Talk:Public Information Research/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

← Archive 2 |

Archive 3

| Archive 4 →

Sent Brandt a letter

I sent Brandt a letter as follows:

Hello, Mr. Brandt.

You probably remember me.. Linuxbeak. Yes, I know I emailed you from a different email address, but that doesn't matter at this point. Please listen to what I have to say.

In attempting to deal with the entire situation revolving around you, I have said some things that have been less than becoming for a Wikipedia administrator or of an Eagle scout (which I am), Civil Air Patrol cadet (as I also am), or a Christian (which, yes, I am). As such, I wish to apologize for my words. Things between you and Wikipedia have obviously been less than perfect, to say the least. I am sorry that it worked out that way. I think when people misunderstood a few minor things that you said, they acted without thinking first. Wikipedia obviously isn't perfect, and the community isn't always as friendly as we all wish it could be.

I am sending you this letter not under duress but because I wish that things between a.) you and Wikipedia and b.) you and me are patched up. We're both mature individuals, but we are also both male and as such we may sometimes let our pride become more important than our diplomacy ;-) You know what I mean.

Although I disagree with your setiments towards Google, that need not get in our way of coming to a mutual agreement that we have been unnecessarily stuborn in our positions. I am asking that we perhaps contact each other through e-mail and attempt to repair any sour feelings. I personally wish that Wikipedia be known as a useful pool of information and not as a place of conflict. If you and I can perhaps put aside our differences, then maybe we can also work towards furthering our goals.

I will be calling your offices as well. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Alex Schenck aka Linuxbeak

I hope that works.. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Important - Please read

I suggest everyone reads Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive20#Hell_freezes_over, or Linuxbeak and Daniel Brandt resume diplomacy. It will be directly affecting this article.

Great news, not so much b/c DB was particularly a threat, but b/c it will free attention to the countless subjects of much greater interest to the outside world than this WP v. WW mudwrestle--FRS 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was this page redirected?

Why was this (Daniel Brandt) page redirected, rewritten from scratch, and then protected without discussing it first on the talk page? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the flashing link. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 01:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Still, twas a bit hasty. Broken S 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The flashing link you refer to directs me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, which is an inappropriate place to discuss moving this or any other article. Discussions regarding page moves or redirects should take place on the respective article's talk page so all interested parties may comment. As I am not an administrator, I do not follow the discussions on WP:AN and I am contesting this unilateral decision. To describe this move as hasty is an understatement. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

More info here. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 01:57

That is the same link as the flashing one above, from what I can tell. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The short version is that Linuxbeak contacted Daniel Brandt via phone and, after a lengthy discussion, was able to have the hostilities tabled. Daniel Brandt agreed to remove the chart at his website which (I am told) listed personal information about various Wikipedia editors and admins. In exchange, Linuxbeak agreed to move the Daniel Brandt article to Google Watch or Public Information Research.

The longer version, with more detail, is at WP:AN, at or near the bottom of the page, under the section "Hell freezes over". → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbeak has no authority to make such deals. I read the discussion and it was sickening. Just because several adminstrators get together and make a decision does not make it authoritative. As far as editing goes, admins have no privileges or special rights. As far as I'm concerned, people who have been redirecting and then reverting to protect the redirect are disrupting Wikipedia. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 02:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm also very antagonized by this action, the only thing keeping me from going monkey is that I'm assuming he has a good reason to do this. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleting the article due to a private agreement with Brandt would compromise our editorial integrity. I am strongly in favor of restoring the article. Rhobite 02:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Page protected

I have protected the redirect page until editors on the page decide what to do. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Hell_freezes_over.2C_or_Linuxbeak_and_Daniel_Brandt_resume_diplomacy too. I'll keep checking in to see whether you're ready for protection to be lifted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree not only with the various methods being used to enforce this redirect, but also with the idea of merging a person "notable" for multiple things into one of those things. --SPUI (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Linuxbeak claims he was going to merge but decided not to after this broke out. Assuming good faith here, I recommend merging first, then redirecting. And protecting the redirect is never a good idea unless there is an edit war already going on. --SPUI (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not undo the page protection — out of basic courtesy if nothing else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. Welcome back. I have a lot of respect for your editing abilities, and I hope you will help out on this new article. Daniel Brandt 03:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. Thank you for saying that; I appreciate it. However, I can't get involved in editing the page now that I've protected it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm merging this article now. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 03:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why the merge is a good idea. We've gone through this before. The man is notable enough to have his own article. Has he gotten less notable since the last time? I really hope you are not letting your desire for Brandt to delete his "hitlist" affect you. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 03:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Chan-ho, I did not have any desire to see the hivemind page removed; that was Brandt's own doing. Please see the admin noticeboard for my final say about this.. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 03:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at it. I'm glad to hear that the hivemind page did not influence you, but then I'm really puzzled as to what you thought you were doing. Your comment given as part of your rationale strikes me as misguided: "Everyone would still have Mr. Brandt's bio under a different name. No, I guess that wasn't good enough. We're out for blood, aren't we? Daniel Brandt IS notable enough to have an article just because Wikipedia says so, apparently." Well, yes, the Wikipedia community did decide and does decide these things.

It seems you are aware of the downsides of what you did when you write later, "I'm sorry people. It's up to the Wikipedia community, not me, to decide what to do here. I thought I was doing something good." I'm sorry too. I appreciate that you were acting with the best intentions. But trying to overturn an AFD in this manner will never get a unanimous "ok".

