contact the subject at some point to ask for sources, or to ask them to read the piece for accuracy. You're right that what's online tends to be given priority, but only because it's easier. If you can give us the names of the books, and citations to the articles that aren't online, we can certainly look for them. Or you can quote on the talk page the material you feel should be included, with a full citation. If we have that, there's no reason it can't go in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
While autobiography is discouraged here (because it usually leads to one of several different problems), it is not forbidden. We are anxious to fix any factual or POV problems in our articles, remove any libels, and if it takes the participation of the subject to do so then it won't be the end of the world. (in the old Encyclopedia Britannica, subjects often contributed substantially to their own articles, albeit in a non-interactive manner.) What is most important for us here and now is maintaining a neutral point of view and verifiability. Also, let's remember that it is still possible to nominate this article for deletion. I don't think it would pass due to the notability of the subject, the amount of verifiable information available, and the length of the article. If Wikipedia succeeds in its purpose then no rational subject should object to their biography here. I hope we meet our own aspirations. -Willmcw 08:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree, though just to clarify, when I said we don't turn down information from the person we're writing about, I meant on the talk page. As Will says, the most important thing is to maintain neutrality and verifiability, and if everyone can agree on that, there's no reason we can't produce an article all parties will be pleased with. It can't be formally protected on any particular version, but if enough people have it on their watchlists, we can make sure it doesn't deteriorate. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

just passing through.....

Yesterday I made some slight-but-important alterations to the Daniel Brandt page, and I see now that the page has been locked down. Hope my changes weren't to blame. I was merely trying to shave off some of the rough edges while leaving the essential info of both the pro-Brandt and anti-Brandt people intact.

Most notably, I removed the "he claims to" phrase and any similar language, which is rather loaded spin, it seemed to me. I jettisoned the long quote about NAFTA and GATT because it seemed to serve no other purpose than paint the man as a conspiracy nut. Whether or not he actually said it is immaterial: we've all said things that don't necessarily need to be our major epitaph.

I also honed some of the perceived spin off the comments on Chris Beasley's anti-Brandt page, although personally, I feel it has no place on Brandt's wikipedia page at all. Even after my softening of language that could lead some to cry anti-Brandt bias, I still think the page feels extremely weighted against him. Especially knowing that he objects to its existence in the first place, for which I can't blame him.

I don't think his Google-Watch website, nor the ensuing attention, qualifies him for the same sort of "anyone can hang your dirty laundry in public and you have no recourse" status that we expect for, say, George W. Bush or Britney Spears. I'm sure Scooter Libby and friends would have loved the idea of doing a Wikipedia page all about Valerie Plame. edited by 216.78.217.117

Your alterations are all still included in the article, except for the part where you softened the language about Brandt's draft dodging conviction. There seems to be enough evidence that he was convicted, so there's no need to say things like he was "reportedly" convicted. Rhobite 16:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Open letter

I must say, this is positively dot org/ bizarre. Here is the letter in full:

---

Public Information Research, Inc.

PO Box 680635

San Antonio, TX 78268-0635


October 16, 2005

Mr. Jimmy Wales

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

200 2nd Avenue South, #358

St. Petersburg FL 33701-4313


Dear Mr. Wales:


I sent you an email a couple of hours ago requesting deletion of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt and am following that email with this fax. I ask that this page be permanently deleted. It was started as a stub by SlimVirgin on September 28, apparently acting as an authorized agent of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. This anonymous person started the stub without my knowledge, and cited sources for information on me without vetting these sources.


She and I went back and forth on this piece for several days, and she reverted me more than once. In the end, I remained unsatisfied with my ability to influence this article about me, particularly with respect to the sources cited. At this point I renewed my original request to have the entire thing deleted.


Since I sent my email to you, she put it into delete status. She says that she was able to do this because she and I were the only two who contributed to the piece, and we both agreed to the deletion. She also says that any other admins can undo this speedy deletion if they add an edit.


I am asking you to insure that no other admins can undo the deletion. I presume that you and the directors of Wikimedia Foundation are legally responsible for the actions of your anonymous administrators.


