Talk:Public Information Research/Archive 2

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
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Daniel Brandt is Notable

  • Brandt falls clearly within the criteria set out for the inclusion of biographies on living persons. [1]Specifically: Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events.
  • This article passes all the auxiliary tests listed:
    • He certainly passes the "Professor Test."
    • Verifiability - all the information is sourced, so yes; there is no reason why this should not be so in 10 years.
    • Expandability - the article is already more than a stub. And there is no reason why the perfect article could not be written here.
    • 100 year test - as always you can never know for sure, but if google is still big there will be interest in the early critics.
    • Google Test - passes with flying colours. As there are a few other Daniel Brandt's in the US and Germany see here and here where they have most likely been filtered out.
  • Legal threats against wikipedia, users and admins are not tolerated here and are not taken in to account. Public/Private person is a US legal issue and is only relevant if he sues - where it would loosen some definitions to his benefit, which he has no grounds for anyway. Wikipedia can't be run according to fear of malicious and frivolous litigation.
  • Wikipedia strives for impartially, and all wikipedians have a duty to make sure all articles are NPOV. That is what wikipedia is all about. Articles cannot be deleted simply because users cannot be trusted. That would undermine wikipedia fundamentally.
  • Just as wikipedia has no interest in hindering Brandt's agenda, it has no interest in furthering his agenda. Que sera sera.

jucifer 21:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

These are "tests for inclusion that have been proposed...". They are not agreed guidelines, and outside a few areas like music, notability doesn't have clear guidelines substantially distinguishable from verifiability. More to the point, most discussions of notability relate to excluding material that the community thinks is probably non-notable, but the subject or someone connected with it wants an article. The debates essentially come down, philosophically, to "ooh ok someone other than you cares about it, so you can have an article on it, taking into account verifiability". Even taking into account "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia", notability is often not differentiated from (independent) verifiability by very much. The issue of whether to have an article against the subject's wishes has probably arisen before I suppose, but must be relatively rare (I've not seen any examples before); it is not at all clear that we should apply the same standards in these cases. It would be eminently reasonable to set a significantly higher notability bar than the very low one that exists otherwise. Rd232 talk 00:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Some other known cases:
*Dan T.* 00:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I haven't the time to look at all of them, but as far as I can see none of these cases involve the subject wanting to delete the article on them on grounds of non-notability. Their subjects were involved in editing the articles about them, but they wanted to control what was in the article, not whether there was an article (except for Sollog - which is even less relevant as the subject wanted it kept). In fact, only Ashida Kim seems to have been even nominated for deletion - on grounds of non-verifiability (by Jimbo; it failed). That is more interesting but I don't have time now to look more closely at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination). Rd232 talk 11:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's a parallel: Barbara Schwarz has tried to get her article removed for non-notability reasons. There's been 2 deletion votes (both against deletion). I think Ms. Schwarz is more notable than Brandt in some respects (35 US Supreme Court filings, thousands of defendents sued including NSA, FBI, CIA, Bill Clinton, etc..., hundreds of lawsuits against agencies, thousands of FOIA requests filed, which makes her the most frequent filer of FOIA requests in US History) -- however Ms. Schwarz only has two newspaper articles about her (but she sued one of them and claimed she was not notable in her lawsuit against the SLC paper -- she lost that case too). Brandt has more newspaper articles about him, but less other notable features. Vivaldi 12:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou *Dan T.*, some very interesting precedents there. Very informative.

jucifer 00:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with self-reference

I see that editors are inserting self-referential material about this dispute into the article. There's nothing wrong with doing that if it's a notable dispute, but at present it isn't, and we may inadvertently turn it into one by writing about it. Also, it risks turning Wikipedia into the venue of yet another Internet spat: there have been a few of these recently that spilled over into Wikipedia.

Including details of the dispute here would be like the Encyclopedia Britannica including in its entry about Hitler a letter from him objecting to it. On the other hand, we don't really want to be like the EB, so maybe this is okay, but I think we need to give the implications of it some careful consideration. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. The dispute itself is not notable from an encyclopedic point of view, at least not yet. If it actually made it into the courts and became a First Amendment issue, that would be another story. —Cleared as filed. 23:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I think all references to Wikipedia should be removed. Superm401 | Talk 04:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Not *all*, but definitely anything referring to the present dispute, per Cleared as filed.--chris.lawson 05:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this also. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
What's the obsession with Hitler around here? The Middle Man 10:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hitler is a notable historical character who anyone worldwide can relate to as a controversial figure. Comparisons to him are useful as a guideline due to the widespread awareness of him. Comparisons to Jesus are often used in much the same way, often in the opposite direction. AKismet 14:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The subject of this article asserts that the article is an invasion of privacy and insists he is a private person (who would not have to prove actual malice in the event of a lawsuit for invasion of privacy against WP or any editor). See the essay at the bottom of dot org/hivemind.html for more detail. The WP article is the subject of an AfD vote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt 2 that is currently running about 26:2 in favor of Keep, but I believe the merits of the subject’s privacy claims are not being well debated in the AfD vote.

I think the following questions need more consideration:

1. Assuming this person is notable enough to be included in WP, (which I would be prepared to concede), is he a public or private person?

The test, for public vs private person applied in one recent Flordia case linked to this article Net Chat Anoints Public Figure" is the following
plaintiff is a public figure where:
(1) a public controversy exists;
(2) plaintiff played a central role in the controversy;
(3) the alleged defamation /invasion of privacy/ was germane to plaintiff's involvement in the controversy.

2. If the subect is not a public figure, is it appropriate to have an article about him, in the face of his express opposition?

3. If it is appropriate to have an article about him, should it include information about 35 year old legal battles?

4. In addressing these questions how do we weigh the benefit of keeping the article against (1) the subject's perceived or real harm and (2) the risk to WP and its editors that it (they) end up defending a lawsuit?

5. Is it likely that many other persons situated similarly to the subject of this article will have similar complaints? --FRS 19:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how "privacy" is an issue with this article, given that all of its content is based on information from public sources, such as Internet sites (including his own), newspapers, and public records of legal actions. No "digging up" of truly private information was done. *Dan T.* 20:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what specific objections the subject of the article has to the article as its currently written. Previous variants of the article had statements that were factually inaccurate regarding his court case and of course all past versions of the article are accessible to anyone. Although I personally think the article as it's written now is more or less OK from a content PoV, I think the subject's views should be respected IFF he is not a public figure. Also, some of the article relies on print media that is 30+ years old, including a school newspaper; I can imagine a reasonable person finding that the "rebroadcasting" of factoids taken from that media on WP (even if done accurately) is an intrusion into the subject's privacy. Moreover, records of legal actions, while public, are not broadcast by respectable media, and for good reason. They often contain highly embarassing personal information and allegations clothed as "facts." Suppose the following scenario: Someone was once party to a paternity lawsuit or a bankruptcy proceeding 30 years ago...now he runs a blog and takes controversial positions on some issues. Occasinally, he is cited in the general press or even interviewed in online 'zines like Salon.com, so his "Google count" reaches some notabilty threshold. Is it proper to dredge up and rebroadcast the public records in the ancient lawsuits? I say no.

If we were actually talking about a paternity lawsuit or bankruptcy, I would agree that the information should be removed. However, we're talking about information directly related to his history of activism, which is, IMO, precisely why he is notable. I have no wish to dredge up "objectionable" facts about his past, and in fact I find the particular facts which are in dispute admirable, not objectionable. I ended up on his hitlist for adding to the article a fact and a citation which he himself mentioned on this talk page, so really the claims of "privacy" are just utter nonsense. Gamaliel 21:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking at his comments in a blog that discusses his fight with Wikipedia, it seems that, early in the dispute, he was actually griping that the article on him focused only on his recent anti-Google activity instead of discussing his 30+ year history of activism. But when people did what he supposedly wanted and mentioned more about his '60s activities, that's when he started whining about how his privacy was being invaded and threatening to sue about it. Basically, no matter what anybody does, he'll throw a fit about it. *Dan T.* 21:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
"Basically, no matter what anybody does, he'll throw a fit about it." Maybe, and probably if this article was deleted, he'd crow about it. Nevertheless, I think much of what is in this essay [2] should be taken to heart. WP has become a huge megaphone on the net, and what is written in articles can effect the lives and livelihood of those written about. I think there is a lack of accountability here, and I'm sorry more people have not joined me in condemning this kind of response to criticism [3]
The general attitude toward inclusiveness in most AfD votes is OK with me if you're talking about Pokemon characters or metro stations, but when the subject is a living person or business with marginal notability and the subject objects, I argue we should delete. Clearly, that's a minority view.--FRS 22:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't attack Brandt, but feel free to criticize his legal threats. Most of his complaints on wikipedia-watch.org are of comments which do the former. We don't want to make him angrier. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

See also Talk:Jens Stoltenberg (and related entry on WP:AN), where vandalism of the Norwegian PM's page (claiming he was convicted of pedophilia) was national news. Rd232 talk 13:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

While this is very troubling, I don't understand what that has to do with Brandt's article. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
(cough) This is Brandt's core Wikipedia-related privacy concern - that Wikipedia could be used as a platform for libel and misinformation. If less blatant and about someone of less notability than the Norwegian PM (hmm - Daniel Brandt, say?), it might not be caught within hours; and even a relatively short period of this kind of thing being up is rather bad, as the furore over the Stoltenberg case illustrates. Rd232 talk 18:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Two good examples, imo, are [[4]] and [[5]]; it took one to two weeks to remove these articles about essentially nn subjects that were basically being attacked by the selective publication of (arguably) true facts. FRS 20:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Your comment from the Boden AfD [6] is worth quoting again: "where an apparently or marginally non-notable subject is being put in a negative light, especially by anonymous editors, we should be quicker to delete b/c few editors will have the interest or knowledge to correct a negative PoV slant." This is exactly where several issues intersect: as notability of subject decreases, so the "all bugs are shallow" philosophy of wiki weakens. This applies to "bugs" both as violations of WP:V and of WP:NPOV. For many topics this mostly just reflects badly on Wikipedia, if articles are bad or inaccurate or a waste of time etc, especially as long term those articles will eventually improve. But for some topics, especially for articles on borderline notable individuals and companies (meaning there's less material out there on the net from other sources), bad articles can also do harm to those subjects, because of Wikipedia's visibility. Rd232 talk 23:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think FRS has done a good job in outlining several important issues for WP. But the discussion might be more effective in a larger forum (starting at the Village pump (again?)). As for this particular article - Hmm, let me see: Daniel Brandt maintains a public presence as a defender/watchdog of internet privacy and rights. He is upset about his inclusion in an information system that is, for better or worse, difficult to control. I'm shocked.

I would consider this an important part of the WP process as the wiki ideas(ideals?) rub shoulders with the outside world.--Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 01:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason why this article should be deleted. If all we are doing is compiling publically available information, then there is no invasion of privacy, end of story. There is no lawsuit that can prevent our constitutional right to Free speech, if we are only using public information. Daniel Brandt should start looking at what information he discloses on his public website, and what information is disclosed by the media, before he targets Wikipedia for compiling this already available information. This seems to be a manifestation of his contempt for Wikipedia, and he is simply settling a score, in other words acting extremely childishly. I would like to point out Wikipedia:No legal threats is on our side here, and perhaps Admins should get involved if he continues to make 'legal threats' against Wikipedia. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally find it extremely ironic that the subject of this article runs a web-site setup to identify Wikipedians, yet objects to this "invasion" of his privacy. Wjbean

Forced the CIA to change their cookie policy

Suprised we don't note this: Brandt forced the CIA to change the cookie policy on their webpage in 2002. See this CBS News story. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is very noteworthy! --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Enhancing or destroying privacy?