Let me just add that I only saw these Brandt-related articles recently (through the Siegenthaler controversy). I hold no grudges and haven't invested myself into a hate crusade against this man. But I can clearly see what you did was wrong. Consider that at least. You say you're sorry. Well, if you were to stop doing this merge and just basically undo everything you've done with this redirect business, that would go a long way. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 03:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:PPol clearly states "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." SlimVirgin, the admin who just imposed page protection, has edited this page at least 10 times ~~in the last week~~ in recent months, and created the article in the first place. Note that this is not the first time SlimVirgin has violated the same page protection rule on articles she was editing. See Islamophobia. Rangerdude 03:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, I haven't edited this page since October 16 and I have not violated the policy elsewhere either, as the RfAr against you made clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim - the talk page on Daniel Brandt - the article you have edited extensively and have been heavily involved in disputes over - redirects to Public Information Research's talk page currently. As to the Arbcom, you are incorrect. They never put the matter to a vote, largely because Fred Bauder declined to do so after assuring you he'd let you off the hook because of who you are - an admin - even though he conceded you had broken the rules. If you don't want me complaining about your violations of WP:PPol then don't protect pages where you have an extensive history of involvement and disputes. It's that simple. Rangerdude 07:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never been involved with the article, and I was the first to put in protecting after an anon "rvc"d the redirect. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it's fine if you're not involved, but SlimVirgin is. And she's done this many times before on other articles that she's involved in. Rangerdude 03:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Linuxbeak was acting in good faith, and I admire his willingness to have a reasonable discussion with an "enemy" and to apologize for his own behavior, in the hopes of ending the battle. However, I don't think the outcome, of moving the bio to another page, was a good move for Wikipedia. Like it or not, Brandt is now famous for more than one thing: Google-Watch and his involvement in the Seigenthaler controversy, to name the two biggest things, in addition to a miscellany of less-notable things that might still be of note in aggregate, including various activism from the 1960s to the present. Hence, it wouldn't make sense to redirect his name to any single item. *Dan T.* 04:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm unbanned, just let me offer my two cents. Wikipedia is presumably in the business of surviving in the long term. If that is true then Wikipedia editors need to realize that playing with an article on a living person is not the same thing as playing with an article on anything else. Some of those living persons will invevitably be in a position to bite back. The most obvious example is Seigenthaler. That was a case of one vandal who went unnnoticed. That was a big minus for Wikipedia, but not quite the same thing as the "Brandt problem" (if I may be so bold). If you cannot recognize that the "Brandt problem" is a symptom of things to come, then I'm willing to do battle with you. I'm probably not the first, and I am certainly not the last. The Brandt problem is this: an article gets started, the subject doesn't like it, and the subject fights back. If you can live with this, because I'm an insignifcant figure who happens to be able to push a tiny number of buttons in retaliation, then let's go at it. Seigenthaler is a hundred times more connected than I am, and he did a hundred times more damage to Wikipedia. If you want to do this, then let's do it. The alternative for Wikipedia is to recognize that biographies on living persons deserve a special sensitivity. To hell with all your policies. Your policies, when applied to living persons, will bury you. It's your choice. So ban me again. What do I have to lose? Let the record show that I was willing, with Alex and SlimVirgin, to try out a reasonable compromise. It was shot down before it had a chance to take off. Daniel Brandt 05:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

They are indeed different, as the living person can provide feedback and even edit their own article if they behave themselves. While Seigenthaler is indeed more connected, him doing "damage" to Wikipedia is debatable; since his critique will bring more attention and users to Wikipedia; this is a good thing. However, his critique while damning was also facile (at least what he put forward on CNN, Hillary Clinton and other notable people are watched and reverted quickly) and clearly showed he was unaware of the relative robustness of Wikipedia to vandalism. It may also serve to delineate to casual users what Wikipedia is not, as Jimbo has said this nor any other source should be considered "authoritative" and fact checking is something one should always undertake during research. Another robust feature of Wikipedia, is no one person/group, you, Alex and SlimVirgin can tell us what is a "reasonable compromise". We can and will arrive at that together; and heck if you allow yourself to work within the system those policies can change. Wiki- means quick, and we mean that and have shown it here (your quick disagreement notwithstanding)... with your help we can aspire to be a -pedia. Though it won't be a -pedia that follows your philosophical outlook; but then again, I think, it attempts to integrate differing viewpoints as best it can. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess we are back to six hours ago, and I've reverted the hivemind compromise. For some strange reason, I'm not interested in the invitation to "edit their own article if they behave themselves." Daniel Brandt 06:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, mores the pity as I'm confident you'd add to Wikipedia's value. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

RoyBoy, you've elsewhere expressed the view that Brandt "needs a wake up call, and Wikipedia is as good a place as any for him to get it." [1] This is not an appropriate attitude to have toward an article about a living person. We're not journalists and this isn't a newspaper with a publish-and-be-damned philosophy, writing about an individual whose exposure may be a matter of legitimate public interest. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, and as we don't have any of the checks and balances newspapers have (fact-checkers, trained journalists, copy editors, lawyers), we have to be particularly careful not to damage people, and that involves having some humility about our own research skills and editorial judgment. We don't always get things right, in other words. Even if every single claim in an article is well-sourced and accurate, the overall thrust of it might nevertheless be unfair, inappropriate, and damaging to the individual. And as Brandt has pointed out, even if we correct our errors, mirror sites may pick up the article on a bad version, leaving the individual to deal with the consequences, while we move on, unaffected. There is something deeply unfair about that. I'm not expressing support here for either the redirect or the current version on the page, by the way, but I'm asking for restraint in editing and some respect for Brandt's position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Which attitude is that SlimVirgin? I almost agree with every word you said; but precisely what consequences? I concede this is a unfair and naive question to ask as I certainly have not devoted as much time to pondering this as you clearly have; but I cannot escape the tendency to feel this is a case of oversensitivity resulting from incorrect calibration with reality. I came to this position when Seigenthaler asked the rhetorical question on CNN (paraphrasing) "What are people like me to do?" I laughed (out of disbelief), because celebrity, notability, gossip and slander are not new concepts and their love/hate relationship is far beyond the scope of Wikipedia and her mirrors. (although it may be strangely new to Seigenthaler) If these (incorrectly toned, even factually wrong Wikipedia articles) truly effected a life negatively – pursue the matter – but that negative impact should be demonstrated before all this hand wringing. (which is having a negative impact) Seigenthaler didn't pursue the lawsuit for various reasons; one of which is it would have been frivolous; both in content and context. Why that is involves matters within and beyond Wikipedia as the law attempts to align itself to online realities and their actual effects on real people. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The law is a blunt instrument and I think we should forget about the libel issue and think more in terms of being fair and decent. I dealt with a case recently of an individual (I would say he's a private individual, but he's arguably somewhat notable within a certain context) who was mentioned in a Wikipedia article in an insulting way that could have had a serious effect on his life: his personal relationships and his employment could have been affected. What recourse did he have? Taking legal action would have been prohibitively expensive and complex given the nature of Wikipedia, and might have had the effect of spreading the claims even further. In the end, the material was removed, but only after a long fight, and every day he has to check that it's not been re-added, so we've actually changed this individual's life by making him feel nervous and worried on a daily basis. All for the sake of a badly written paragraph added as a bit of fun by a couple of anonymous editors. We have no right to do that to people, in my view.

As I said earlier, good newspapers are used to having this power, and they have a corresponding sense of responsibility (or are supposed to), with policies in place, and a series of checks and balances to make sure they treat people decently, not least of which is that the editor-in-chief knows the names and addresses of everyone who writes the material he publishes. We don't have any of that. We therefore have to rely on our own maturity, sense of fairness, humility, and respect for the individual, and that means avoiding even the hint of a publish-and-be-damned philosophy when it comes to editing biographies of living people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll sleep on it, at least I made it on the dot org/hivemind.html Hive Mind, 'bout time. Hey Mr. Brandt, I like the guy with the screw through him; wouldn't it be more accurate to have him holding a screwdriver in his free hand? Just a suggestion; also you should tweak the ellipsis in my evidence from.... to ... makes your quoting selection(s) clearer. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Slept on it, my only regret is I didn't say it in clearer and more clever way, such as: Privacy is going back to what it use to be. The emphasis on privacy is a recent phenomenon with urbanization; as information becomes readily available we are actually going back to a time when everybody knew everybody else's business in a rural community. You may contend the anonymity the Internet provides for malcontents to hide in the shadows; well no, if we lift privacy a bit, we lift it for everyone. That has good and bad implications; but it makes attackers just as subject to scrutiny as their victims. (as the Seigenthaler incident illustrated)