I consider this entire episode a privacy violation. My only interest in trying to shape the article was to determine how much power I had to address this situation short of a deletion. I am now satisfied that I lack sufficient power, and ask that it remain deleted permanently.


Sincerely,

Daniel Brandt President

---

Seems wierd. All sources are public: I don't consider this to be a privacy problem. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't a privacy problem. But he is very persistent. We can't seem to keep this page unprotected, he won't stop blanking it from ever changing IPs. How do we break out of this blanking/protection cycle? Rx StrangeLove 07:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This letter is very odd indeed. It's hard to imagine anyone sending something like that to a newspaper, magazine, or even an online news source. Since when have any of those required the subject's permission or allowed the vetting of sources? In any case, we should address this just like any other article, and try to make sure that it is NPOV and verifiable. If it is NPOV then it should be acceptable to Brandt, who I'm sure is a reasonable fellow. Consensus is another important value, and clearly we don't have a consensus when one person is loudly opposing the content. As I understand it, the only point of contention right now is over the draft matter. Is that right? Can we bring that material here to work on it if it's presently too volatile for the article page? I'm sure we can work this out to everyone's satisfaction. -Willmcw 16:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Was this article AfD'd? If yes, why isn't the discussion linked, if no, I think it should be.
  2. Is Brandt notable enough to have an article? Given how much of the material is about Google Watch (or else not particularly notable), why not just have that article?
  3. Is someone pursuing a personal agenda against Brandt by adding misleading information to Criticism (eg the out-of-context quote from the Salon article; not saying who Beasley is) and links as obviously unencyclopedic as this and as of dubious value as a source as this?

Brandt's reaction may have been disproportionate in any number of ways, but he clearly has grounds for concern. His over-reaction may have obscured those grounds, but they should not be ignored. Rd232 talk 13:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

I note that User:Philwiki changed what looks like a reasonable draft (16 October) [7] to something quite different: [8]. created a new version after the previous reasonable draft was deleted by SlimVirgin after discussion with Brandt. After minor revisions based on that new version, Juicifer created [9] what is essentially the current version, including the Criticism section that I found objectionable (in context I guess this was good faith, but perhaps poor research). Subsequent changes were relatively minor, until the blanking war started; and finally I had a stab at NPOVing the criticism section this morning. Rd232 talk 14:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Proposal:
  1. Take the reasonable draft [10] as a base, merging additional encyclopedic material generated since then;
  2. AfD on grounds of notability, and see what happens (whether Delete or not, the GoogleWatch-related info should go in that article)
  3. Request User:Philwiki not to make similarly large edits to this and related articles again without prior discussion (as indeed all such major changes should ideally be discussed first). (see below)
  4. Request Brandt (and anon users blanking the article) to give Wikipedia the chance to regulate itself by either deleting the article if appropriate or turning it into something acceptable by Wikipedia standards (NPOV, factual, etc). Rd232 talk 14:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to point a couple things out. First of all, there's no "blanking war" There's a user that persistantly vandalizes a page. And as far as AFD, it's been pointed out to him further up the page that AFD is an option that he could try, as could anyone. We've requested that the blanking stop as I'm sure you saw a few sections up but with no success. There's no way that we can get a version that everyone can live with until he stops vandalizing the article.

Having said all that, if you think that the changes you made answers some of his concerns I'm happy to unprotect it and see how it goes. Rx StrangeLove 15:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I endorse Rd232's approach. -Willmcw 16:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
It's a step in the right direction for sure. As long as there's editing going on it should be unprotected, so let's see how it goes. Rx StrangeLove 16:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Recent comments by Brandt (which led to him being blocked) have destroyed my remaining sympathy for him. But even ignoring the (probably baseless) legal threats, for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation, as well as on principle, I believe we should go down the road I suggested. As I'm trying to be on a wikibreak, I hope someone else can take up the baton. Rd232 talk 16:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure thing. I'll do it. Linuxbeak | Talk 16:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this too. Good idea Rd232. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Well since people seem to agree, I've reverted to the "reasonable draft" of 16 October, prior to PhilWiki's intervention. Some material will need copying from the version people were working on just now [11], but it should be rewritten in the process. "Trivia", for example, is not that at all - it was a sort of attempted WP:POINT on the part of Brandt directed at Google, and very relevant to his criticism of Google PageRank. "Criticism" should be similarly abolished, and relevant material taken as part of a new GoogleWatch section. Rd232 talk 18:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I think we're making some progress with the article, but the question remains - is it worth AfD'ing on grounds of non-notability, given that all the Google Watch related material can be moved there, and the rest isn't necessarily that notable? I think even if the chance if deletion is low, getting a debate and keep result will be useful in settling the issue; and I do think there's a case for deletion/merge with GoogleWatch. Somebody else do this please if they agree. Rd232 talk 00:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion/PhilWiki