Cut from intro:

with an interest in privacy issues

This makes it sound like he wants to help people maintain their privacy, against evil people who want to out them.

If user:Matt Brown is correct, then it's the other way around. Which would explain why he wouldn't want us to have any information on him and his activities. Uncle Ed 14:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Which is extrememly relevant to everything wikipedia does I might add (excuse me for the sarcasm).

Mr. Brandt's Fax to Jimbo

I was on Wikipedia Watch; happened to come across a privacy violation page which explains Mr. Brandt's views regarding Wikipedia. Generally and in essence, I am inclusionist and non-deletionist, but this time, I believe this article should be deleted. I saw the fax Mr. Brandt sent to Jimbo Wales, and he expressed contempt against Wikipedia. Need we not delete this, and possible risk reparations played out on Wikipedia, or the shutting down of Wikimedia's servers, per a law suit? I don't think we need that, and the best way to avoid it is to delete this article, in accordance with Mr. Brandt's expectations...and personally, I don't think Wikipedia should breach privacy when someone says not to disclose any of their personal information. My proposals are not radical, I always do what I believe is in best interest of Wikipedia. Эрон Кинней (TALK) 07:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't release private information. However all of this information appears to be public. If you are aware of anything which is truly personal and private, then please let's delete it. -Willmcw 08:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Willmcw, we shouldn't bow into legal threats. He has no grounds to sue on, wikipedia is safe, and I wish Daniel would just end his childish. -Greg Asche (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that you, Greg, is a child, and needs to end this childish behavior. And we should air all your private laundry that you have hidden in your closet. He has ever right to privacy under the law. And if you don't wish to respect it without a lawsuit, I guess you will have to learn to respect it with a lawsuit. 10:06, 6 December 2005 (EST)
Wikipedia:No legal threats --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I deleted some things from his personal history that seemed to me to be inadequately sourced or too, well, personal to include in light of subject's objections.--FRS 23:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia might wish to have no Wikipedia:No legal threats made, but that does not mean they will not be involved in legal action.

Mr. Brandt makes his living by publishing (and selling) information on "noteworthy" people. He even hosts a web-site that is set up, in part, to identify Wikipedians. Yet he objects to his inclusion here on the grounds that its an invasion of his privacy. Is there a double-standard afoot here? Wjbean

AfD votes

This article was the subject of 2 previous Articles for deletion votes. You may view the archived results here:

--Rogerd 12:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

info lacking on-line source

Deleted very old personal info lacking on-line source (User:FRS)

WTF? From now on, on Wikipedia we accept only on-line references? NPOW 23:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

in an abundance of caution, you might say, I took out things that were difficult to verify, or were unsourced. One of the factoids I removed was based on a 35 year old college student newspaper, for example. I don't think the article's much worse for the removal of that stuff, but anyone who disagrees, can put it right back in. --FRS 23:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
As I just did. You're bit to cautious if you ask me, I mean you removed a NYT ref (hardly difficult to verify) Broken S 23:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, how about we just remove the info that cites to the USC student paper and that has no source at all, as far as the article indicates? --FRS 00:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought the Daily Trojan was the source. Can you contact them and see if they have an archived edition they could send you somehow? —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Lack of an online source? Why the hell do we need an online source? Is the assumption that wiki users are too lazy to go to a library?

jucifer 23:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

  • gasp* SOURCES ARE OUR FRIENDS! I'm not being sarcastic. Sources are essential on Wikipedia. With sources, we can prove what is in an article as real. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 00:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Erm...are sources only our freinds when they are two clicks away?! jucifer 02:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Daily Trojan info came from this site. Broken S 00:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. As seemed inevitable (why would anyone hang onto a 35 year-old "Daily Trojan" unless it had an article of personal interest to them?), your link shows that this reference came from DB himself. That was also made clear when the factoid was first introduced into the article back here [7] but somehow got lost in the editing process. Although I don't have a huge problem with the article as written now [8], I'd still prefer to delete this ref b/c of its age and source (the subject himself, in a blog posting where he makes a number of criticisms of WP that we are not including). --FRS 01:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the fact characterizes his leadership ability and his political stance. Why would a references age matter? The statement doesn't defame him and at worst it is a harmless fact. We aren't including his criticism (also at the url i gave) because it isn't yet notable and becasue the article isn't about itself (we aren't responsible for listing his criticisms of the article in the article because the article isn't about the article, if that makes any sense). Broken S 01:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
35-year old deeds, and other past events, are what biographical entries in encyclopedias are all about. I don't see how an authoritative assertion of being the leader of the anti-war movement on a large university campus in the 1960s can be called a "factoid". -Willmcw 01:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the statement of the author of the 1971 DT article qualifies as an "authoritative assertion," I think (hope!) that the editors of reputable encyclopedias would rely on the ancient publication itself, not what the subject of the publication and article contemporaneously claims that it said 35 years later. My guess is that no WP editor other than "indefinitely blocked" former editor User:Daniel Brandt has actually seen this old DT story. Since Brandt's reputation has been thoroughly maligned, fairly or unfairly, by a number of current WP editors, there's more than a little irony in the proposed reliance on Brandt's description of what his old college rag had to say about him so many years ago. Having said that, I don't really doubt that the DT said what DB says that it said, and if consensus opinion is that it should be in the WP article, that's OK w/ me. --FRS 06:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Daniel Brandt asserted that the story is true, but we are breaking his right to privacy. NPOW 10:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Which DB returns with quid-pro-quo, publishing contact details of various editors who've pissed him off. This includes (as far as I can see) publishing email addresses of those editors in a form in which spambot address harvesters will pick them up (rather than just mentioning that X,Y,Z have gmail addresses, which would resemble a point). Since he does have valid arguments, I do wish he'd drop that aggressive approach of highlighting certain editors (especially since his basic point is that this how Wikipedia works), as looking like he's pursuing a personal vendetta over the Daniel Brandt article undermines his credibility and detracts from the substantial issue. Rd232 talk 09:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I asked him to change the formatting of the e-mail adresses so they couldn't be harvested. He ignored my e-mail. Broken S 23:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any email addresses. 4.230.162.236 00:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
They are on the wikipedia watch website. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
He's removed the email addresses now. dot org/hivemind.html Rd232 talk 14:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
That's good news. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Just how is it "breaking his right to privacy" to publish things about his past that he himself brought up in recent public discussion? *Dan T.* 01:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite so. This discussion is getting silly. What is this "right to privacy"? Deleting things that are available in the public domain because Google - a popular search engine - rates this site highly and so brings the info from the murk of the public domain to the surface!

Please no more of this privacy nonsence.

jucifer 01:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Brandt's continued commentary

I find some of his additions to dot org/hivemind.html his site interesting:

At issue would be the public disclosure of truthful private information that a reasonable person would find objectionable. Would a reasonable person find Wikipedia's mention of facts about my 1960s activism objectionable? Not at the moment, hopefully, and yet it wouldn't take much for this situation to change. Another act of terrorism on U.S. soil, followed by a stronger version of the U.S. Patriot Act, and "reasonable" people might feel that I should, once again, be watched by the FBI, CIA, and local police the way I was in the 1960s. Does Wikipedia consider issues such as this?

In other words, when considering the legal and moral position of Wikipedia, we are expected to consider not only what a reasonable person today might think, but also on how a hypothetical (reasonable or unreasonable?) person in a possible future time, perhaps under a radically different regime or social environment, might react to Wikipedia's content. Since the number of possible "what-if" scenarios a creative person might devise is potentially infinite (subscribe to Analog Science Fiction if you want to read some of them), this makes literally anything, including saying that 2 + 2 = 4 or the Earth is round, possibly illegal, immoral, unethical, libelous, privacy-invading, or otherwise tortious under some hypothetical future chain of events. Thus, we at Wikipedia need to delete everything now!

This hypotheticizing on his part fits in with his general flip-flopping on the issue of whether he believes Wikipedia is violating his rights here and now (and is hence subject to potential litigation immediately if they do not immediately comply with his wishes), or whether there is merely the potential for harm due to Wikipedia's structure, policy, and search-engine prominence, which could become reality if something actually libelous were to show up and be widely propagated. His various statements on the subject seem to go back and forth between the two; the first option carries a bigger "wallop" in demanding immediate action, but tends to be unsupported by actual facts and evidence; the second position is more defensible and is in fact a reasonable subject for debate and discussion, but doesn't demonstrate a clear and present danger requiring urgent change right now; hence, his continual backflips between them. *Dan T.* 19:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I read it. Also, if the CIA/FBI/secret cabal/whoever could hurt him in the future reads Wikipeida to find people who didn't go to Vietnam (he's not even a draft dodger) then we have much larger problems to deal with. Also, what does the Patriot act have to do with this? In any case the patriot act will almost certainly be (at least partially) canned eventually. None the less, this page isn't really meant to discuss his attacks on Wikipeda (it's about the article) so we really should stop posting such comments here. Cheers! Broken S 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Ironically, Title II of the PATRIOT Act will allow Daniel the means to sue those who defame him. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In the news this time!

Have a look! [9] -- Cheers -- Svest 23:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

You are infringing Mr Brandt's privacy, and you call my edits vandalism?? I'm sick with your sick message! —preceding unsigned comment by 137.189.4.1 (talk • contribs) 10:53, December 4, 2005

It looks like the Wikipedia and Daniel Brandt are going to be entangled in the new for awhile, after his recent success in finding the John Seigenthaler Sr. vandal. Here's a news story from his hometown that should be useful in editing this article: S.A. man is chasing the secret authors of Wikipedia BlankVerse 22:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia watch

I stumbled onto Brandts little hit-list of a page a while ago. Aside from being a complete kook, it was pretty much like every other slapped-together page, looked like something out of geocities. But he quoted User:Lord Bob saying: "...batshit insanity is not a criteria for deletion." Which, even considering everything else he spews on that site, was worth reading it. I have no real interest in his paticular article, but that quote is now among my favorite, and will definatly be used by myself in some sort of future AfD if it fits. AKMask 15:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Be objective and neutral - Be a wikipedian

Guys! From archive 1 and this talk page, we've heard enough of personal attacks directed against the subject of this article or anything related to that. I believe this is childish and irresponsible. This is not a forum to discuss if the subject is whatever we may think. This is a talk page related to a subject called Daniel Brandt. So please, let's be responsible and mature enough to be called really wikipedians and not something else. Cheers -- Svest 20:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

I'd like to second that. Let's be civil. --Mr. Billion 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I just encountered this article and controversy, via Mr. Brandt's role in the Seigenthaler incident.

I do not think this article adds anything of encyclopedic worth to Wikipedia, and it seems obvious to me that it is so detailed and excruciatingly sourced for personal rather than academic reasons.

Mr. Brandt is not a famous person or a politician, and I can think of no good reason why the parts of the article he objects to should not be removed. This would be easy to do. It should be done merely out of common courtesy, since it means something to the subject of the article and would cost the Wikipedia nothing.

I would do it myself, but it is obvious that many of you are taking this controversy personally, and I don't want to touch the thing. (Mr. Brandt is taking it personally too, but then the article is about him.) Instead, I wish that you would do it yourselves, merely because it is the right thing to do.

I would also like to point out that, in my opinion, the Seigenthaler incident showed that Mr. Brandt's criticism of Wikipedia was essentially correct.