As to your example; it doesn't wash for me. Primarily because we indeed are not a newspaper, and "could have had a serious effect on his life: his personal relationships and his employment could have been affected." Who's contention is this? Yours? His? And frankly Wikipedia is a publish-and-be-damned (until its discussed/fixed) philosophy; that's what the whole hubbub is about! - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin. Linuxbeak's solution of a merge and redirect is appropriate, even if the way he implemented it was out of process. --FRS 16:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Article should be restored

I have no doubt that Linuxbeak was acting in good faith. That does not matter, the article should be restored back to Daniel Brandt and unprotected until there is a consensus to redirect it. Wikipedia does not and should not engage in behind-closed-doors type deals. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree the article should be restored. Legal threats and other threats (such as Hive Mind exposure) should not dictate the content here. The consensus of editors is that the page at Daniel Brandt should stay and I suspect if it were put up to a vote the consensus of editors is that the article on him should NOT be redirected or merged to some organization that he runs or is a part of. Vivaldi 22:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that admins should engage in unilateral discussions with the topics of articles and make deals with the subjects that affect the content of the articles about those same subjects. Even if everything is on the up-and-up, it still has the appearance of impropiety. There is no reason to encourage this sort of behaviour in admins or in those that have articles about them here on Wikipedia. Vivaldi 22:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree strongly. Although I know Linuxbeak was trying to help resolve what has become a very messy situation, we should stick to our principles. Most importantly NPOV, and there is no way an article or it's existence can be NPOV when dictated by its subject. The evidence for keeping this article is right at the top of this page - it has had two community AfD discussions, one of which was speedy keep and one which was overwhelmingly to keep. the wub "?!" 22:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC on page protection's appropriateness

I posted an RfC regarding the appropriateness of SlimVirgin's page protection under WP:PPol given her extensive involvement in the Brandt dispute, plus her disagreement with User:Linuxbeak's unprotection on the same grounds. I concluded this was necessary as SlimVirgin and I have debated the appropriateness of her use of the admin protection power extensively and we both have very different views of how the rule banning it applies. Hopefully this will help clarify when page protection is and is not appropriate for an admin involved in a dispute. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SlimVirgin2. Thanks Rangerdude 08:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Comparison

I don't know how many of you realise this (probably none of you), but a while ago I was writing a few articles about the history of talkers. Now, basically, nobody had written anything at all about any of it. It was woefully incomplete and inaccurate and so forth. Now, an important part in that was to mention some of the major events in the history, and this included a number of controversies. 2 of the major controversies revolved around a person with the online screen name of Virus. Now, these controversies are quite well talked about BUT there is a dispute as to what precisely happened. Did he hack or was he actually protecting it? Did he spy or was he just blamed for it? And some people thought that it shouldn't even be mentioned since there's no proof of what happened. But there is proof of the reaction, and that's the important bit. If they were rumours, they were important rumours.

Now, the articles stayed up for about 2 weeks, survived AFDs quite happily, were deemed to be suitably notable, and so forth. And then Virus found them. Now, his real name was not mentioned. Nobody could find out who he was. What was written about him was not attacking him, and was written neutrally, saying why people believed it and why people didn't. Now, he was extraordinarily pissed off about it. He wrote on noticeboards ordering for people to attack me. Okay, so I didn't get death threats or anything, but my God I am sure that they were headed that way. And we suddenly had 50 people on here vandalising pages, wiping things, and hurling legal threats about and so forth, and demanding for my head. And it didn't matter what I wrote, I got a heap of hell from these people.

And in the end, we all agreed to remove his name. Whilst it was only a screen name, and you couldn't link it to a real person or hurt him in any way, and whilst it most definitely was not slanderous, he didn't want it there. So, in the interest of him, we just wrote that "someone" did it. He was happy with that, and agreed with that. Indeed, he didn't dispute the truth of what I had written - only my right to put his screen name down there, because it was "bad for business". I was in effect repeating what hundreds of people had said before.

Now, we can all joke that Virus is a stupid name to call yourself if you want to be known as anything other than a computer hacker, and that's probably why he got in to so much trouble and had so many people thinking he was a hacker.

But the thing is that what we learn is that this kind of thing is going to happen. I realised that, woops, I had offended someone in doing that.

A lot of people here are probably doing the same thing as me, thinking that they are documenting something truthful and accurate, and not realising that it's about a real person.

Another example, well, go and have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhuri Guin.

This is where things are different. Now, okay, perhaps we can say "No, you cannot edit your own article". But you should be able to be questioned about it. Perhaps even have a separate part of the talk page with something along the lines of "Comments by the subject of the article". And this can include things like what I was writing about, which was a business, or something that directly relates to them.

I mean, we aren't doing this as an attack page (or shouldn't be). If we were writing a biography, and we didn't interview the person who it was about, it wouldn't be respectful. Then we'd have to say it was an "unofficial" biography and nobody would buy it. Well, people might buy it if it was a smear and they were in to tabloids. But no serious people would.

Encyclopedia articles are not meant to full scale biographies, nor do they typically contain interviews. Nobody from Britannica (Groliers, Comptons, World Book, or Wikipedia) goes out and asks Jesse Jackson, for example, what he thinks about his encyclopedia article and then asks Mr. Jackson if he would like to add anything to his own article. Famous folks don't get to write their own articles about themselves, that is just the nature of being famous. Some folks handle themselves in the spotlight of fame better than others and those that do not handle themselves well in the spotlight should consider retreating from the spotlight of fame rather than jumping up and down and making a huge fuss. Vivaldi 22:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember the Princess Diana unofficial biographies? Without consulting Brandt, that's the kind of quality we are writing here. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Neutral" links

Zordrac (talk • contribs) is apparently under some misguided impressions regarding the 'See also' section, since he removed "Outing" from that section and re-inserted a whole slew of previously removed links, with the edit summary "there is no way that including "Outing" is unbiased. put in some links that actually refer to the stuff he talks about".

Zordrac, first of all, the 'See also' section is for links that are relevant to the subject but not contained in the article itself. Are you really under the impression that Google was not linked in the article? That Google Watch, Wikipedia Watch, Scroogle were not?

Secondly, your reasoning for removing "Outing" commits at least one major misunderstanding and one major fallacy. Each Wikipedia article should conform to the neutral point of view; however, this is achieved by presenting fairly, for all sides, what they believe and why they believe it. It is not achieved, as some people mistakenly think, by rounding down to some lowest common denominator of opinion, and removing any especially convincing argument or fact or perspective. If we stated "The 'See Also' section must be unbiased", that would not be an adequate argument for removing "Outing"; reasonable people might in fact believe that Brandt is wrong or right because they compare his current quest to dig up and reveal the private information of Wikipedia editors and reveal it to the world for his own purposes, with the controversial practice of "outing", digging into information that people have opted to keep private (not always sexual orientation, though that is where the term originated) and revealing it to the world for political purposes.