"I note that User:Philwiki changed what looks like a reasonable draft (16 October) [12] to something quite different"

I'm Philwiki, but I did not at all do what you said. There was no article when I started one from scratch because whatever might have been there got deleted. So I did not "change what looks reasonable to something different", because I did not even see the original article you point to -- the revision history wasn't accessible to me (it wasn't linked), I suppose that was because the article status was deleted at that time. So I also did not do any "large edit" as you claim. If anything, this is a clear case of a Wikipedia bug as it shows a revision comparison that doesn't reflect reality. --Philipp
Again, Rd232, I did not "intervene" at all like you said. See above (there was no article visible to me when I started one from scratch, as the article was *deleted* at that time. See [13] for details as well.) -- Philipp

A look at the Deletion log [14] clarifies what probably happened: PhilWiki created the article from scratch on 16 October after it had been deleted. After some toing and froing Canderson7 restored PhilWiki's version, which was then edited by various people. on 4 November Ta bu shi da yu restored the entire history, which had the effect of making it look like PhilWiki had removed the previous content. This effect, if not a bug, is certainly unhelpful! Apologies to PhilWiki. Rd232 talk 08:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Rd232. (And thanks for organizing my points into one section.) -Philwiki 19:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

oh, for crying out loud!

You know, Brandt's original anti-Wikipedia rant hadn't really moved me, but the things I'm seeing and hearing here *are*. What exactly is so "bizarre" about someone not wanting an extremely prominent page on the net that is ALL ABOUT HIM, that is open for any moron with access to a computer to chime in on, and where his critics and detractors, no matter how cracked, get instant credibility? And worst of all, he's forbidden to touch the page precisely BECAUSE it's all about him?

Anyone who continues this "oh, I don't see what his problem is" farce is being disingenuous. You know exactly why he objects to this site and you would too if it were turned against YOU in this same way. It doesn't matter if this info on Brandt is publicly available or not. Why are some people on this mission to AMPLIFY this info in the most unflattering way possible, knowing it will be cut and pasted and cloned all over the net?

For every public figure, there are loads of "I hate them" websites by detractors. Most of them are hastily thrown together and stupid, as is Chris Beasley's. I've been looking at other Wikipedia pages about various celebrities and I'm hard pressed to find many that contain a "criticism" section like Brandt's does, and where obscure detractors get to grind their ax freely. Even Britney Spears, who is despised by millions, has no links to "I hate Britney" sites on her Wikipedia page. Even a truly controversial figure like Woody Allen has no links to frothing anti-Woody sites, nor even links to unflattering articles in the mainstream media.

There are plenty of celebrities who also avoided the draft, but strangely, only Brandt's Wikipedia page seems to focus on this point so intensely. Interesting.