--GC 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Basically, you're saying that Brandt is nn and shouldn't be the subject of a Wikipedia article at all. However, this matter has been clearly settled by not one but two AfDs (see above), and that was before he made headlines as part of the Seigenthaler incident. He is clearly a public figure, so as long as all of the information in the article is verifiable there is no reason that it should be removed. Brandt was given every opportunity to shape the development of the article (example), but he refused to discuss things courteously. In fact, his behavior was so out of line that he was indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canderson7 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Such votes are precisely why I did not say that the article should be removed, although I believe it should. As for your citation of his previous behavior as a justification for your own, there is only one response--To your room, young man, and no milk and cookies for you.--GC 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad that you see why this article shouldn't be deleted, but I don't understand the rest of your message. Do you think that you could clarify for me? Canderson7 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
And no dinner for being obtuse.--GC 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, George. The parts of the article Brandt wants removed are references to two websites, Google Watch Watch and an article in the online magazine Salon, both of which apparently he finds unflattering to himself. We do not remove criticism from legitimate sources from Wikipedia articles simply because the subject of the article doesn't like it. Gamaliel 20:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome; I am still learning how things work around here, and I apologize in advance for any n00b mistakes. The policy you state seems reasonable.--GC 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Unclear clause

This bit isn't clear. Wales was unable to respond to Brandt's facsimile? What facsimile? "Facsimile" is kind of out of the blue. Does it mean Brandt set up a sockpuppet account, or what? Was Wales really unable to respond, or did he just not want to argue about it?

This was a direct response to his inability to delete the article that was made about himself, which he stated was an invasion of privacy, and the inability of Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales to respond to his facsimile requesting for this article to be deleted.

--Mr. Billion 23:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt is known for his sockpuppet accounts, such as the one named Wikipedia Watch. 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
'Facsimile' is typically abbreviated to 'fax'. That's my guess at the meaning, although a cursory glance at Brandt's site doesn't reveal anything about a fax. - mako 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are missing something here. Maybe me! What I know is that Daniel Brandt (and not Daniel Brandt. I hope wikipedians can make a diff!) sent this facsimile (also called Fax as an abbreviation) and also by email [10] to Jimbo. If you read there you'd find this statement:

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 hope this makes things clear. Cheers -- Svest 00:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Ah, fax. Silly me. I misunderstood. --Mr. Billion 05:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The word facsimile is an archaism; that is, the word fax is no longer considered an abbreviation, but a word in its own right, acceptable even in formal contexts. Except for quoted material, facsimile should not appear in the article, especially because it is causing confusion. CMYK 23:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation CMYK. This issue should be discussed in Fax as well. Cheers -- Svest 00:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

footnotes and external links

Please follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Footnotes. Please stop adding external links to the body of the article. Place all external links in the notes section or the external links section. --JWSchmidt 23:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


Full Disclosure

I am new to this page and its controversies. I learned about Brandt through his involvement in the recent media attention and learned of "wikipedia-watch" before I learned of "google-watch." Being that his anti-wikipedia site has been cited in print I think it is significant, but more importantly I think that it is proper to acknowledge the potential conflict of interest in the part of ANY contributor to this wikipedia article, just as journalists regularly do when covering subjects who are somehow connected to themselves or their newspapers/news agencies... Is there any other way to do this? I added to the intro that Brandt operates "wikipedia-watch" because I think the conflict should be acknowledged from the first.

The matter is fully discussed in the article and on this talk page. While we should operate from the principle of full disclosure, we shouldn't let that distort our coverage. IMHO, putting WP watch in the intro gives a false impression of its importance, given that its received zero media coverage esp. compared to google watch. Gamaliel 19:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that media coverage should be a criteria. I first became aware of and curious about Brandt from this article in the times - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/business/media/11web.html - that does reference wikipedia-watch, but I am sure you are right that the site has at this point received less attention than google-watch. If you feel strongly that the site shouldn't be mentioned in the intro, can you suggest a good way to provide full disclosure? In my opinion the page does not provide that at this time, and while I have no reason to think the page is not neutral, I think it is also important that full disclosure should be provided in this case so that others can better make their own judgement about that. How would you feel about mentioning the anti-wikepedia site in the intro but not giving it an external link until latter where it is discussed (as is the case with google-watch)? JJM 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Just because we've had some dealings with Brandt, I don't think we should change our ways of deciding what does and doesn't belong in an intro. I think full disclosure is satisfied by having an entire section on his dealings with Wikipedia, with a section header clearly visible in the TOC immediately below the intro. I don't see what difference where we first provide a link would make. Gamaliel 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Awright, cool beans. It looks like another user reinstated the reference & link, but I'm really not too concerned either way. I don't think it damages the article to leave the reference in the intro, it doesn't seem out of step with what is found in other intros, but I guess I'm persuaded that it doesn't damage it to take it out either. All in all, probably not a very big deal. JJM 21:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


Although, on second thought, I still do feel like indicating a possible conflict of interest does belong front and center, whether or not that is consistant with "our ways of deciding what does and doesn't belong in an intro" (as such ways may be said to exist up to this point). I would even be in favor or some sort of banner above the intro. My beleif is that this page is proof that Wikipedians can acheive neutral point of view even with a topic about which they may have personal reasons for being non-neutral, why not give readers the chance to agree or disagree? If you truly feel that full disclosure is satisfied by the section heading, I certainly don't care enough to keep at this... I wonder if this is an area for which there are standards or conventions among paper encyclopedias... JJM 21:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NYT and other citations

The following New York Times articles appear to reference Brandt

Washington Talk: The Study of Intelligence; Only Spies Can Find These Sources "Its founder, Daniel Brandt, resisted the draft in ..." "...[a] treasure trove of intelligence information." October 6, 1987 - By JEFF GERTH

Corrections Published: June 25, 2004 An article in Business Day on Tuesday about a revised prospectus for the initial public stock offering of Google misidentified the source of a Google bomb, a form of online manipulation that causes a designated Web page to appear as the first response to a particular phrase search. (In this case, the tactic caused the search engine to reply to the phrase out of touch management by displaying a Web page that described Google's top management.) While a person close to the company said Google employees had engaged in the practice, Daniel Brandt, the operator of a Web site critical of Google, later acknowledged that he was the source.

NameBase used to be hosted by Blythe Systems in 1995 and at http://www.pir.org/, though the latter now appears to be held by a separate entity than Brandt's Public Information Resource.

College & Research Libraries News, April 1996, pp. 243-4. Internet Reviews: NameBase Larry Schankman, Mansfield University The book reviews cover an equally intriguing array of topics, beginning with academia and ending with the Vietnam War. In between lie such topics as assassinations, elites, Nazis, organized crime, religions and cults, repression, scandals, and even UFOs.

Perhaps the best feature of NameBase, from a librarian's viewpoint, is the large number of citations. From these cites students may easily and quickly prepare bibliographies. For a free service, NameBase is quite a useful resource.

From a Brandt 19 June 1996 USENET post

NameBase is a cumulative index of the names of individuals, corporations, and groups compiled from over 500 investigative books published since 1962, and thousands of pages from periodicals since 1973. Areas covered include the international intelligence community, political elites from the Right and Left, the U.S. foreign policy establishment, assassinations and political scandals, Latin America, big business, and organized crime.

Jokestress 16:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Seigenthaler episode

I deleted

Brandt first released this information publicly on Wikipedia Review [11] on 8 December 2005. On the Slashdot article about the subject, a user named "Everyman" posted that he was the "cyber-sleuth" and thus Brandt [12].
Considering Brandt's high concern for privacy, some have regarded his attempts to find out the names of Wikipedia contributors, and the Seigenthaler vandal, as hypocritical.

I find the first paragraph unintelligible (is the point that someone other than Brandt found the guy who uploaded the Seigenthaler smear, or what?) The second para violates the "no weasel words" rule, imo.--FRS 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

yep, I was about to do the same. Broken S 02:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
IMO, the first line is fine. The others should be scrapped. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 02:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to note, if any notable source points the hypocrisy out; I believe it should be in the article. - RoyBoy 800 03:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The second para is irretrievably POV and speculative. There is a similar POV issue put in speculating as to why his creation of Wikipedia Watch led to his ban. This should be removed, as with the comments in the picture - unless there is proof of them of course. I will restore the first para as it is important. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The blocking administrator has clarified the reasons for his block here, and I think that's more than enough evidence. Gamaliel 10:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WP Block

The article states "Brandt was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia on 9 November 2005 ... repeated legal threats, sock-puppet use, bad-faith edits, trolling and other disruptive behavior" [16]; the content of http://www.wikipedia-watch dot org/hivemind.html, especially the compilation of personal details about Wikipedia editors, was one of the major reasons cited for this block". I think the reasons at the begining (sock-puppets, bad faith edits)are proper, but is being anti-Wikipedia grounds for blocking given the credibility issue being waged. Also same goes for compilating wp editors info, aren't they fair game just like any other person that runs/operates a news worthy website? Even if they aren't, is digging up PUBLIC INFO that is available on this wonderful internet a "wp crime"? I thought wp stood for promoting information...--Silver31u 04:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If he was just "anti-Wikipedia", no one would care. The hit list makes people uncomfortable, especially given similar lists assembled by the likes of Stormfront. But that's just on top of the sockpuppetry and legal threats, which is grounds enough. Gamaliel 08:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
So disclosing information that "makes people uncomfortable" is an acceptible reason to block someone? Then shouldn't anyone that has created/edited anything on WP that makes someone else "uncomfortable" also be blocked. By that reasoning everyone that has worked on Brandt's page should be blocked since he is uncomfortable with the article. What makes the editors/admins of wp more deserving in not being "uncomfortable" as you put it? I support the block on the sockpuppet grounds but have significant problems with the others. This whole incident reminds me of the CNET / Google flap over the summer where Google's CEO threw a tantrum becuase CNET published information on him that was found using Google. While not exactly similar, they are both cases of championing the internet/technologies but getting upset when someone uses those same technologies to shine a light one the people shining the light on everyone else. Just my two cents. --Silver31u 13:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You have a valid point, but please keep in mind prior to his hit list he already had a history of sockpuppetry and legal threats and had been temporarily blocked before. Even if there was no hit list, he almost certainly would have been blocked anyway. Gamaliel 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree he would have proboly been blocked anyway, but the problem is that by even entertaining the possibility that his actions to find info on WP editors/admin and to document it taints the entire block and calls WP into question. The fact that Jeffrey O. Gustafson says "he was making extensive legal threats and was attempting to reveal the identities, contact info, and personally identifiable information of our editors and administrators, which is not only unconscionable but a complete and utter violation of Wikipedia policies and procedures." on his talk page as reasoning supporting the block is also highly problematic and overshadows the non-controversal reasons for the block. (Also is it an violation of WP policies to use the internet to discover info on WP users? What is other websites had such a policiy? You can only use the NY Times website if you don't research our reporters?)--Silver31u 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
No one would be prevented from looking up publicly available information about Wikipedia users out of curiosity, but that is obviously not what happened here.
Brandt had already made a number of legal threats against Wikipedia users, and in light of these his effort to determine their RL identities was clearly intended as a threat/warning: I'm going to track you down and make you pay for writing an article about me. Think about it, there is no other reason for what he was doing.
Furthermore, he was attempting to go beyond the information that users had made publicly available, and to pry into their private lives: "John Doe #3; U.S. psychology professor; age: 34; female; anti-Castro; daughters: Deborah, Emily; resides in Europe". The fact that he beseeched anyone with information to contact him by email attests to this. His actions in this regard are a clear violation of WP:NPA: "Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others."
I could go on and on. What he's doing on wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines in a hundred different ways. There isn't an admin on this project that wouldn't have done the same as Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Canderson7 (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
"There isn't an admin on this project that wouldn't have done the same" isn't that part of his problem with WP calling it hivemind? As should be evident from my comments, my main problem with WP's actions is WP accountability issues but also its fervant war to maintain its privacy while violating someone elses (newsworthlyness aside). I mean would I be wrong in understanding that in the recent Seigenthaler controvery, if Seigenthaler had posted that he planned to file a subpoena to id the poster of false info then that would violate the NPA policy and warrant a block? --Silver31u 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll respond in turn to each of the issues that you raise:
1. Anyone that thinks WP is run by a hivemind doesn't have WP:AN on their watchlist, let's just leave it at that.
2. Newsworthiness aside? The whole point is that Daniel Brandt is a newsworthy public figure. Refusing to consider that, when discussing this controversy, is simply a way of avoiding the issues involved.
3. Those last remarks are an interesting bit of wikilawyering, but the short answer is yes, you would be wrong. Canderson7 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt hoaxed

I am a lawyer/investigator from the UK. I became aware of Brandt's activities through the press, following the JFK killing accusation affair. I saw his list. It seemed that for a man who had spent decades campaigning for privacy rights it was an extraordinary thing to print the name of someone who wished to remain anonymous simply for calling him "a complete kook". To then threaten legal action on that basis, which by the way is a threat of frivolous legal action, which is itself actionable in many jurisdictions. Users named here may very well have a case here and might want to take legal advice. I became interested in how Brandt went about getting the information. Some had the info on their user-pages etc. but some not. Brandt claimed to have experience and contacts in the intelligence establishment but I could not see how he had come upon some of the information.