However, even saying "The 'See Also' section must be unbiased" is starting on the wrong foot. The requirement is that the article, of which the 'See also' section is a component, must be unbiased. To claim that the 'See also' section must be seen as unbiased even when taken out of context is the fallacy of division. To claim that the inclusion of the link automatically creates bias is to confuse NPOV with false balance; it should be included in the article because it elucidates why many regard Brandt's actions as abhorrent (or virtuous, if you happen to approve of 'outing'), not surpressed for that reason. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. I explained this in my message to you. If you want to call him a hypocrite, then fine, but do it in a neutral way. Putting in some underhanded "Outing" link in "See also" is really as un-neutral as you can possibly get. Whether its to call him gay (as Brandt thinks) or because of some secret way to call him a hypocrite, it doesn't matter. If you want to call him a hypocrite, then do it in the article, with sources. And make sure to do that neutrally too. And if you think you're writing this to "Out" me then that's just silly. Yes, I am pro-Brandt, as I have been since I first heard about him in 2002. He is a great campaigner for human rights. I don't agree with everything he does, but I agree with why he is doing it. Indeed, I find it difficult to understand why people here are so hostile towards him. But hey. I guess that's your business. But whatever your personal views, you can't make the articles be too biased by them. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Nonsense" yourself. You explained your misunderstanding of Wikipedia's NPOV policies at great length on my talk page, yes, but that doesn't make it right. "Underhanded"? "some secret way"? "if you think you're writing this to "Out" me"?!? Get over yourself. Outing is revealing personal information about someone without their consent; I have never even sought to discover any personal information about you, let alone reveal it to anyone. Your absolutely irresponsible, entirely unfounded accusation that I am trying to do so is a personal attack upon me -- as is your repeated imputation that I am acting in bad faith, doing "underhanded" things and looking for "some secret way". If there's anything "underhanded" here, it's that -- your attempts to direct attention away from your entirely shoddy syllogism that "Wikipedia is not suppose to endorse any of the POVs it describes; however, providing a link to outing might lead people to make up their own minds that one of the POVs is pretty well-founded; therefore, providing that link must itself be POV." That is the issue here; please stop trying to drag us off-topic into what a great guy Brandt is and especially stop your personal attacks upon me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Zordrac? I now expect your apology for two lies, though you've told many more than that. The first is the one right above, where you falsely claimed I was trying to "out" you, even though I have never acquired any sort of personal information about you, much less redistributed it. The second lie is the one you told in your edit summary, that Outing talks only about gays, which any reader can verify for themselves is completely false by going and reading it for themselves. If you have the right on your side, why do you feel compelled to tell lies? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And yes, I realise that I might be the only person here that thinks he is a great guy. But honestly, I've looked through his contributions, gone over every single one, and I can't see how he can be seen to have vandalised any pages, engaged in a single personal attack on anyone or did anything wrong at all. He was just expressing his point of view. Now, maybe I'm missing something and he had a secret 2nd account where he did all sorts of horrible things, but otherwise, basically banning him is censorship. You disagree with his point of view, fine, so you say your point of view. He criticises Wikipedia, fine. But you should realise that that's good for Wikipedia, not bad. If you are criticised, with constructive criticism, then you can work on fixing it. There are problems with Wikipedia. Anyone who thinks that Wikipedia is perfect is a bit blind quite frankly. You might think that some of the problems he highlights are not actually problems. But there are at least a few that are valid problems. He is 100% right about his concerns about biographies of living people, and that he should have the ability to at least be consulted about the contents of a biography written about him. A lot of what he says is 100% right. There's some that is his opinion which you may or may not agree with. But its actually good for Wikipedia. And I think that he highlighted that with what he did with finding that Brian Chase (hoaxer) guy. If he hated Wikipedia, he wouldn't have found him. If he wanted you guys to rot, and wanted Wikipedia to be destroyed, he would never have done the trace to find him. Instead, he would have laughed as Wikipedia went through the courts and got in deeper and deeper poo. He's obviously not trying to hurt anyone.

But realistically, I'm not the only person that is pro-Brandt. There are an awful lot of people who think that what he is doing is wonderful. He isn't running a company by himself - there's 20 or so people working there, and they all think that what he is doing is great, and have been helping him out for the best part of 40 years. He's been involved with protests, and he's got activists the world over that support him. The vast majority of media stories (with the exception of the 2 Salon.com stories) have been very much saying how wonderful he is, and indeed they always have been saying that. Conspiracy theorists love him - he has a whole database full of answers for conspiracy theories. That's what Namebase is for - it disproves silly conspiracy theories, and provides evidence to support the more sensible ones.

I don't know what the world view is of him overall, and you're probably right - most protestors have more people against them than for them. Even the few that actually came out and looked good, people like Nelson Mandella, Malcolm X and Mother Theresa (I know, I've said those 3 names before, but I can't think of any others) were still hated in large numbers right up until their death - indeed they got regular attempts on their lives all the way through. Does that make them bad people? Do you think that someone who is trying to help the world is a horrible person?

And let's make no mistakes here. He is not trying to make money. He is not trying to become popular. His aims are as altruistic as you can possibly get. There is not a single selfish thing there. Yes, he is interested in protecting his interests - including his privacy. But that is not his main aim. He didn't start Wikipedia Watch to attack the people that said nasty things about him. Sure, he's got one page detailing that, but that's it. What's on the other pages? The other pages have the real reason why he's made Wikipedia Watch - which is to point out the privacy implications. He's not like Chris Beasley, who made Google Watch Watch just so as to attack Brandt, or like that "hoaxer" who made http://danielbrandtblog.blogspot.com/ to talk about his attack on Brandt. No, he's doing this for everyone.

And has anyone who has their name listed up there said that they thought it was an invasion of privacy? I am yet to see one complaint like that. Is there anyone who thinks that they were misquoted? I don't think so.

They just think he is hypocritical. But is he?

Why is him listing factual details about them any different to his information about Oliver North in the Namebase archives?

I mean, I don't think that he should be listing people's private names. Screen names are enough. But he has every right to list it there.

If you think that it's wrong for him to do that, then what about things like Requests for Comment and Arbitrations and the like? They always list a lot of personal things, which is no different to what his Hivemind page says. He's not going through people's trash or anything. He's just saying this is the person this is what they said. Nothing more. No invasion of privacy there. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

But he is a hypocrite. The "hoaxer" you cite above demonstrated that it's just as possible to get false, anonymously-supplied information about living persons into Brandt's own page as it is on Wikipedia, and that Brandt doesn't apply any sort of fact-checking before posting such information when he considers it to suit his purposes. Another example of Brandt hypocrisy is his insistence that it's an invasion of privacy to mention the (true and properly sourced) information about his 1960s activism. But just who is the evil privacy-violator who alerted the Wikipedia editors to this information in the first place? Well... it's Daniel Brandt, who provided the info and references back when his main objection to the article on him was that it was too shallow, concentrating only on his current activity and not mentioning his long history of activism. The fact that he later changed his mind and decided that this info shouldn't be public (even though it was in the New York Times) shouldn't give him the right to put it in the memory hole, 1984-style. *Dan T.* 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirected talk page??