Go pick up a REAL encyclopedia sometime, and look at the bios they include of various people. Ask yourself why certain information is NOT included on various people, even though it would be public information. Ask yourself why every crackpot detractor of these people isn't given equal footing to express an opposing viewpoint. Ask yourself why real encyclopedias don't include entries overscrutinizing and overanalyzing just any joe with a crank website, and how utterly useless they would be if they did. unsigned comment by user:216.78.217.117[Contribs]

(The above comment may be by Brandt, as it is unsigned and anonymous. More importantly, the IP has made contributions like this to the article, despite implying otherwise). It's not bizarre for Brandt to want the page removed; it makes perfect sense. It's just that we're not going to abide by his wishes. He is allowed (though discouraged) to edit the page, but not in a biased way. Being the subject does not yield him extra privileges. I would possibly support the removal of the text referring to his Vietnam draft because it's not all that notable. However, the [15] should stay, because of its similarity to Brandt's own site. I'd like to remove the text about Wikipedia on notability grounds. It may be important to him and somewhat important to us, but it's not important (yet) to a general reader. Superm401 | Talk 16:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


The most respected reference work on notable Americans is "Who's Who in America." Almost every entry in this work is submitted by the person himself. Courts will take a very dim view of Wikipedia's claim that the person himself is unqualified to provide unbiased information about himself. 132.194.10.9 16:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait, certainly you're not talking about the Who's Who in America... you know, the directory that they send to every businessman, student, pet rock and illegal immigrant, saying that for only $60 they too can be listed in this prestigious list? Is that the Who's Who in America you are talking about? ... I think a judge would laugh his ass off at that. Linuxbeak | Talk 16:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about Marquis Who's Who in America, first published in 1899. You do not pay to get in. If they decide that you are sufficiently notable for inclusion, they contact you and invite you to submit a bio. But you are right, there are many, many other "Who's Who" type books that are scams. 132.194.10.9 17:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
"Courts will take a very dim view of Wikipedia's claim that the person himself is unqualified to provide unbiased information about himself." Frankly, you're deluding yourself if you think any court will care in the slightest. Nevertheless, that sounds like a legal threat. I'd be careful if you want to avoid being banned. As someone below says, we can choose our own article standards, and have. People are free to contribute to their own articles if they can do so in a NPOV manner. Brandt apparently can't. Superm401 | Talk 21:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

And in any case we have different inclusion standards. Let's work together toward a version we can all be happy with. It's been unprotected now for a while, and no blanking. That's a good start, let's give the Wiki process some time to work. Rx StrangeLove 17:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone please explain...

I spent a lot of time and thought on rewriting the "Criticism" section into something that had the necessary brevity and clarity, and lack of spin. Within minutes, it disappeared and the old, mean-spirited version was reinstated. So basically does it come down to who has less of a life, and who has the free time to constantly tend to this page and make it keep saying what THEY want it to say?

Content and spin aside, I corrected two sentences that obviously made no grammatical sense, and these ended up being reinstated as well, proving that whoever chucked my work did so not out of serious concern for quality, but just because they could. I just reinstated my version. I guess the way Wikipedia works is for us all to flog this dead horse back and forth until the end of time?

If there MUST be a 'criticism section' - and I don't think one is necessary as long as links to critics are included in their relevant section at the bottom - must we keep using loaded terms and red herrings like "accusations of conspiracy theory"? I also removed the loaded terms like "convicted", "failure" and "delinquency" and basically told the story for what it is: the Govt. made a clerical error and tried to draft Brandt, who fought it in court and won. End of story. No ominous, condescending, criminalizing "draft-dodger" spin necessary.

All the recounting of he-said-he-said exchanges of name-calling between Beasley and Brandt is unnecessary and glorifies what is basically a very minor (and not very timely) squabble between two guys and their little websites. Enough already. I removed that too - it's too damn gossipy from both sides, people - and hope it will stay gone.

That was me. your edits from an IP address were removing two paragraphs without an edit summary explaining why. As such, they were indistinguishable from simple vandalism. As you edit was in good faith, I apologise for the misunderstanding. Please put a description of your changes in the edit summary box to avoid similar confusion in the future. --GraemeL (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


OK

I put all the info from both together - I hope it is coherant. Please lets edit it from here.

I didn't read the talk page so I didn't undersyand what had happened at first.

To me, it looks NPOV and seems like an interesting article.

There must be reference to the criticism of him: Since he is himself a vocal critic of many, to omit reference to any of the extant criticism of him in responce is POV against the targets of his own critique.

jucifer 23:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Juicifer, Brandt has been blocked. That wasn't him. He's probably busy talking to his lawyer.