He asked for anyone to send him information, so I decided to give him some: I set up a Gmail account (googlemail in the UK). Here is a screen-capture of the email I sent him:

I went to bed and when I woke up about 6 hours later, Brandt had added the information to his site - to the extent that User:Splash was no longer "John Doe #6" and was now known to be "Daniel Atta Benzona":

Quite amazing, since Brandt (a Berkley graduate, supposedly a sharp guy with a history around intelligence services) had put this (potential libel) up without even the most basic checks. He also accepted information (and then disseminated) information from someone claiming to be a creditor and enemy of Splash (of course this is all a fantasy.) Even though Brandt was made aware of the enmity this did not lead him to question the veracity of the information. He apparently did not do a search for Dr Callum Derbyshire (not my real name) - if he had he might have found that there is no such person - it would be strange for a person with a PhD or an MD to have no online results, nor any trace in UK people searches. This is all quite disgraceful stuff, and is extremely bad practice. This kind of behaviour goes against everything Brandt has stood for. It also makes a mockery of his attack on wikipedia which comes down to the problem that any anonymous fraudster can get anything added in - it appears that the same applies to Brandt's site. In fact it is much worse in his case: here anyone could see that it is false, if I hadn't made this public it probably would have stayed there forever. (Especially if I had chosen a more believable name.) Anyone who so desired could contact Brandt with the name of someone they don't like and Brandt would uncritically put their name and location online (so that anyone with a subscription to privateeye.com could get their home address) and make a legal threats against them! Simply breathtaking.

And what does the fake name "Daniel Atta Benzona" mean in Hebrew? [13]

"Daniel you are a son of a whore"

Callum Derbyshire 14:20, 13 December 2005

No one ever said causes can't be led by a hypocrite. Since I saw the list, I've always chalked it up to him removing the privacy of those who removed his privacy in an effort to maybe get them to see what its like to have your privacy taken away when you may be a person of marginal news worthness. Seen in that way, he still is working to enhance privacy. If my privacy were taken away then I would proboly think long and hard about protecting it in the future. As far as being an international many of mystery, just posting anything anyone sends him isn't smart nor helping his cuase. --Silver31u 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
yeah, causes can be led by hypocrites, but that doesn't mean they're as good as causes led by people who practice what they preach. is he really 'working to enhance privacy' by setting a bad example? is he encouraging people to be responsible by irresposibly repeating anything anyone emails him? as my CO used to say "when some one tells you 'we've got no choice but to fight fire with fire' they're just looking for an excuse to be the worst they can be."
Well done, Mr. Derbyshire! Daniel Atta Benzona! That was simply inspired. This is conclusive evidence of what many of us have long suspected about Brandt. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe. I've wondered about his information gathering techniques ever since he listed me as "Craig Anderson", but this is just too amusing. Canderson7 (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Genius - pure genius!! Daniel, you son of a whore!! I nearly puked when I read that. All credit to the great "Dr. Derbyshire". I wonder how long it will take brandt to change dot org/hivemind.html his page back? jucifer 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, this is all very interesting and funny and all that, but am I the only one that finds it absolutely UE and self referential for it to be in the article about DB, whose supposed "notability" that "earned" him an article in WP against his wishes had nothing to do with WP? --FRS
My own POV aside, I have to agree that mentioning this in the article is highly questionable. Still, Brandt and his wikipedia watch site have recieved a lot of media attention of late, so the site is certainly notable enough to deserve a full presentation in this article. I'll leave the decision to people that haven't had past dealings with Brandt. Canderson7 (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Ya, I'm not sure it is notable, it is just funny. But, if you do mention that he has put up names of wiki users, then I think it is appropriate to point out the dubiousness of the acuracy of that info. jucifer 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd agree with Juicifer, if you include that he's collecting wiki editor/admin info then the acuracy (or lack there of) is fair game. At the same time his "difficulty" in getting acuracte information feeds into his and others critisism of WP about creditbility and holding people accountable for what they write. --Silver31u 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
He's fixed it. dot org/hivemind.html Canderson7 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This is the very definition of original research, and whilst funny should not be in the article. Morwen - Talk 15:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And there I was thinking I had been outed. -Splashtalk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Splash should locate "Callum Derbyshire" and sue him for libel. Or at least get him fired from his job. 4.230.153.208 16:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This incident is a bit ironic, becuase we are criticizing Brandt and questioning his creditibilty becuase he posted false information. We know who Brandt is and that he runs Wikipedia-Watch. We judge him based on the info he posted - which was false and his creditibility suffers becuase of it. But if he was able to enforce privacy like WP editors/admin then we wouldn't be able to judge Brandt accordingly becuase all he would be is a screenname. --Silver31u 17:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I put up a page detailing my experiances with Brandt in emails where I outed myself, so he could get the right facts. I offerred to prove it several ways. He not only didn't respond to my email, but never had me verify it. Yet he updated his list. Anyway, for further proof he'll take any name given without verifying, check my Brandt subpage. -AKMask 17:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with self-reference-redux

In agreement with the cooler heads who opined on this matter in Section 2 of this page, I believe most of the current "Criticism of Wikipedia" section is UE, and hope that others will join me in keeping this content out of the article. --FRS 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

While I was writing above, Mirror Vax took action I agree with. I have no problem with this version of the article [[14]]--FRS 18:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The entire section on wikipedia is a self-reference! I don't know how we can exclude his behavior on WP if we're going to discuss his criticism of WP, especially since they are directly linked. Gamaliel 19:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I would delete the whole section on the WP criticism (but I was an advocate of AfD'ing the whole article). To the extent Brandt is notable as a critic of Google, I suppose his criticism of Wikipedia is notable, too. But his conduct as an editor here and the alleged facts concerning his communications with JW and the circumstances leading to his "indefinite block" are not, IMO, and I think its very difficult to maintain NPOV on the subject in light of [[15]]--FRS 19:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
NPOV may be difficult, but not for editors uninvolved in the Brandt block, and is no reason to exclude relevant material. I think that a block on a notable person by itself isn't significant enough to include in the article. However, in this case we're talking about his criticism of WP and his webpage on WP where he discusses his experiences with WP. His behavior and his block are directly relevant to that and they should be included for a full and accurate account of the matter, otherwise the article is just a transcript of Brandt's complaints. Gamaliel 20:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The stuff I've been taking out (and that User:Antaeus Feldspar just put back in) is not relevant or responsive to DB's criticism of WP. DB has some substantive issues, which are fairly summarized in the article. If JW or some other identifiable person representing WP has a response to those issues, we should include that response in the article. But I don't agree DB's conduct here, or the reaction to that behavior has much if anything to do with the substantive issues. --FRS 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Even if you argue that they are not directly relevant to DB's criticism of WP, they are relevant to others' criticism of Wikipedia. I had never heard of Brandt before I encountered a reference to him in Andrew Orlowski; Orlowski apparently accuses Wikipedia of having a double standard because Daniel Brandt had a different experience when he tried to edit the article about himself than Jimmy Wales did when he tried to edit his. As such, whether Brandt engaged in tactics such as deceptive use of sock puppets and legal threats is significant in letting readers decide from themselves if Orlowski showed an actual double standard, or if the reason Wales got different results than Brandt is perhaps because Wales abided by Wikipedia rules and Brandt violated them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Whilst this might not have initially been notable, it has now been reported in a number of newspapers, who have suggested that Brandt's ban should be overturned. So it really should be included here. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Do we have a cite for this? The WP article doesn't say this at present and maybe should. --FRS 15:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Daniel Brandt

Sending hoax emails and then writing about the results is not only non-encyclopedic, it is a blatant personal attack, and the perps should be blocked from Wikipedia. Mirror Vax 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What is a personal attack is for Brandt to accept unverified information and publish it on his website, precisely the same criticism he has of us. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well apparently not. Apparently they get a barn star for it.....................

Is it possible to write this article neutrally? 20:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The hoax email was funny, but it illustrates how childish this entire pseudo-controversy is. I believe that this entire issue could be completely resolved in five minutes by an edit of this article and a mature email to Mr. Brandt. You people are posting each other's personal information on websites, and harming each other. You really need to make it stop.--GC 14:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you really thing no one has tried a reasonable solution? A number of editors have had public and private conversations with Brandt attempting to resolve this, including Jimbo Wales. Gamaliel 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
If I have missed a discussion of such, I apologize. However, I plead an honest error on my part, due to the difficulty of sorting through the large volume of emotional statements. I have prior knowledge of Mr. Brandt, having encountered his statements about the CIA some years ago. I identified him then as a conspiracy theorist, and someone who is, let me say, wound very tightly. Nevertheless, he deserves basic civility, especially since such is part of the mission and accepted practices of this site.
If I understand correctly, the practices of this site have been modified to prevent anonymous new pages, and that this change was made as a direct result of the Seigenthaler incident. In other words, Mr. Brandt's basic point, that because of Google's spidering activity, Wikipedia can be used to launch a libelous attack on an innocent individual, is absolutely correct.
If I were one of the known players in this incident, here is what I would do:
1) Remove the information from the article about Mr. Brandt's youthful political activities. I know they are correct and sourced, but I consider them to be a personal attack. Once again, the man is not famous or a politician; information about his private behavior is not relevant. He is a businessman, and I would expect such information to be potentially damaging to his livelihood--in other words, an extremely hostile personal attack for no good reason.
2) Add a paragraph that outlines Mr. Brandt's original objection to Wikipedia and explain how the Seigenthaler incident essentially proved him correct. You can add info to the effect that the Wikipedia community takes the threat seriously, and is working on actions that will prevent such attacks in the future. This is demonstrably true.
3) Ask the regulars to treat Mr. Brandt as a troll, and leave him alone. If I understand correctly, he has already been banned, so that shouldn't be hard. If it were up to me, I would acknowledge the previous ill-will and un-ban him, as long as his future posts correspond to accepted practices.
4) Ask him to take down from his website the personal information about the Wikipedia moderators and his hostile request for such.
I don't know if any of this would be of use in resolving this issue, but it is a damn sight better than throwing email bombs around.--GC 15:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, GC, for your input. Below, I've replied to each of your suggestions:
1) Considering that this is an encyclopedia article about Daniel Brandt, we would be remiss to not even mention his early political activities.
2) We do have the Criticism of Wikipedia section and you're welcome to add to it, but please keep in mind that this article is about Brandt, not the Seigenthaler incident. Furthermore, to say that Brandt is correct (or incorrect) is POV.
3) I don't think that asking people to treat Mr. Brandt as a troll is a very good idea, and I don't know what it would mean to "leave him alone". Also, his block has been fully discussed above. It was well warranted, and I doubt that it will be undone.
4) Don't think we haven't tried. If you think that you can get him to come around on that issue, please do.
I hope that you can think of something that we haven't, but it looks to me like most of our options have been exhausted in this matter. All that is left is to write the best article that we can following Wikipedia principles. Canderson7 (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