Why is the discussion page for Public Information Research redirecting to here? This seems very unorthodox. If the two are so closely related that their talk pages must be merged, isn't that a prime indicator that the pages themselves should be merged? wikipediatrix 16:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its got something to do with the whole merge that was briefly done yesterday. I'm still confused why it was done. Apparently there was an agreement to delete this article and just have articles about what he's done, so that his privacy isn't invaded. But this has now been undone, as Wikipedians decided that his privacy should be invaded. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

special sensitivity

Due to all this, I just now created Wikipedia:Biographies on living persons deserve a special sensitivity as a proposed guideline. If its a good idea, people will fill it out. WAS 4.250 18:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Other languages

I'd like everyone to look at the other two language versions of Daniel Brandt.

French: [2] (2 lines)
Hungarian: [3] (2 lines) - also nominated for deletion [4], although I can't be sure how it is going. Looks like a no consensus to me.

They don't seem to think he is important. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And your point is...? The different Wikipedia communities that have formed around the different language editions have often differed greatly in their assessments of the notability of subjects, as well as on other issues. A particularly bizarre case is that of Stefán H. Ófeigsson, an Icelandic citizen who's both a rocket scientist and a convicted rapist; the article on him was brought up under Articles for Deletion in both the English and Icelandic editions, and the result was that he was deleted in his own native-language Wikipedia but kept in the English one. Go figure. *Dan T.* 17:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My point is that they wrote 2 lines on him, and couldn't think of anything more that was worth writing, and one of them even thought it should be deleted. And that certainly wasn't Daniel Brandt putting it up for deletion... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Brandt's views re Wikipedia articles on living persons

Brandt's position regarding what a site such as Wikipedia ought to do regarding articles on living persions is, in my opinion, part right and part wrong. It is correct that what we say about somebody who's living, such as George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Britney Spears, or Daniel Brandt, has more chance of affecting (for good or ill) a real person's life than an article on a long-dead person such as Pope Benedict IX (died 1055, 1065, or 1085 AD, depending on whom you believe), whose article says all sorts of stuff that might be considered defamatory if he were living. (I hope the current pope wasn't thinking of this guy when he chose his papal name!) As a result, we do need to be more careful when writing about living persons. This, however, does not translate into giving the subjects of such articles the right to insist on every aspect of such articles being rewritten to the subject's satisfaction, including removal of links to critical sites, removal of truthful biographical information the subject would rather not be known, or the deletion or renaming of the entire article if the subject demands it. It also does not mean that Wikipedia ought to cave in to threats to sue or disrupt it on the part of disgruntled article subjects. Wikipedia needs to continually evolve its standards and policies in order to deal with the "real-world" problems it increasingly gets in the middle of due to its increasing popularity. However, that does not mean that it needs to let outside people unilaterally dictate policy changes via ultimatums and harrassment. (And I still consider Brandt an "outside person" regarding the Wikipedia community, since, although he has a WP username, he has thus far refused to make himself part of our community by participating in accordance with its standards and policies. This is something that he alone has the power to change. There are a number of former trolls, vandals, and general annoyances who have "grown up" and become responsible Wikipedians, accepted now as members of the community.) *Dan T.* 18:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This should go on the talk page of WP:AUTO, where I am pretty sure the same kind of thing has been discussed before. And you probably have a point too for what it's worth. He should be consulted about such things as when we are saying "Brandt said this" or "Brandt started this because" but that's about it. I've actually been quite frustrated since a lot of the kinds of things that I want to include in this article are hidden, and Brandt obviously doesn't want us to include them, in spite of them being very useful for the article. For example - why did he start Google Watch? I mean I know why but its not listed anywhere on his site, and its just about impossible to find. Also - what did Google say to him, what are their relations? Other than the Google Watch Watch page, I couldn't find anything there either. Now, he obviously doesn't want us to know. I can't see why not, since such things put him in a very good light. But I guess he just wants to maintain his privacy. And I suppose that's his choice. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and with regards to your other comment, I am yet to see any evidence that he did anything against Wikipedia's rules. Can you direct me to it? All I've seen is that his POV was different to others. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal threats are against Wikipedia's rules. Broken S 18:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Making that dot org/hivemind.html list may be a violation of the m:Privacy policy. Also, in my entry he says ...trolling and petty tantruns... - I never said that. I said ...trolling and petty tantrums.. - tantrums with an "m" not an "n". I see two possibilities here, either Brandt can't spell, or he is falsely claiming that I made a spelling error (libel). Izehar (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you're ridiculing the man over a typo. Could you possibly get any more petty? wikipediatrix 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can be pretty confident that you can't be sued for libel over a typo. LOL. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

When I refer to him choosing not to be part of the Wikipedia community and participate within our policies and guidelines, I'm thinking in particular of statements (which he made above in this talk page) like To hell with all your policies. Your policies, when applied to living persons, will bury you, and I'm not interested in the invitation to "edit their own article if they behave themselves.". These evidence a desire on his part not to participate constructively in this site. *Dan T.* 18:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This debate also seems to be taking place, in a slightly different form, at Talk:Brian Chase (wikipedia hoaxer). Imagine if George W.Bush wanted an article on himself removed or changed. Clearly the laws of libel nowhere in the world prevent someone from writing about someone else, which is perhaps the sort of world Brandt proposes. I think modern technology and the internet touches huge privacy issues which certainly affect wikipedia regards our right to be anonymous editors and have anonymous IP's, but this doesn not effect who we write articles about. There are libel laws, though they vary greatly from country to country, and I do believe that if it turned out that people outsied the US and without US citizenship in practice faced the possibility of extradition to the United States that most non-US editors would cease editing and non-US rival encyclopedias would rapidly follow. Even so, libel laws have tight definitions. If I say Bush is insane because of the bottle of brandy and ounce of coke he consumes daily I would probably be committing libel whereas if I said he was insane because of his abortion beliefs that would not be libel. Having said this I am not a lawyer but sad would be the day when you need the advice of a lawyer to contribute critically about living people in wikipedia. If we can't write about living people we aren't a credible encyclopedia, but any society tthat cannot write critically about any individual is not a free society either. I worry about the long term trends of freedom on this planet in the face of these issues. Bush can no more insist that he gets the final say on his article any more than his supporters or his opponents get the final say. Surely the consensus of reasonable people is going to get a better result than one person dictating. As long as we have freedom of speech in the various countires in which we live we are free to wirte about whom we choose. Libel laws may have been brioken by an individual re Seigenthaler but I have seen no evidence of this beiong even remotely the case with Brandt. I fully support our no legal threats rule as wiothout it the atmosphere would become very unpleasant. i guess some people are opposed to freedom and many of them don't like wikipedia, SqueakBox 18:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Vilerage started up brandt-watch.org less than a week ago, and one of the links on the main page launched a denial-of-service attack on wikipedia-watch.org as soon as it was clicked. A link to 27,000 log entries is at the bottom of http://www.wikipedia-watch dot org/perp.html How much would you like to bet that he's still considered a good guy at Wikipedia? Daniel Brandt 19:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that. We had an edit conflict. LOL. Me and my huge entries. Anyway, I think that that stuff should stay out of this page until its dealt with properly through appropriate Wikipedia admin channels. I left him a message on his talk page requesting that he prove his innocence. If he can't, then I said that I would petition for him to be stripped of his admin powers and banned. But that kind of thing really doesn't belong in this article, or really in this talk page either. If proven, maybe. But I think that his privacy should probably stay hidden from such public view. Unless you are planning to press charges or go to the media, of course. I think that we need to wait to see if its proven 100% that it was him first, and that he really did that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see that he wiped my message off his talk page. Now, who do I contact to get the matter dealt with? I think its safe to say that he's guilty now, so I will say that. We can safely say that he hacked Brandt's Wikipedia Watch web site using Denial of Service, and that that has been proven and effectively admitted. I believe that that is illegal. He should be banned from Wikipedia without question. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