If you don't know how to read a decision from the Ninth Circuit, then leave it out. This article is already number one on MSN search if you search for "daniel brandt" without the quotes, so this is no longer a game. He wasn't convicted for "delinquency." He was declared "1-A Delinquent" by his draft board, which was an internal designation, not a federal crime. That was because an official communication that the draft board sent to him was returned by the post office, marked "Refused," and signed by Brandt. The "1-A Delinquent" status put him at the top of the list for induction. Then he failed to show up for a physical (now we have a crime -- 5 years maximum on conviction) and refused induction (also 5 years maximum). He showed up for induction and formally refused, instead of not showing up at all. That's because doing it this way gave him legal status for a judicial review of the original 1-A status that was assigned by his draft board. Both counts were reversed (you don't "quash" a conviction, you reverse it), because the Ninth Circuit decided that the draft board had no legal basis for the 1-A classification.

66.235.202.181 23:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Brandt do you think we are idiots? You have been using multiple IPs constantly.

No one accused you of any federal crime. I will check the facts of the case and amend if appropriate.

jucifer 00:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


Yes, you appear to be an idiot. Now you've categorized the article under "Lutherans," when I happen to know that Brandt has been an atheist for decades. 4.230.162.213 01:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
No original research. How do you "happen to know" this "fact?" Can you cite a source for it? If you can, he can be removed from the category of "Lutherans" and be placed under "Atheists".--chris.lawson 01:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
There's no evidence that he's a Lutheran either that I'm aware of. It might make sense to leave the issue of religion until a reliable source is found. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
That his parents were Lutheran missionaries is a pretty strong argument for it, but I agree with you -- perhaps this should be removed entirely until a source is cited. It's not exactly a key factor in shaping who he is today, or at least doesn't appear to be.--chris.lawson 01:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
{{sofixit}} and WP:NPA. Though I've corrected this. ~~ N (t/c) 01:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I am unclear about the extensive edits.

Entire paragraphs have been removed or merged, it is not clear why, and the structure IMHO is less clear than before. The links are also divided quite arbitrarily.

There was a broad consensus on the previous structure. I don't know why it was reverted to the Oct 16 version, as that had been deleted. Anyhoo, I will revert it to the previous version, and request that all major edits on the page be discussed here, and be consentual.

I'm not neccesatily against the edits, but lets discuss them point by point first. :-)

jucifer 00:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a small point. We normally say (born 1947) rather than (1947–). The latter makes it look as though we're waiting for the subject's demise. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

well, this has been a very educational waste of time.

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

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

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

And what gives you the audacity to not only remove every single change I made, but then request that no one else remove YOUR changes without discussion?? I begin to see now why Brandt and others are blanking the page out entirely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.78.217.117 (talk • contribs) 23:10, November 4, 2005 (UTC)

At this point, any anon editor to this article is going to be assumed to be a sockpuppet of Brandt or biased in favor of Brandt. I'm not qualified to speak to the importance of the google-watch-watch site, but bear in mind that any attempt by an anonymous IP to reduce the amount of text there (especially if done without a edit summary) is going to be seen as a POV push. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, it really appears that Wikipedia is a perfect place for people to make fools of themselves. Consider Bogdanov Affair -- you'd have given the Bogdanovs the benefit of doubt that they might be serious physicists, but after they started trolling Wikipedia like 14 year olds, the article now speaks volumes about them, in unflattering ways. The same goes for this article. If there is ever an article about myself, I vow I won't touch it, even if it says I'm a kitten molester or something. dab (ᛏ) 08:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert

I made a major revision to this page last night, which Juicifer (after adding a category) swiftly reverted with edit summary "I don't mean to revert, but let us go through this properly. ", after which his only change was changing the heading of the Criticism section to Response [16] (which was misspelt until someone else subsequently corrected it). Juicifer asked "I don't know why it was reverted to the Oct 16 version, as that had been deleted." - My proposal to revert to the 16 October (Questions/Proposal above), prior to PhilWiki's intervention, was seconded by three people. My additional changes to that 16 Oct version (aside from updating with changes made that were worth keeping) merge material together that belongs together, remove the Wikipedia section (Wikipedia is now mentioned in another section where it is relevant and not needlessly self-referential), add detail on Google Watch, and draw a clear and obvious distinction within the external links. So I have reverted to my version, taking into account minor changes since last night. And I say again: I think this should be WP:AFD'd on grounds of notability, to settle the issue. I think the support expressed for my proposal above includes support for that, but I'd like it explicitly confirmed, at least by someone else doing the AfDing. Rd232 talk 10:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