For whatever diagnosable problem of his, he has chosen to engage ppl here so bitterly. Ideally we should be mature enough to ignore him like a child that doesn't know any better---but, no, it would be unfair to our sense of justice. Can you imagine the numbers of ppl in his long life that his poisonious personality has bludgeoned? Brandt's uppance must come. Lotsofissues 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with GC's proposal. --FRS 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I also agree. If nothing else, at least merge the Brandt page - in truncated form - to the Google Watch page. wikipediatrix 00:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How on Earth is documenting Brandt's history of activism a personal attack? It's not "private behavior", it's stuff that got him on the national news and in the New York Times. It's all documented, mostly from sources Brandt brought to our attention himself, and personally I find it admirable and nothing remotely resembling a personal attack. Gamaliel 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

An allegation that one is a former member of SDS is something a lot of reasonable people might find objectionable. User:Cberlet did...of course in his case, the allegation is inaccurate (assuming good faith on his part). I haven't seen the 37 year old NYT article cited in the article, so I don't know if it's accurately characterized in this WP article or not. Have you seen it or are you relying on what DB says that it says? Same question,btw, for the 35 year old "Daily Trojan" article. --FRS 23:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The fact that some people might find it objectionable is not a reason to exclude factual, verifiable information. I can't speak to the Daily Trojan, but I have read all the New York Times articles involving Brandt (via the ProQuest database) and I can attest that they are accurately quoted and represented in the article. Gamaliel 03:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Very well, thanks for your time. .--GC 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not think that a disagreement with specific aspects of your proposal does not mean we are not open to some sort of resolution with Brandt. Gamaliel 23:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the only reason that Brandt's name was exposed to the public was because Google sued him for his creation of Scroogle and Google Watch. Yet we have no mention of the law suits. Scroogle is notable. Google Watch is notable. Yahoo Watch might not be notable. Wikipedia Watch is notable. But Brandt? Only in terms of his involvement with all of these. Why mention anything else? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Role in the Seigenthaler controversy

Why no one pointed out that identifying Mr. Brian Chase in the controversy by him is an invasion of privacy? SYSS Mouse 18:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it an invasion of privacy? Brandt didn't say his name - Chase confessed and said his own name. Brandt only worked out which company, and then called the company. Brian Chase is the one who said that Brian Chase did it. There is actually some doubt whether it is a true confession. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Ohly he failed to locate it but he attempted to do it. anyway, read Wikipedia Watch.

It's hard to write such a thing in NPOV terms, anyway. Ashibaka tock 07:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A misguided notion: "Kicking them while they are down"

Note: There are certain Wikipedia users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. Such users may have been subject to disciplinary actions by the Arbitration Committee. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided. -- quoted from Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Mirror Vax 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is self reference a fatal flaw?

I don't support adding info on Brandt's wikipedia watch especially. However, I do want to point out that "self-reference" is not the issue. What is fundamentally wrong with self reference? You people have all been reading to much Gödel, Escher, Bach. There are lots of self referential articles in wikipedia, and no reason why they should not be if they are notable.

But can an article refer to itself? Ahhh! Could an article refer to the fact that that article refers to itself - and could the article then refer to to this self reference? Wow, deep stuff! I've blown my own mind. jucifer 01:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its perfect. We say in "Daniel Brandt" that "Wikipedia Watch was formed out of protest at Daniel Brandt's inability to modify the Daniel Brandt article". Nothing wrong with that. Indeed, nobody seems to have even got upset about this. What people are getting upset at is our referring to him being banned from Wikipedia. And that is not self referential. That's referring to Wikipedia as a primary source, in a case where Wikipedia is in fact the most reliable primary source available. Sure, there's a couple of newspaper reports talking about why Daniel Brandt was banned, and Wikipedia Watch talks about it too - but it would be irresponsible to refer to them because they are both based on what's on Wikipedia and hence are inaccurate. One of the newspaper articles was horribly inaccurate when talking about why he was banned. It said that he was banned when he tried to edit his own article. I think its important to put things correctly in here. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

When you get the sourcing part right the "self-referencing" issue falls into place. Source and quote reliable available believable sources. It's a shame quoting is held to be not as good as restating and rephasing repeatedly by unnamed contributors more eager to prove they are not breaking copyright by quoting two words in a row than they are in accuracy. WAS 4.250 05:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Including the above listed hoax in the article

The question is whether it is suitably notable. Since the hoaxer has only published the hoax in this talk page, and it has not had media attention (at least, not outside of Wikipedia), it may not be suitably notable. But it is an issue of some debate, as some feel that it exposes Brandt as someone who has questionable research skills and hence that the information he lists may be invalid, whilst others feel that it justifies Brandt's stance against Wikipedia - since the "hoaxer" was not banned from Wikipedia for the offence, and indeed was protected by admins and even given a Barnstar for his efforts. Should we wait until that hoax gets media attention before including it in the article? That hoax has the potential to turn in to a major news story, and could get Wikipedia in to enormous trouble. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know why anyone would complain about the hoax. The hoax was not in any way frivolous: it was necessary to test the veracity of the information on the list. The "veracity" of that info in now known. I have given the hoax it's own blog at "Daniel Brandt Blog".

Yours ever,

Callum Derbyshire 15:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. What's next, a List of things found in Daniel Brandt's Garbage, in which it is revealed that he lives on Tater Tots and Fanta? I don't even think Brandt himself is really notable for his own article, let alone this trivial hoax pulled on him. We already have a Google Watch article, and Brandt's involvement with the Seigenthaler incident should be mentioned on the relevant page there. But this obsessive detailing about such a marginal guy is every bit as disturbing as Brandt himself. There are award-winning movie stars whose articles aren't as detailed as Brandt's. wikipediatrix 16:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I Strongly agree with wikipediatrix --FRS 16:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. This has turned into a personal battle for many of you, and you are too involved in it to see your own role in this. I wish you would get some perspective and see how silly this all is. I am not going to hold my breath.GC 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia's hoax and personal attacks say more about Wikipedia than about Daniel Brandt, they should be added to the Wikipedia article, if anywhere. Mirror Vax 17:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an embrassement. I thought we were supposed to avoid getting involved with the subjects of our articles. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I stripped out the most troubling stuff--FRS 18:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

One sidedness?

This diff [[16]] reverted an edit taking out a lot of self-referential stuff about how DB came to be blocked. The edit comment said "no reason to present a one-sided picture of the events." But, as I said yesterday up here, "the stuff I've been taking out ... is not relevant or responsive to DB's criticism of WP. DB has some substantive issues, which are fairly summarized in the article. If JW or some other identifiable person representing WP has a response to those issues, we should include that response in the article. But I don't agree DB's conduct here, or the reaction to that behavior has much if anything to do with the substantive issues."

I still think this stuff ought to be deleted both as unneccessarily self-referential, and essentially irrelevant to whatever claim of notabilty for which DB warrants a WP article in the first place. Furthermore, the text "After a number of prior warnings and blocks, Brandt was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia on November 9, 2005 with the cited reasons being "repeated legal threats, sock-puppet use, bad faith edits, trolling and other disruptive behavior..."" improperly sanitizes the conduct of some WP editors/admins who engaged in a significant number of improper personal attacks against DB during his three week stint as an editor. --FRS 20:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am generally cautious about self-reference in WP articles. (Hell, I even submitted the Seigenthaler controversy article for deletion when this mess all started!) However, we've opened the door by discussing his anti-WP page and his WP criticisms, so we're now obligated to present a full picture. It's a fact that Brandt engaged in sockpuppetry and disruptive behavior and was banned for it, and someone reading about his WP criticism should be presented with that information. Whether Brandt is a troll or a victim should be up to the reader to decide, but we should absolutely not omit his wikipedia behavior from the article, especially now that (according to a talk page comment here) some newspapers are mentioning that he has been banned. Gamaliel 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I asked for a citation about that and none has been provided so far.
Among other problems with the material you've reinserted, my objection is that it does not address DB's actual substantive complaints about WP-as-an-information-source. Instead, I guess, the material you've reinserted is (1) an explanation of DB's indefinite block and (2) a response to complaints made by DB on WP-watch that are not documented in the WP article (about abusive conduct of WP editors/admins). So, the text we're arguing about doesn't address the immediately prio material in the WP article, but does attempt to address issues that are only raised on DB's site. --FRS 22:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not 100 percent certain that his sockpuppetry and disruptive behavior absolutely "should be" presented - I don't think anyone on the planet really cares except a few of us here, and in a couple more years I don't think anyone's even going to remember his name - but after all, it's all permanently here on the discussion page for all to see anyway. In any case, a simple sentence like "Brandt vehemently opposed his article on Wikipedia and attempted unsuccessfully to disrupt it" should suffice. But I still would rather see this page's content merged with others. wikipediatrix 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with wikipediatrix; also, note that "sockpuppetry" is a WP "term of art" for bad behavior that DB (or any future reader of this article for that matter) would not necessarily understand. --FRS 22:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay let's go over a few things:

  • We should mention that he has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This is easy for people to check, he has it on his web page, and it has been printed in newspaper reports.
  • We should refer to the block log only, because that is public.
  • We should quote the block log, which says that he was banned for Wikipedia Watch.
  • We should *NOT* reference statements made a month after the ban stating why he was banned, because these are subjective statements. If we do mention them, we should say "according to the blocking admin...".
  • It is questionable whether we should be mentioning things like sock puppetry etc. If we do, we should word it in a way that a layman can understand. Rather than "sock puppetry, vandalism, personal attacks and legal threats" we should say "for using multiple accounts, changing pages in a way that Wikipedia editors did not appreciate, writing comments to Wikipedia editors that they found offensive and referring to legalities about his situation". Something along those lines is more neutral, since Wikipedia policy is just policy, and is not accepted as fact in the outside world.
  • The fact that he was banned might be seen by most Wikipedia editors as meaning that he was a bad guy, but this is not universally true of the outside world. Some people are going to see it as further justification for the problems in Wikipedia. AND WE HAVE TO ALLOW THEM TO THINK THAT. This is very important. We can't just say in the article "Brandt is an awful person who deserved to be banned". This is our opinion. We just have to stick to the facts.
  • Not everyone who sees the block log will think that he was banned unfairly. Some will imply that what he wrote on hivemind was invasive.
  • Remember this: it is not a fact that what he wrote on hivemind is an invasion of privacy! That is an opinion! Saying that it is an invasion of privacy is akin to saying that Brian Chase is a libeller. Until Brandt is successfully sued for invasion of privacy in relation to that page, we cannot say that it is an invasion of privacy. We cannot say that it is hypocritical either. He has argued that it is not hypocritical.

This is the problem with the whole article basically. Writing an article about someone who is banned can never be neutral, because it is so difficult to consider his point of view.