We don't block users for actions they take outside of Wikipedia (even other Wikipedias). We have drug addicts and criminals as editors. We can say that that is not acceptable and tell them not to do it again but as long as they are not violating our policies we can't block them. To me that brings up the question [I'm saying this to preempt any questions about this]..."Was the block of Brandt for his hivemind page within policy (because it was off Wikipedia)?" I'd say yes because it violates privacy policy (if not officially then in spirit) and because of legal threats made in conjunction with the page. Broken S 20:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

How can it be acceptable to ban someone for putting up a perfectly legal page that did NOT violate privacy policy that was used to defend himself, whilst you are condoning someone committing criminal actions in the name of Wikipedia? OMG thats so dangerous. The press would eat that alive. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

sigh* I saw this coming and tried to head it off...Fine he was indef blocked for legal threats. Vilerage hasn't violated any wikipedia policy that I know of. If anyone wants him blocked then make a policy which makes extra-Wikipedia actions blockable offences. Anyways the point is moot since I unblocked him yesterday. Broken S 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm probably mistaken on this, but I vaguely recall when I first joined Wikipedia; that creating a website outside Wikipedia which was critical of Wikipedia was a bannable offense. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would WP make this a bannable offense? Nobody cares about Brandt's (or anyone else's) criticism, it's the "hit list" with personal information and legal threats that got him banned. Gamaliel 23:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So I'd be mistaken; well it isn't just the criticism, but of having an entire site dedicated to Wikipedia bashing. Meh, whatever. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not correct either. He was not banned for "having an entire site dedicated to Wikipedia bashing". Lots of people have those. It's the page devoted to the collection of personal info (on top of his previous WP behavior) that got him banned. Even that nutter Sollog didn't do something like that. Gamaliel 02:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was simply trying to remember something from long ago which I felt was pertinent to current events, not asserting it played a role. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that we can safely say that there is dispute as to the true reasons why he was banned. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, that last bit was woeful, and I hope that you are not implying that about our freedom fighter Mr. Brandt. How the hell do you get the idea that Brandt is opposed to freedom? For heaven's sakes! Did you start that rumour or did someone else? That's evidence of libel, for one thing! That's about as bad as it gets there.

Anyway, to answer the rest of what you are saying, as I have said before, I think that people should be consulted when writing a biography about them. That doesn't mean that we have to write it totally how they want us to. It just means that over such things where they are going to be an expert, we should be e-mailing them to ask if they know where we can find a source for the information. They shouldn't be the primary source EXCEPT for when we are quoting them. This article, for example, at one stage quoted that "Brandt started Google Watch because he was upset that Google's Page Rank wasn't giving his namebase site enough hits". Now, that quote was from Salon.com, and then repeated by Google Watch Watch, but was never stated by Brandt. Brandt most definitely did not make Google Watch because he was upset that his web sites weren't getting enough hits - the true reason is the opposite. Indeed, he has heavily criticised people for trying to become too popular, and has accused them of destroying privacy to make money. So, therefore, we were lying about him there. And the fact that that lie was kept in the page for such a length of time is really damaging - especially when we kept reverting back to that, with no evidence that that was really why he started it, only with reference to what his detractors said was his reasons for starting it. Now if that's not libel I don't know what is. Its horrifically libellous to accuse a privacy activist of starting a site because he was upset that he wasn't popular enough - and then to accuse that same privacy activist of wanting to destroy people's privacy!

I mean, if that kind of stuff was true, it'd be a major scandal. But its not the kind of scandal that Wikipedia should start! Leave that for the press! If you really believe that kind of thing to be true, then contact a reporter, and let them expose him. The point of Wikipedia isn't to "out" people. Put that in a blog or something if you feel that way.

Anyway, the article has been improved dramatically, so that's a good thing. And Brandt is getting more notable by the day, what with his involvement in the Seigenthaler incident giving him all of the media attention, and people now talking about the right for him to be banned, and for his right to be able to edit his own page. So we have to keep this page now. He's too well known. It was probably dubious whether it should have been created when it was, or whether Google Watch was enough, but nowadays there's probably no doubt. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist

If you have issues with another user I suggest Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the place to take it, SqueakBox 20:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I reported the offender at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Vilerage. I am not sure if that is the right place, but I thought that it should be noted, now that it is confirmed that he definitely did it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The "offender"? That sounds serious, doesn't it? Last time I checked we had a little thing called WP:AGF. Izehar (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone is disputing the evidence that is presented (this is not a claim, it is something proven) or disputing his admission of guilt, offender is an appropriate term. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Vilerage posted "I didn't launch jack, much less a denial of service attack" here. That looks like he's disputing guilt. Gamaliel 07:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that. Its odd, since he previously confessed, in 3 different places. Regardless, the evidence is conclusive that he did it, and he did it in Wikipedia's name. Condoning such attacks is akin to Wikipedia being a criminal organisation. It's as good as saying "Yes, go hack Brandt because we hate him". Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we're right up there with Murder Incorporated. Gamaliel 08:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-involvement and condoning are worlds apart. This is not a "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" situation. You cannot expect the Management to start reacting to every single incident where some twerp decides to do something stupid "in Wikipedia's name". People make their own bad choices in life. Wikipedia is not accountable for human inability to use their brains. --Agamemnon2 10:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If anybody feels strongly enough about wikipedia-watch.org that they wish to engage in real life disputes with Daniel Brandt, they should first recuse themselves from editing this and related articles as their contributions are unlikely to be unbiased and constructive. Then they should consider whether they have enough confidence in their own maturity to continue working on a serious project like writing an encyclopedia.