For reference, this is my restructured and rewritten version, and this the previous one. Rd232 talk 10:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Again (and again), Rd232, I did not "intervene" at all like you said. See above (there was no article visible to me when I started one from scratch, as the article was *deleted* at that time. See [13] for details as well. I did not see what we see now because the article's deletion flag got removed in the meantime.) -- Philipp

Ok fine, there is no reason to exited about this, if you insist I don't mind.

As long as the article is as informative and stays NPOV, I am indifferent.

I am broadly happy with it now, but a few niggles remain. I'll make those changes and you can tell me how you feel.

Chill dude!

jucifer 16:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries, I'm quite chilly. (Think I'll put the heating on.) ;) Made a couple of changes: copyedit, move Brandt quote back to more relevant section (not relevant in historical section), remove info on where Brandt is based (this is not standard for Wikipedia bios AFAIK, and he is a privacy campaigner!), remove Jimmy Wales exchange which not really illuminating without more detail (which would be excessive). Rd232 talk 17:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Private citizen

We're treating Daniel Brandt as a private citizen (as opposed to a public figure) in this article, correct? I seem to recall reading criticism of the fact that this article doesn't deal with his background or other work in an extensive way (with comparisons to George Washington), and I was pretty sure it was because we were treating him as a private citizen and not detailing every part of his life, but I wanted to be sure. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia bug shows incorrect revision history

The revision history doesn't show when the article was deleted, and when it was revamped. The compare tool now shows me as having cut down on a reasonable article, completely replacing it with my own views, which isn't what happened -- I found the page empty and created a new article. I filed this bug on Wikipedia's bug report page and think it's important to know if you're discussing the article's revision history here. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philwiki (talk • contribs) 08:40, November 6, 2005.

Phil, new comments go to the end. Also, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes (~). Thanks, -Willmcw 00:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Gotcha Willmc. -Philwiki 01:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've all noticed....

I tried to clean up the thing per my suggestions at User_Talk:Daniel_Brandt, now that I am unblocked. I went for the little things, even though I still want the whole thing deleted. I'm trying to not get anyone overly excited. I'm practical because I believe that half a loaf (a reasonably good piece) is better than a whole loaf (an undeleted piece). One thing that cries out for change is that there is way too much "link cloud" on this piece. Stupid things get linked, such as dates. It makes it really obvious that editors are reaching for more edit points, and distracts from the piece. 69.91.29.98 03:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Linking dates is standard Wikipedia practice. Gamaliel 03:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting. Dates must be linked in order for Wikipedia to format dates correctly based on a users's preferences. Please don't assume that everything Wikipedians do can be ascribed to selfishness or conspiracy. Rhobite 04:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion vote

This article was put up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt) on late 5 November, and the discussion was closed with "speedy keep" on early 7 November.