I am pretty sure that the information about Google Watch is wrong too, although I couldn't source it. I *remember* when I first heard about Google Watch several years ago that he set it up to protest his page being listed in Google without his permission, which is actually the exact opposite of what is written in this article. Remember that he is a privacy activist who believes that the CIA is everywhere and Big Brother is watching your every move. He doesn't want his site listed. He doesn't want it to be popular. And he is certainly not doing it for money.

As for whether he is a crackpot, well, according to Slashdot he is, and now according to Wikipedia he is. I think that Cruel.com calls him a crackpot too. But according to New York Times, The Register, and most other places, he is a highly respected campaigner for human rights, especially for privacy. We shouldn't paint him as a crackpot just because that is the view of Wikipedia. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think rewriting Wikipedia jargon into layspeak is a good idea.

Look, nobody's "making stuff up", as you put it in your edit summary. There's no need to imply that there is some sort of dispute or mystery about why Brandt was blocked. We all know why. The guy who blocked him said why. The report which Jeffrey acted upon is on this page and it's clear everyone is talking about the "enemies list" (an exact quote) on the hivemind page, which was a new addition to the pre-existing Wikipedia Watch page. Just because Jeffrey wasn't hyperspecific in the small space provided by the block log doesn't mean that he didn't block him for the exact reason he says he blocked him for.

I have no desire to "paint him as a crackpot". Most of his work is quite admirable. I have no desire to use this article to defend our actions, and if people come away from this article siding with Brandt instead of us, that's just fine. I just want this article to accurately reflect why he was blocked and I do not want it to imply that there is some sort of dispute about the nature of his block when there is not. Gamaliel 08:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is a dispute as to whether the contents of hivemind are an invasion of privacy. Brandt would not have put them up there if he thought that it was an invasion of privacy, and lists in many places why it is not an invasion of privacy. If any of the people who were named think that there is something wrong with him listing them, then they should prosecute him for it. I am confident that he has not broken any laws in listing them up there. He did it so as to defend himself from attacks. Now, whether or not you agree that he was really attacked is another matter, but he certainly felt that he was, and he was trying to prove it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that.

It is true that, like a lot of activists (I could probably say all activists actually), a segment of the community thinks that his claims are farcical. Coming from a family going back 3 generations on my father's side and 5 generations on my maternal grandmother's side full to the brim of activists (the family somewhat ostracises you if you're not), I know just how much people think we are all crackpots. You should have seen what was written in the Washington Post when my grandfather died - "Crackpot finally put to rest" they said. The guy who tried to convince Americans that their president George H Bush was the head of the CIA, the reason for the Cuban Missile Crisis and is using his powers in office to become a Hitler-style dictator is finally put to rest, and with it so are all of his crackpot theories. Obituaries other places in the world though said that he was a hero, and even a few papers in America said that he was a hero too, albeit an anti-American hero.

And look, in the end, the chances are that 10 maybe 15% of what Daniel Brandt says is totally off the mark. With the disinformation and plausible deniability that we hear about every so often, the chances are that he has believed a few government-planted lies and ended up merely spreading the government agenda but not realising it.

As for his being a total "crackpot" I think that that is ridiculous. The guy is clearly sane. His reasoning is rational, logical, and well thought out. Indeed, the media thinks he is great, and always have, *ESPECIALLY* because of Google Watch, which is what he is famous for. How many people believe Google Watch compared to how many people believe Google Watch Watch? Okay, so a lot of people think that Google Watch is unnecessary and over the top, but it is true. It's 100% true as proven in court. There is nothing remotely false or misleading in any of the information presented on Google Watch. The question is whether or not it is really as bad as he suggests. Me personally I think he's talking too much about something insignificant and worrying about nothing. However, calling him a crackpot for it is laughable really.

Crackpots are these people that go around with tin hats telling us that aliens are landing and have no proof to back up their claims. Daniel Brandt has proof. Now, maybe he exaggerates things. Maybe his conclusions are wrong. But he isn't lying there. He's not making anything up. He's been in so many court cases over this stuff that I bet he could work as a lawyer.

Daniel Brandt is not trying to "outst" anyone. He is trying to help people. He is trying to help me, you, every single person on Wikipedia, and every single person in the entire world. If you tried working with him instead of against him, then you would find that he would be more than happy to be your friend and work alongside you. He is a kind hearted person who goes to great trouble to help out his fellow human being.

Its not easy to be an activist. People often accuse you of doing the exact thing that you are aiming to stop. But I can say without hesitation that Daniel Brandt is not doing that. He is not invading anyone's privacy, and there is nothing at all wrong with the contents of his pages. Again, if you disagree, then try to sue him. He managed to withstand Google's legal actions, but maybe you will be different.

Wikipedia may have thought, in a proportion of users, that he was hypocritical. But I can bet that nobody actually thought that he was trying to invade people's privacy. To think that is totally illogical. His aim was very clearly to PROTECT people's privacy. If you think that by trying to protect privacy he inadvertedly invaded it, then that is your opinion. But he could not have been banned from Wikipedia for invading privacy because, quite simply, he didn't do it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll just add a bit here. I am not a privacy activist. I've had discussions with Brandt a number of times about how I think that he is fighting the wrong causes. I am much more interested in stopping things like rape, corruption and injustice generally. I don't think that privacy on the internet is a big deal, since its so damn easy to be private. And anyway who cares if someone knows who you are? Just as long as they're not stalking you or trying to come after you like trying to kill you or rape you or something, I couldn't care less about it. I think that he should be focussing more on stalkers (sorry, cyberstalkers), but he seems to be of the belief that that is not important (or not even real).

So I guess we disagree on a few topics like that. But his heart is in the right place. And that's the important bit. I have never heard him say a harsh word to anyone. You'll rarely find as kind a person. He is something akin to a hero.

And I think at a bare minimum, he should be consulted as to this article. For one thing, I couldn't find the details of his various court cases, and google have hidden them, so I suspect that he is probably the only person that can tell us where they are. We need them for this article to be a truthful and unbiased account of who he really is.

Of course, in saying that, he's not famous as "Daniel Brandt". He is famous as "the Scroogle guy" or "the Google Watch guy" or "Mr Anti Google". Its really only since the Seigenthaler thing that people have bandied his actual name about. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Did Daniel Brandt die for my sins?

Look, he's not a nutcase, he's not a saint. He's just a guy who's done some stuff, most of it good. Maybe you really admire him this much, maybe you feel the need for hagiography to counter what you think are our efforts to paint him as a crackpot.

Something went wrong in the dealings between WP and Brandt. Perhaps it could have been prevented, I do not know. But it was hardly a matter of WP editors being unwilling to try "working with him instead of against him". His demands (removal of the article, or failing that, removal of links to criticism) are totally unreasonable. To describe his Hivemind "enemies list" as an effort to "defend himself from attacks" is an utter distortion of the truth. I wasn't even here when Brandt got banned, I came along later, never said a word about him or to him, and ended up as John Doe #10 on his "hit list" for adding facts from a New York Times report to the article, a Times report that Brandt himself brought to our attention by citing it and its exact date on this talk page. Is this a "defense against attacks"? Is this "rational, logical, and well thought out"? Is this the act of "a kind hearted person who goes to great trouble to help out his fellow human being"?

In any case, this isn't really relevant to the contents of the article. Now you are saying "there is dispute as to whether the contents of hivemind are an invasion of privacy". That's fine, we can state that the Hivemind "hit list" is an alleged invasion of privacy if you like, I don't care. But this isn't at all what we've been talking about. You've been writing that paragraph in the article to imply there's some sort of dispute about why Brandt was blocked, which there is not. He was blocked for his "hit list"; whether or not it is an actual, legal invasion of privacy is immaterial. Gamaliel 21:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy of new edits/citations needed

Zordrac made a lot of changes that require fact checking and citations, or major correction.

For example: "Google Watch was founded in response to Brandt's Namebase webpages being listed on Google without his permission, which he believed was an invasion of privacy" I understood Brand't stated issue with Google is with Google's use of cookies and related privacy risks for those who use Google; also that his (DB's) site is (has been?) ranked low in Google searches.

"Google has launched a number of law suits against Brandt" Really? Can we be more specific?

"Brandt's argument is that Wikipedia is working in collaboration with Google, which he has stated was the true reason behind his block, saying that he was persecuted and inevitably blocked because of his stance against Google, who he says that Wikipedia has a vested interest to promote" I don't think this is an accurate characterization of Brandt's position

I had some issues with this article yesterday, but have to say it's gotten much worse over the last 24 hours. --FRS 17:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I am puzzled by many of these additions as well. Especially "Google's failure to sue Brandt", which is a statement that cries out for citation and expansion. Gamaliel 21:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes okay, you can call that "original research", but its all true. I spent 6 hours trying to find it, but that paranoid Brandt goof has locked up his site and made it next to impossible to find this stuff. I did find this bit today though: dot org/krane.html. Point is that Google Watch was without reservation NOT started because of Page Rank. His first mention of Page Rank was in 2003 here dot org/gaming.html, a full year after the creation of Google Watch.

Still trying to find the law suits bit. It used to be on the site in clear view but he's hidden it somewhere. Ah, it'd be so much easier if Brandt was able to edit this article. He's provide the links. And yes, there were law suits. I believe 5 of them.

Do you really think that Google would just sit back and let someone create a name "Scroogle" for a search engine that competes with them without a fight? Come on now. They sued him for brand name infringement for both Google Watch and Scroogle - and lost. THAT IS WHY HE IS FAMOUS. For heaven's sakes. Its as if you guys had never heard of Google Watch before this article was created. What are you guys living in a cave?

If someone wants to e-mail Brandt and get him to tell us where he's hidden the law suit details or what the hell happened to them, and why he took them off his main page where he used to proudly display them, then that'd be great. That is, if Brandt will reply. Of course, if there's been some order prohibiting him from mentioning them, then we can't. Its possible that a later law suit that I'm not aware of was some kind of suppression order.

And as for the last statement, that's on his site. Do you guys edit this and not even look at his site? Its quite bizarre that you'd do that. If you're scared to look at his site, you shouldn't be editing this article. His site should be the most reliable source of information about his site. Its biased, but its reliable. Just bizarre.