The idea that people can not be banned for off-site activities is ludicrous. Any editor who takes an editorial dispute into real life and implicates or associates Wikipedia with criminal activities can not expect to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Zocky 09:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Zocky. I also agree with your comments here and was pleased to see that JW approves them.--FRS 15:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Show me

Show me the article in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta, Enciclopedia Libre, Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, netcyclo, Probert Encyclopaedia, Encyclopedia Americana, Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, Oxford World Encyclopedia, Yale Milton Encyclopedia, or in Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia, which goes into such extreme details about their critics. I can show you a dozen such articles on Wikipedia. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 20:39

And it is, of course, a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that our policies and inclusion criteria must always be exactly like those of all other publications with "-pedia" in their names. So, I guess we'd better delete Britney Spears, Kelly Clarkson, and Hilary Duff, since I doubt if they've got articles in those other works you list. *Dan T.* 20:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about the article's existence. I'm complaining about its level of detail. There's a difference. This article shouldn't be more than a few sentences. Instead, its longer and in more detail than most articles on world leaders. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 20:43

Well, so are the aforementioned articles on Britney, Kelly, and Hilary... cute girl pop stars are a more fun topic for some Wikipedians to expand upon than, say, the leader of Uzbekistan. The same for anti-Wikipedia flame-warriors. It's been frequently brought up that there is systematic bias to Wikipedia, but no good solution has ever been devised; it's just inherent in the fact that this site is written by people on their own initiative, rather than on professional assignment. *Dan T.* 20:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (P.S.: I had to follow the above link to find out for myself just who the leader of Uzbekistan is... and I found that he actually has a reasonably decent-length article, with pictures, though still shorter than those of the pop stars I mentioned.)

{{sofixit}}. Not by deleting this article, but by improving other articles. --SPUI (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And until it's fixed, we tell the world nice and clearly where our true intentions are. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 20:45

Once someone has past the notability test surely our duty is to give as much detail about the person as we can. The concept that a more famous person deserves more space on the wikipedia is a new concept I have not come across before, and am not in agreement with, SqueakBox 23:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the "notability test" is set extremely low due to WPs generally inclusionistic philosophy. That's OK if the articles are about metro stations, pokemon characters or garage bands, but when the article is about a living person we have a serious problem. Notable does not equal public. Because a person was mentioned once in a NYT article, or runs a website, does not make him a public person. There is no "duty" or even a "privilege" to "give as much detail about the person as we can." Articles about marginally notable persons such as Mr. Brandt can do a lot of harm to the subject, and provide very little benefit to the 'pedia or its readers. My preference would be to delete them altogether where, as here, the subject requests. Failing that, I advocate the minimal content required to describe whatever claim to notability the subject is alleged to have. --FRS 00:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Very good point here. I've been umming and ahhing about this one. I come from a family chockablock full of activists myself, and there's a few of my relatives who would be equally as notable as our friend Daniel Brandt here, and they, like him, are basically anonymous. Do you know how few activists are notable? I mean, a lot of what they do is notable, but they individually usually are not. Pretty much the only ones who are are the ones who end up in a career in media or politics, or who write best selling novels - and then they are notable for that, not for activism. I mean seriously, compare the amount of people that know "Google Watch" compared to the amount of people who know "Daniel Brandt". There are actually about 30 people who run "Google Watch" - Brandt is just the president. He doesn't do it all by himself. And if we are talking about a small time organisation that nobody much knows about, then why are we including its president? I mean, just for a comparison, think of Green Left, an Australian newspaper that comes out once every 2 weeks that talks about environmental/activist conspiracies. Its online edition is full of scandals. Now, there is probably a case for putting an article for Green Left on Wikipedia. It has a readership of about 10,000 people, and occasionally it is mentioned in newspapers. The fact that many of their members are communists is a big factor in that. And of course they were very closely connected with the anti-globalisation movement s11, who were one of the (minor) suspects in the September 11, 2001 attacks. So okay, you put in an article about Green Left. But do you put in the name of its president? Well, for one thing it'd be difficult to do so since they change presidents every month or so and don't actually have a proper leader overall (kind of round table idea). It has political aspirations but is not a political party. They are linked with the Australian Communist Party but do not share membership. Now, okay, 50/50 to include an article on Green Left, but on the person? Most of the people who are involved have lengthy criminal records, for doing things like tying themselves to trees, lying in front of bulldozers, breaking in to detention centres, invading property, and so forth. If you put an article about them, included their real names, and put in their criminal records, then it would destroy the movement. That's what their enemies want you to do. And they fight hard for that not to happen.

The co-ordinator of s11, for example, has never once had his real name released. It was one person, but he pretended that his name was Lachlan Murdoch. Should we go and find out his name and then make an article about him? I think not. And, whilst the court cases related to it are public record, and you could probably snoop and find out his real name, and have every legal right to do it, morally should you be doing it? Morally do you think that someone who some feel was responsible for 9/11 but logically couldn't have had anything to do with it should have their identity exposed so that they can be murdered? Do you think that that is responsible?

I mean, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having Google Watch. Absolutely nothing. Whilst its probably superfluous to have separate articles for Yahoo Watch, Google Watch Watch and Scroogle, since they all say the same thing, sure, nothing wrong with doing that. And whilst PIR, Namebase and CIA on Campus are seriously unheard of, sure, we may as well make them as well. And then Wikipedia Watch, which I dunno, there's an argument that it's really just an extension on Google Watch, but there's also an argument that it is, in some ways, specifically critical of Wikipedia. If he were to remove the "Hivemind" page, then its really just an extension of Google Watch. But while that remains, its really quite separate. I am just waiting for him to make Slashdot Watch. All of the reasons to criticise Wikipedia are also true for Slashdot. And perhaps even he should rename it from Wikipedia Watch to Popular sites that are used by Google to scrape. LOL. Not such a catchy title though.

And I guess that's the thing. Whilst Wikipedia Watch only started after he first used Wikipedia, the idea is a logical extension of Google Watch. In other words, he would have made it anyway, whether he'd be an editor or not, whether this article existed or not. Its not a protest at this article. Its a protest at privacy. It just includes this article as an example of his criticism.

Of course, I'm speaking for Brandt, and we agree on quite a lot of things. I wrote to him begging him to take down the real names of people on his hivemind page (but to keep the screen names), because some people think that he's a hypocrite for having them there. I really hope that he listens. Yet to get a response.

So should we have this page? Debatable. Should we have it just to attack Brandt? NO. Should we have it just because he's criticised Wikipedia? NO - Wikipedia Review got deleted as did Wikipedia Sucks and it looks like Wikipedia Class Action probably will be too.

I guess, basically, well, if we agree to keep Wikipedia Watch, then we can keep this page, because then he's notable for creating 2 products of notability. But if we delete that, then we should just merge all of this in to Google Watch, because then we would have agreed that Google Watch is all that he is notable for.

As for the details, well, it is a bit ridiculously long, but I think that that is mainly due to the controversy - which seems to be basically over the questionmark as to whether or not he is a hypocrite. I think that we should probably have a separate heading titled "Hypocrisy?" and then present both arguments for why he is a hypocrite versus why he is not. Why he is - because he's got this page full of people's personal info. Why he is not - because that's not actually invading privacy. And we extend on that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect? SHAME!!