I'm not terribly happy with how it went; there was rather little debate of the key question of notability. One editor even thought that because "Daniel Brandt" gets 50,000 Google hits [17] (not 70,000 as stated), that was prima facie evidence of notability! Given that there are over 35 Daniel Brandts in the German phonebook alone, this is an excellent example of why we should not pay undue attention to simple Google searches in establishing notability. And I trust the irony of this Daniel Brandt falling foul of this trap is not lost! I'm still not convinced that Brandt is unequivocally notable enough; we have the "average professor" test - does Brandt pass the "average activist" test? I changed my 'weak delete' to 'weak keep' but if the discussion were still open I would have changed it back again. If anyone wants to AfD again in the hope of serious discussion, I'd second that. Alternatively, somebody explaining why the info in the article means Brandt is "obviously" notable would be helpful (it isn't obvious to me). Rd232 talk 18:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
To me, the question was between keeping this article outright and merging it with Google Watch. This question can still be raised and discussed, without using Afd. His notability by himself isn't obvious to me either. I think many people gave knee-jerk "keeps" due to the questionable nature of the nomination. Friday (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I hold this merge to be a good idea. ~~ N (t/c) 19:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm open to persuasion, but I still lean towards a merge. Rd232 talk 19:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
As you yourself mentioned in the AfD, there is evidence of notablity outside of Google Watch. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, the evidence for me is not definitive, and the issue wasn't discussed properly. I'm not convinced that Namebase is notable enough for its own entry; details on his involvement with various alternative publications are sketchy and the details we do have appear non-notably techy; is his teaching of computer skills to a few people really notable; is his involvement with anti-Vietnam war that significant? It all seems a bit borderline, and I'm slightly frustrated that people treated it as if it wasn't. However, I'm not going to press the issue any further. Rd232 talk 22:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I oppose this move. As I noted in the AfD, if Google Watch was all he was known for, I would support a merge. However, I consider his history of activism, his creation of NameBase, and his work with the likes of Philip Agee and publications like Covert Action Quarterly equally if not more important than his quixotic anti-google crusade. Gamaliel 19:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

(How could he be notable? He doesn't even appear in NameBase.) But seriously, I agree with Gamaliel. Brandt has been involved in a number of activities independent of Google-Watch, and taken together they establish notability. -Willmcw 21:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I also think Daniel Brandt is notable enough for an article, but shouldn't we be having this discussion on the AfD page? There was no valid reason for closing the AfD discussion early. AfD should have run its course. Rhobite 01:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the continued saga

3 words,

GET OVER IT

This saga is plain dumb,

~T14

[unnecessary personal remarks about an editor refactored out -Willmcw 07:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)]


AFD

I'm willing to start another AfD and let it run for a full week just to prove that this article is staying. If someone else wants to start it, go right ahead. Linuxbeak | Talk 17:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Public figures get Wikipedia articles, same as entertainers or newsmakers. But they can't exercise total editorial control about what we say about them. Take that nutty physicist, for example, from last month. Uncle Ed 19:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Coming very late to this debate, and having no emotional investment in the outcome, it does seem to me that the subject of this article is only marginally notable, and most of what notability does exist arises from essentially a current event closely related to WP, i.e., his campaign against Google and WP. No one believes that his burning a draft card 37 years ago makes him notable, right?
Given the subject's vigorous objection to being the subject of an article, and his marginal notability, I would have voted to delete. FRS 20:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, looking at the original AfD debate, I really see no reason to believe a future vote would turn out any differently. --Scïmïłar parley 21:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, maybe not, and I would agree that there are less notable subjects than this one that have survived AfD. But where a marginally notable subject of an article objects to being listed in WP, and especially where the arguable grounds for the subject's notability seem to lie in a current dispute involving WP, I'd like to see the article deleted. Case in point: look at the latest edit [[18]] byLinuxbeak, an editor/admin who opined here [[19]] that the subject was a "whiny has-been that never was in the first place." This situation has a likelihood of spinning out of control, for no very good reason that I can understand. FRS 21:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
There is probabily a good case for another AfD if that's what you want to do. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)
hmmmm, well, I'd like to, but when I put the AfD template up, it links only to the archived deletion debate, not to a new, blank AfD page. Someone that's smarter than me will have to do it or explain to me how. FRS 22:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll set it up. What you have to do is manually change the link to point to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:{{PAGENAME}} 2". I'll set it up as a no vote nomination. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
An easy way to do it is to use {{vfdx|2nd}} instead of {{vfd}}. --cesarb 22:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The second AfD is here. Rd232 talk 06:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Does anyone here find it more than a little hypocritical of Mr. Brandt to be protesting the mere presence of an encyclopedia article about him when his primary claim to fame is compiling a dot org vast public database on private persons and little-known public figures? What exactly is Wikipedia doing that is any different from what he does on his own websites? Both draw extensively and exclusively from published sources, both are publically available on the Internet, and both are just as susceptible to indexing by search engines. —Psychonaut 13:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that wikipedia has a high pagerank, while namebase has a very low one. That is his main problem here. jucifer 14:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
In his Bizarro-world interpretation of the First Amendment, freedom of speech applies only in cases where not too many people actually hear you. *Dan T.* 14:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
And note that, in a comment way above on this page, Mr. Brandt actually advocates legislation regulating blogs and wikis, so apparently he doesn't think the First Amendment applies to this medium at all. I wonder what effect such legislation would have on sites which criticize companies, like, say, GoogleWatch? And I wonder if he applauds the efforts of Communist China to enforce legislation much like what he seems to be advocating (requiring government license to start a web site or express opinions on Internet forums) *Dan T.*
Well, Wikipedia can't exactly be blamed for its high ranking in search engines. This proximate cause of that is (at least for search engines which rank pages based on inbound links) webmasters all over the world who habitually link to Wikipedia articles. —Psychonaut 15:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It's also because he's trying to expose how the CIA controls the world, while we're trying to slander him. Or something. Plus, NameBase isn't publicly editable, so he has a point at least there. ~~ N (t/c) 21:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The AfD/2 vote