Anyway you can leave the law suits bit off until I find them. I was really getting frustrated with all of the edit reversions, hence the POV things. Pushing forward a myth that is obviously false that Google Watch was started because Brandt wanted to be more popular is just slanderous really. Its the opposite of the truth. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer you not refer to the subject of this article as a "paranoid goof."--FRS 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

yet another victim of the logout elf

WP warned me about a new message and I found the following:

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. Izehar (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And I replied (including typos!):

from user:Izehar(talk)

Brandt edits
I got logged out somehow and didn't notice. Sorry about that. Even though I'm an admin I'm not sure how I can change attribution of edit summaries; I've steadfastly avoided learning anything about the machinery here.
As for the controversial aspect of the edits, there isn't any. Brandt for some years maintained Web pages with his Microsoft criticisms, based on his programming of his Namebase product. And some of what he said was funny, at least to me. The rest of the edits were more of less quotes from his own Wikipedia Watch pages (mostly the hivemind one). Sorry about any confusion. I guess the best I can do is to post your comment and this on the talk page. ?? ww

I also found a minor edit at ARM architecture under my new numeric identity. Wish I knew just why this happens ever so often. ww 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It has happened to me as well. Unfortunately, only bureaucrats can change attributions for edits and they don't do it anymore. Izehar (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it would be wise to include that bit that ww added about how he is thinking about suing Wikipedia users. This person used to be a Wikipedia user and now he is permanently BANNED. I see no reason to publish his legal threats (see WP:NLT) and act in effect, as his proxy. Maybe we should mention in the article that he used to be a Wikipedian but got banned ;-) Izehar (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, he's publicly said, on the cited hivemnd page, that his purpose in collecting identities of hidden admins (but not of ordinary WPinas, which puzzles me some), is not to violate their privacy (which rather puzzles me as well) but so that, if he decides to sue under some rubric (perhaps the Florida invasion of privacy statue he references), he might be suing them. . Perhaps that's not his real reason, but WP is not entiteld to speculate in that way, nor is my (or your) puzzlement very WP relevant. He says he's not sure who he would sue if he did. This is not a legal threat, it's just legally ominous if you choose to take it that way.
I've read through much of this talk page, and his Wikipedia Watch site as well, and I'm familiar with his namespce project from several years ago. So I'm familiar with much of the background, and in particular the WP critical part. I haven't time to master it all, does anyone?
I agree that his motives are not easily understood in re WP, but I strongly disagree that he is not a public person in the legal sense. He has been publishing material on the Web and elsewhere for a very long time, and has been engaging in public controversys for just as long if his activism goes back to USC days and to SDS. Newspaper interviews law suits on matters of public (not merely personal) policy and so on. But, not being an attorney, your use of this advice is ill-advised. This same history makes him, (and his espousal of assorted causes of public importance also), as I see it means an article about him here acceptable. As I recall, the gist of the Sullivan decision by the US Supremes was that enough 'publicness' loses one the expectation of privacy that one could count on absent that much publicness. Seems to me that sort of thought applies to WP articles as well.
My edits were carefully considered to fit in just this context and, in my view, filled out some of his background and some of the current position. All encryclopedic matters, and so not controversial. Modulo typos of course. So I'd prefer to restore them unless there was some sort of grammar goof or more types that I managed to miss. Thoughts? Anyone? ww 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
If you're sure, restore them, but don't revert - subsequent edits have been made and would be lost. I'm afraid you'll have to rewrite it. If I took this article to AfD, would it be bad? I mean I'm sure that Wikipedia is the only encyclopaedia with an article on him - I bet Britannica doesn't have one. Izehar (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure as to the Microsoft criticism, and I still remember it with amusement. And I'm also sure about his claimed motive for trying to find identities of WPians, after all I just read his own Web site. If he says it in public, we can use. As for Britannica, paper has a longer turn around time. And the Brittanica folks have a somewhat different basic brief; it makes no claim to potentially (if it all works right) cover anything anyone will write an article about. Differnet deal.
OK, I'll go back and add stuff in by hand. We've taken long enough that the revert scheme won't work anymore. Thanks. ww 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

One last plea

I have already stated my opinion that this entire pseudo-controversy is silly. Let me put a point on it. The Seigenthaler incident has harmed the Wikipedia. On Dec. 7, New York Times Business Editor Larry Ingrassia sent a memo urging his staff not to use the site to check information. Several other major news outlets have done the same.

Fortunately, the journal Nature has responded in defense with a very admirable survey that shows Wikipedia to be almost as reliable as Brittanica. I admire Brittanica, and I have used it as a reference for more than thirty years. I knew Wikipedia could achieve this level of quality, and I know that it deserves Nature's defense.

The defense in Nature is big. It is really, really big. Traditional media frequently try to slam Wikipedia for not being professional. Get out of my face. I hold a master's degree and I am a published author. I am capable of producing articles of professional quality on any subject I choose. Many of us are professionals, or are amateurs with professional or better skills. Furthermore, I am but one contributor. Wikipedia has tens of thousands such as me. I provide this service, just like the rest of you, because it pleases me. I know the value of what I bring. This is the Internet talking, baby, get on board this locomotive or get under it.

And then you produce this article on Brandt. Despite the fact that he is a crackpot, he is right: it is nothing more than a hit-piece. You produce it because he badmouthed you and pissed you off. Would you regulars please pull your heads out of the weeds and look at the big picture? I am a published author myself. I have things in my own background that might put me on the 'Notable' page right next to Brandt. Are you bozos going to do a hit piece on me, too? Should I just go away right now?

I just recently registered on Wikipedia, but I have contributed anonymously for years. I know there are thousands more like me out there. I am telling you, you are taking this Brandt hit too far and too personally, and it will end up harming Wikipedia. Tell me, would Brittanica publish an article on Brandt? Would you please explain to me the encyclopedic value of this entry, beyond your own personal vendettas? (And that hoax, and the blog site about the hoax. These are disgusting, and reveal your personal enmity.) I beseech you: do what is right, not just for that poor slob Brandt, but for this wonderful resource we all call Wikipedia?

Thank you for your time, and have a nice day. GC 05:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

George, thank you for your comments.
Britannica would not publish an article on Brandt. They also do not have articles on The White Stripes, World of Warcraft, artist John Byrne, US poet laureate Billy Collins, novelist Michael Chabon, tennis player Anna Kournikova, and the subject of your article, Subiaco Abbey and Academy. Why should Britannica's standards be ours? We aim to be more inclusive in our coverage than Britannica.
Regardless, we do not have control over the existence of this article. The content, yes, but we simply can't decide to delete this article. To be deleted, any Wikipedia article must be submitted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You can make your case there if you wish, but this article has already been submitted for deletion twice, and the deletion was rejected by the majority of Wikipedians who voted both times. I can't speak for the reasons for all of them. Personally I feel Brandt is notable for his history of activism, his critique of Google, and now his role in the Seigenthaler controversy. The last two have received major media coverage, making him all the more notable.
I feel that for the most part Wikipedians have created a fair, neutral, and accurate article about Brandt. I don't feel that merely mentioning that particular people, such as Beasley or Manjoo, have negative opinions of Brandt makes this a "hit piece", nor do I feel that linking to those pieces is an attack on Brandt. Positive and negative opinions are necessary for complete and balanced coverage. Maybe this isn't what you object to, but perhaps you could specify what it is you object to and precisely how this is a "hit piece". If there are problems with this article, I would sincerely like to fix them. Gamaliel 07:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to chime in with my two cents here and note that no Wikipedia consensus will ever agree to delete this page. Indeed, it's biased against it. Since Brandt objects to its being here, the locals want to keep it here even more. Now, Brandt's campaign against this site has been tiresome in the extreme, and at this point, I'm partial to a little vendetta myself, but we cannot act like we're all being neutral on this issue. We're not. --Agamemnon2 09:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This is is getting so tedious. I bet that Brandt is one of the most successful trolls in history. It's been weeks since his Wikipedia User:Daniel Brandt account was banned and we're still talking about the same things. What I say is: who cares what he thinks? If he wants to manipulate Wikipedia into presenting him as some kind of infallible deity, WP:AUTO may have some news on that. Last time I checked, we also had WP:NPOV according to which, all views must be included; even strongly critical ones. What we are trying to do here is to write a simple objective biography, not defame him, nor whitewash him (nor "invade his privacy" as he amusingly puts it). Izehar (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

We care what he thinks. We have an entire article on him, for goodness sake! But I agree we are not trying to defame him. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think that we should mention in the article that he is banned from Wikipedia. It's true and it sums up the whole case ;-) Izehar (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes

These really need to be fixed. I doubt it would take more than 10 minutes to sort them out! Anyone feel up for it? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

What's with all the "disputed" notices? Who's disputing what? There doesn't seem to be a dispute here, can't they be removed? They really do make the page look ugly. Izehar (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, hello? This whole talk page is FILLED WITH disputes. Zordrac also gave his reasons for the disputed notices in his Edit Summary. Juicifer removed them with the Edit Summary "remove silly boxes" and I just reinstated them. The "Criticism of Wikipedia" section should probably be removed entirely, because his criticism of Wikipedia is no more relevant than, say, his criticism of American Idol, paper cuts, or the service at Slappy's Pizza. His website about Wikipedia is extremely obscure and known to practically no one on the planet, just like Chris Beasley's site, which is now up for deletion also. wikipediatrix 13:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean that the "neutrality" of the article is disputed? That some users want to delete certain sections. Go ahead, but please, use POV notices sparingly. They clutter up the category. Izehar (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

None of these are POV issues. There are just content issues. You think they should be out, others think they should be in, I don't really care either way. This is NOT a POV dispute. It is just a disagreement about whether the wikipdia thing is relevant. This article is very fair to Brandt, it is sourced, and it really deals with the criticism of him in a very neural way. Since you have no dispute on POV grounds, merely on the notability of some content, you need to make this argument on the talk page. Perhaps have a vote. jucifer 14:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, I disagree, but c'est la vie. I think the extreme enmity shown between Brandt and Wikipedians (you in particular), shows that the whole "Criticism of Wikipedia" section cannot possibly be neutral by its very nature. As I've stated elsewhere, I think the whole affair should be summed up with brevity, like "Brandt objected to his page on Wikipedia and tried unsuccessfully to disrupt it" and leave it at that. We can put a link to his Wikipedia-Watch at the bottom if anyone really cares, but outside of the few people assembled here, I don't think anyone does. Brandt is not a pop star with throngs of fans who crave long paragraphs about his opinions on this and that. I think the only reason this article gets longer and longer and more and more obsessively detailed is because a lot of people know that it bugs him. If he made a website tomorrow called Cheeseburger-watch.com in which he ranted about how great Hardee's Angusburger is, would this also be worthy of a huge paragraph with its own section header and image? wikipediatrix 14:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I find myself in agreement with jucifer on this issue. The only section that is close to warranting a POV sign is the "Wikipedia criticisms" section, and even there I'm not sure the tag is well-deserved, b/c an active good-faith editing process is already going on. I usually apply POV tags only where I know there's a problem but I don't know how to fix it. I "know" how to fix the WC section, I just haven't gotten consensus on that approach (yet)--FRS 14:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with Jucifer, but I don't necessarily agree with Zordrac either. Hopefully he will chime in soon with more of his reasoning behind the disputes. I would prefer a general dispute notice be at the top of the page rather than selectively throughout. I too have my own idea on how to fix it, but I know better than to be WP:BOLD with it because I know people would howl. My version of this article would be about 1/3 of its present length. wikipediatrix 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to put the boxes back but

What exactly is the POV dispute that those boxes are there for? Nothing clear is stated here.

I request an apology Wikipadtrix for calling my removing your boxes vandalism. That is totally uncalled for. jucifer 13:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, they aren't my boxes. Secondly, Zordrac, FRS, GC and myself have recited at LONG LENGTH our problems with the POV of this article. Thirdly, when you say "I'm not going to put the boxes back" I presume you mean "I'm not going to take the boxes off again", yes? And finally, I found removing Zordrac's dispute boxes so quickly after his placement of them and calling them "silly" in your edit summary to be in rather bad faith, especially since he DID explain his reasons both on this page and in his edit summary. wikipediatrix 14:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget WP:AGF. I'm sure that jucifer was only joking when he said "silly boxes". No bad faith there. Izehar (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Quite so, I have read above and can find no POV dispute in the article, and I can't find any even remotely objectionable point in the article it self. This is a content issue - not a NPOV issue. The boxes are misplaced, serve no purpose, make the article look silly, clog up a clogged category, are misleading and - I repeat - no POV dispute is stated here and thus make no sense. Again I request an apology for calling a vandal for removing the boxes. jucifer 14:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism is a bad faith attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Jucifer's removal of the tags does not fit comfortably into the marked slots of guilty mind and guilty act, therefore it wasn't vandalism. Jucifer, don't insist on "apologies" though - forgive and forget ;-) Izehar (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Fun and games"?