Well, its clear a strong consensus has developed to keep this article. I regret it, though I suppose it was predictable. I have a few points to make that don't fit neatly in the AfD debate itself, so I'm putting them here:


General Remarks

My neutrality. I never heard of Daniel Brandt before yesterday. I am not a “plant” or “meatpuppet.” Although I haven’t been editing here long, a fair review of My Contributions will show that they have been constructive and on a diverse number of topics.

The article as it currently exists is well-written, encyclopedic and NPOV. I have no big problem with the content of the article as it currently exists[20]. (I think the phrase “left-wing” should probably be dropped from the first sentence as conclusory and PoVish, but it’s probably in the end accurate enough)

Daniel Brandt behaved badly. His attempts to commandeer the article to suit his own agenda and subsequent disruptive behavior and use of legal threats, etc., were improper.

His bad behavior does not excuse certain conduct. WP editors should dissociate themselves from and rebuke remarks like this [[21]].

Why I believe this article should be deleted

Brandt’s “notability” is marginal. Granted there are many articles on subjects less notable than Brandt, it is equally true that there are many subjects more notable than he that do not have encyclopedia entries. Neither his organization, his webpage have entries at this time

Brandt is probably not a public person. Whether or note Brandt is notable by the low threshold set for most WP articles, it is highly likely that he is a “private person” in the sense used in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.. That means that WP could be liable even for unintentional defamatory statements or invasion of privacy torts.

Where non-public, living persons or nn companies are likely to be (or claim to be) harmed by a WP article, deletion is appropriate. Both to avoid legal exposure and because it’s the right thing to do, I favor deleting articles in this circumstance (or editing them to mitigate the real or claimed harm, which in this case is impossible b/c it would cede control of the article to the Brandt)

WP has become part of “Brandt’s story” in a way that will make it impossible to preserve an image of impartiality.

By leaving this article up and continuing to comment on the “controversy” WP is at risk of furthering Brandt’s agenda. It's giving him a lot more web-visibilty than he would otherwise merit (and may be exactly what he'd hoped for all along)FRS 17:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. Wikipedia is increasingly straining against the limits of the pure undiluted full-strength wiki concept; we see it every day in relation to vandalism, but this is a related issue. With the visibility that comes with success comes a greater responsibility to ensure that Wikipedia isn't merely accumulating information, but also ensuring accuracy. Unless or until we devise ways of improving wiki without losing its essence (eg buffering inputs for a period to enable some filtering of what the reader sees - like broadcasters delaying a live feed to enable bleeping of swearing etc) we should consider other ways. Excluding borderline notable subjects that may not get enough attention to ensure accuracy is one. Excluding subjects (perhaps temporarily) where the Wikipedia community has lost or may lose impartiality is another. Rd232 talk 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/u/b/Talk%7EPublic_Information_Research_Archive_1_1e70.html"