  • "Fun and games"? I take POV disputes very seriously, and I don't think Zordrac considers it "fun and games" either. (Me, I would have just slapped one big dispute notice at the top of the page.) However, I don't think this vote proves anything, regardless of its outcome. Furthermore, the premise of the question is kind of tricky: I don't think Brandt's Wikipedia issues should "have a section" all to itself. I do think the matter should be addressed, but only in a brief sentence or two. wikipediatrix 14:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, if there is no consensus for the deletion of the section that will settle this matter in the only way possible. That is how wikipedia works. The status quo (for a while) has been that this has had a section. The question is therefore - should that be overturned? jucifer 14:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Jucifer, I didn't want to clog up the voting area with our discussion so I moved it down here. I don't know that there's no consensus here - I think if we started from scratch and took it apart sentence by sentence and asked ourselves honestly, "does this really need to be here?" we could prune it down into something much shorter but still satisfy the folks who want Brandt's every sneeze dissected here. And I don't just mean the "Criticism of Wikipedia" section, I mean the whole article. I think it's embarassing that this article is longer than those for, say, Eddie Murphy, Jerry Lewis, or Laura Dern. wikipediatrix 14:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was getting frustrated by the constant reversions, especially the bit about Google Watch being created because of Brandt being upset about his own Page Rank not being high enough. Not only is that statement untrue, but its also unbelievable. First, he created Google Watch a full year before he first mentioned Page Rank. Secondly, that myth is being pushed by his 2 detractors, Salon.com and the guy who made the Google Watch Watch article. Thirdly, why would someone who is so utterly paranoid (apologies to Brandt here, but he is freaking paranoid) want to be popular and get more hits? This guy wants LESS hits. It makes absolutely no sense. At least, not unless you believe that absolutely all of his actions are a total scam and that his motives are solely to make money out of unsuspecting people - whilst not actually making any money at all. The idea that he made it to be about him not being popular is a conspiracy theory. It is so far removed from being factual as to be laughable. Yes, he is worried about Page Rank - but because it can be manipulated to allow scraping and abuse people's privacy for money. That's the angle. He does not say anywhere - not once - that he wanted to be more popular. Not once has he said in his millions of interviews that he is worried that his page rank isn't high enough. Not once has he said that he wants to scrape. This is a myth. Indeed, it is so unbelievable that we can probably regard it as a hoax. I for one find it difficult to believe that even Salon.com/Google Watch Watch ever believed that it was true. I think that they just made it up for a laugh. And yet here we are writing a Wikipedia entry trying to profess that a hoax is true, whilst ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary. Pretty silly of us. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

DB "banned"?

I took out the sentence "On November 8, 2005 he was banned from editing Wikipedia articles for making legal threats against other users in violation of Wikipedia's existing policies." I have some problems with the POV of such a sentence, but it also occurs to me that DB, the person, is not really "banned." The block was applied to a particular user name, and DB could (and has, I believe) edit as an anon ip or under a different user name. --FRS 15:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying that if he edited under a sockpuppet, he would have to be equally disruptive as last time before being blocked, or would be immediately blocked? Izehar (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm saying he (or any banned user) wouldn't be blocked as a sockpuppet unless he engaged in objectionable conduct or identified himself as the party subject to a block. IOW, DB could edit anonymously (and, I suspect, has done so on occasion) --FRS 16:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
He claims to have done so on his oh so serious wikiwatch website. Someone has too much free time IMO - if he used a sockpuppet to come back and it was obvious who it was, it would be blocked. Izehar (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, we're talking about the accuracy of the statement "On November 8, 2005 he was banned from editing Wikipedia articles for making legal threats against other users in violation of Wikipedia's existing policies," right?
IMO, the statement is inaccurate on several levels, the most serious being (a) DB is still able to edit as long as he does it unobtrusively and without identifying himself; (b) he was not BANNED in accordance with the linked WP policy which does not authorize individual admins to take this action. --FRS 17:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Alright, how about indefinetly blocked? Izehar (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's a fact that User:Daniel Brandt was (said to be) indefinitely blocked. I don't think the fact is notable enough to be in the article. I don't agree User:Daniel Brandt is synonymous with the living person that is the subject of this article. I also believe there are PoV issues with exactly why and how this occurred and whether it was in accordance with policy. I prefer not to get into all that b/c it's a side issue. --FRS 17:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I do believe User:Daniel Brandt is the same person, as if it had been an impersonator doubtless we would have been reading about it in USA today, given Brandt's protection of his reputation. Actually I got it wrong and he isn't banned but indefinitely blocked, which I have repaired, SqueakBox 17:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I prepared a blurb that is NPOV and distinguishes between DB the person and User:Daniel Brandt, the WP username/account. I'd still prefer to get rid of this self-referential bit altogether, but can live with with the new text I put up.--FRS 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I for one am not disputing whether he was banned, or on what date. I am disputing why he was banned. Brandt claims that he was banned for being anti-Google. Wikipedia claims he was banned because he invaded privacy. The real reason is very subjective. We can either include all arguments or none and just state facts. So either we say "Brandt says that he was banned for being anti-Google" AND "Wikipedia's blocking admin claims that he was banned for invading privacy" or else we just say "Brandt was banned". That was my bone of contention. Just saying Wikipedia's point of view is not neutral. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll: "Criticism of Wikipedia" section

Due to the recents fun and games with NPOV boxes liberally sprinkled around, I think this would be a good course of action. There is not a dispute about content, but a dispute about notability of information. Therefore a vote is needed to decide whether the info should stay: (Kind of a SfD - section for deletion - can there be a super-consensus for delete? To aviod double-negatives here is the proposition, to which you should respond support or oppose or neutral

The article should have a section detailing Brandt's interactions with wikipedia:

Current voting tally is 7/5/0.

Support

  • Support - Brandt's interaction with Wikipedia is the main reason for his notability. Not because of Wikipedia Watch, but because of him managing to trace whoever wrote about John Seigenthaler Sr. You can't leave out that achievement and you will have to if you don't fully explain his interaction with Wikipedia. Of course, the trolling and his petty tantrums can be left out. Izehar (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Given his role in Wikipedia watch and in uncovering Brian Chase this material is very relevant and therefore the section passes the notability test, SqueakBox 18:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
How is his role in Wikipedia-Watch notable? There are at least a dozen other Anti-Wikipedia sites out there, and his is no more notable than theirs. His role in uncovering Brian Chase is indeed notable, but that's already amply covered on John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, where it belongs. wikipediatrix 18:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - How can we claim his activism is notable enough for an article and then not have a section on his current activism? If his activism is good enough to get him an article it (his cuases) need to be in the article. Plus he is beginning to be more newsworthy (if he is at all) for his criticism of WP/role in the John Seigenthaler Sr.controversy and his block. It says alot about WP if we can't properly document his WP complaints. Any news coverage he is currently getting is solely in connection to WP. --Silver31u 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Brandt has received major media coverage mentioning him as a critic of Wikipedia. Full coverage of this aspect of his activism is essential. Gamaliel 19:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support without Wikipedia he is nobody.  Grue  20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
CommentTo the extent that this true, there is no reason to have an article about him--FRS 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment. By that logic Wikipedia should be deleted as well, SqueakBox 22:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
There IS a reason to have an article about him, now that he appeared in the news. Before that he was much less famous.  Grue  22:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; his campaign against Wikipedia is notable just like his campaign against Google; they are two major efforts he has made against major Internet sites. *Dan T.* 01:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; all seem to agree that it should be mentioned, and once you already have a few lines about it you may as well give it a section IMHO. jucifer 02:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose - For reasons stated above: it's not notable in an article about Brandt; it's impossible to write an NPOV version of reasonable length; it's inherently too self-referential--FRS 14:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I actually have no problem with the section as it exists right now [17]. If someone feels that it's one-sided b/c it doesn't show "WP's side of the story" I'd suggest we find or ask for some quotes from JW that respond to DB's criticsm. --FRS 15:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't mind the subject being covered in a sentence or two somewhere in the course of the article. I do oppose there being a section devoted to it. wikipediatrix 14:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Brandt is inherently non-notable. --Agamemnon2 15:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC). Having been blackballed by Brandt, I hereby withdraw my vote. --Agamemnon2 19:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - should be listed on Wikipedia Watch article page only. Its relevant in terms of why he started Wikipedia Watch, but is not relevant in terms of his overall notoriety. Outside of Wikipedia, he's not notable for being banned on Wikipedia. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Avoid selfreference, especially while events are still unfolding. Write it up in a year, if anybody remembers it outside Wikipedia. Zocky 18:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article is correctly written and sourced, but the value of its presence is far outweighed by the harm it is causing to the Wikipedia effort: it is silly, trite, and sends a troubling message to potential and existing contributors.GC 20:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - "is correctly written and sourced, but the value of its presence is far outweighed by the harm it is causing to the Wikipedia", so does that mean that not supporting the WP effort is grounds for not documenting it? What is WP's creditability if it judges content on whether it helps or hurts WP? WP's creditability is already controversial and comments like that only give ammo to WP critics. --68.58.158.97 20:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral - I'm not sure either way. jucifer 14:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Justification for three NPOV headers

Could we please have the justifications for these headers written down here in simple sentences. What is NPOV about the respective sentences? If there are no answers in a few hours I will remove them until they can be justified. jucifer 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of anything. They are at the utmost standards of neutrality in the best tradition of Wikipedia. Izehar (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay here's a few points.

1) Daniel Brandt *DID NOT* start Google Watch because of problems with his page rank being high enough. This article in 2002 explains why he actually started Google Watch dot org/krane.html, which was to protest that Google was invading people's privacy. The Page Rank story was a myth started by Salon.com and perpetuated by the guy who made Google Watch Watch. Yes, he is interested in Page Rank, but only from the point of view of it being used to scrape pages - i.e. that people use it to make money out of breaching people's privacy. The sole reason for Google Watch was because he believed that Google invaded people's privacy.

2) The Google Watch Watch article was not created to protest Google Watch. It was a single article specifically to counter the claims made by Brandt against its creator that he was a scraper. It is not a site - it doesn't talk about anyone other than himself. It should be described as an article. An article with its own domain name. This seems to be pretty accurate now.

3) The reasons for Wikipedia Watch being created were not being correctly explained. Again, people are referencing his listing people's real names. Whilst you personally might feel that that makes him a hypocrite (and you might be right), his stated aim in doing this was in fact to protect privacy. He has spoken at length about this in a large number of places. He started Wikipedia Watch for the same reason as he started Google Watch - because he thought that Wikipedia was being used to invade people's privacy. Similarly with Google Watch, he had a vested interest in it. With Google, he was upset that his page was listed on Google without his permission. With Wikipedia Watch, he was upset that there was an article about him, which he believed was untrue. The main issue, however, was with his ban. Now, I don't know what happened, beyond looking at his list of contributions and what admins said about him, but it seems pretty clear that the interpretation that the true reason for his ban being privacy invasion is very subjective, and indeed very unlikely to be true. Brandt claims that he was banned because of his anti-Google stance. There is dispute as to the real reason why he was banned. So we can either mention both sides or else not mention the reason at all, and just say "he was banned". Anyhow, I am happy with this section as it stands now.

Anyway I am happy with the current version of the article with the exception of the reasons for Google watch. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The dispute about the reasons for his block only exists in Brandt's mind. Does Brandt present any evidence that he was blocked for being "anti-Google"? In essence, you are calling Jeffrey O. Gustafson a liar based on...well, absolutely nothing. You complain that we are "making stuff up" because Jeffrey wasn't hyperspecific in the block log when he blocked Brandt, but now you want the article to claim there is some sort of dispute about Jeffrey's motives based on stuff Brandt made up. Outrageous. Gamaliel 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/u/b/Talk%7EPublic_Information_Research_Archive_2_522a.html"