Despite my great respect for linuxbreak, I am disgusted by this suggestion. Two contentious AfD debates confirmed Brandt's notability. First time it was 22-1, the second c.30-2. To redirect a lengthy article because some users feel that he an OK kinda guy is shows an obscene disrespect for wikipedia users. If Brandt does not merit an article then the article should be put up for an AFD. I am utterly disgusted. jucifer 02:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbreak made a good faith effort to forge a solution he thought was the right one. There's no need to beat him up for it. Gamaliel 02:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I like linuxbreak, and I know that his intent was good. I have no time for those who suggest above that he did this out of any personal interest. jucifer 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's stop beating this horse. Rhobite 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was a bit confused about this. Whilst I asked Linuxbeak to apologise with Brandt and try to make peace, and told him that Brandt is a nice guy trying to help everyone, and if we were all nice to him, he'd be nice back and all would be worked out, I for one didn't ask Linuxbeak to do this! I am not sure that I think it was a good idea! Yes, I voted oppose on Linuxbeak's RFB, but like he is winning 94/3 so why make that big a deal just for my 1 vote? I don't think that he should have gone so far as to revert the pages. All I asked him to do was to make peace with him. Just you know make up with him, be respectful, stuff like that. This article is a separate issue, as far as I am concerned. But, in saying that, I think that what User:Linuxbeak and User:SlimVirgin did in trying to make peace showed a lot of heart, and was a wonderful thing. I think that it shows hope. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:31, 18 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)
Support. His interactions with Wikipedia, which have been reported by the press worldwide, are notable and worthy of coverage. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Support. Counterarguments are logically weak. Information passes notability, relevance and verifiability criteria. We do not exclude information because it is volatile (or we could not write about current events), or because it describes events related to Wikipedia (or we could not write about the History of Wikipedia). Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, a recommendation I created a long time ago, explicitly states that "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important." The article currently uses the Main article style to link to Wikipedia Watch for details. The summary could be shortened a bit, but this is exactly the way it should be done.--Eloquence * 06:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Support per Eloquence. Jacoplane 06:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Support he has been doing good work, and it relates to Wikipedia. He has been doing some bad things, and it relates to Wikipedia. Both are notable and yes, he is a public person as a result. Although running a major watchdog group concerning one of the most influencial players on the Internet (Google) already qualifies him as a public figure. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Support per Eloquence, though the detail of this section will probably depend on the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch. the wub "?!" 23:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
support. // paroxysm (n) 22:41, 20 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 [5]. 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)
Oppose - Avoid self-reference where possible. If not reduce to a couple of sentences. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

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

Olive branch

I took the real names out of the hive mind chart. It will stay that way for at least two weeks. If things get better, the whole chart will disappear. If things get worse, who knows? Daniel Brandt 20:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please define for us what you would consider things getting better? Gamaliel 20:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) Thanks but, with all due respect, what you do with your website has nothing to do with this article. It is nice that you removed the names, but that won't effect the content in this article (if that's what you think it will do). If I have mischaracterized your definition of what it means for things to get "better" or "worse" then forgive me. Leonardo 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's at least hear the man out before we reject what he has to say. Gamaliel 20:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, he has the right to make his point, whatever it is... over here, as long as he isn't banned again, and on his own site any time he wants. But when he tries to use his anti-Wikipedia site as a tool of blackmail, where he offers to take it down if we make his article more favorable to him, or put back in the invasions of privacy he just removed if we don't do his liking, then that just doesn't seem very nice, and we ought to ignore it and follow our own standards. His input will be taken in a much more friendly, constructive way if it is not accompanied by threats of any sort, even if they're not the sort of threats (such as legal ones) that can get him banned. *Dan T.* 21:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but let's at least hear him out first, shall we? Perhaps he's trying to "blackmail" us into doing something we would do anyway, like removing some minor factual errors or pov we may have missed. Gamaliel 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

To: Eloquence (in response to a proposal he made today)

CC: Linuxbeak

First of all, I have very little desire to edit anything. I might note errors of fact on Talk pages, but I have little interest in a more aggressive editing role.

The hive-mind chart will get changed when another compromise is in the works. If the compromise is successful, it will come down. If it is half-successful, I will take out the middle column in the chart but put back the rest of it (screen name and "evidence" would stay, but "evidence" will be renamed to "comments").

I want to see portions of Daniel_Brandt incorporated into Google_Watch, Public_Information_Research, and/or a new article on NameBase. It might work to have an extremely brief (one little paragraph) page on Daniel_Brandt with links to one or more of the above three pages, and then lock down this one-paragraph page. Any new editing by Wikipedians would have to be done on one or more of the Google-Watch, Public Information Research, or NameBase pages.

This method will allow most of the work that Wikipedians currently show for Daniel_Brandt to be exported to a different context. This will, I feel, improve the situation insofar as my privacy is concerned. For example, instead of detail from the 1960s about SDS and draft-card burning, this might turn into a very brief phrase such as "a 1960s activist." More personal detail than this should seem irrelevant and out of place in an article in which I am not the subject.

This is basically what Linuxbeak tried to do about 36 hours ago. He tried to do it too fast, apparently, without any preparation of the target pages. He got shot down. But for his and Slimvirgin's effort to facilitate this compromise, I took each of them off of the hive-mind chart. Daniel Brandt 21:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the hive mind page looks very inoffensive right now, SqueakBox 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I find this attempt to bribe us with threats of putting people on and off the ˝hive-mind˝ chart highly distasteful. It is a clear attempt to exert final control over the article. Edit it my way or I`ll add you to the list! If you edit it the way I like, then I`ll take you off. Mr. Brandt, You are welcome to help us in find NPOV. But STOP threatening us! 216.255.176.250 21:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

One element of your proposal would be impossible. We can't and don't lock pages to prevent further editing or expansion. That's contrary to not only Wikipedia policy but the very nature of a wiki.

Other than that, much of your proposal seems reasonable. There are preexisting articles on most of your projects already so there would be little harm in moving the information from one article to another. I'm not advocating this particular approach at this point, but I urge everyone to consider it on its merits and not reject it out of hand because of fear of "blackmail" or "bribery". Gamaliel 22:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort at making piece and moving beyond unnecessary flame wars and insults, I find that the allusion that the content of this article should depend on the content of Mr. Brandt's website constitutes a grave insult to Wikipedia in itself.

I protested vehemently when editors gave Mr. Brandt special treatment by patronizing, harrassing and insulting him, and I see no reason not to the same when editors propose to give Mr. Brandt special treatment by negotiating the content of the article about him in exchange for him toning down his criticism of Wikipedia.

If Mr. Brandt is principled in his activism, i.e. if he is interested in the protection of everybody's privacy, rather than the protection of his own, I would expect him to find compromises like this just as distasteful as I do. Zocky 23:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bye

I have no time for Daniel Brandt anymore. I have spent too much time and effort sticking up for someone who doesn't appreciate it. So as far as I care, this article can be full of massive POV slants, have huge lies in it, expose gross invasions of privacy in it and include people making ridiculous underhanded weasel accusations of him being gay or a hypocrite or whatever the hell was the point of that little effort. Its not because I am sick of people writing me abuse, because, whilst that was troubling, I thought that I was getting somewhere, "fighting the good fight" and all of that. But you know, after what Daniel Brandt just did, stuff him quite frankly. Stuff him. I am no longer a pro-Daniel Brandt guy. Yes, he was mistreated here, that much doesn't suddenly change. And yes, the policies here were wrong with a lot of things. But I no longer care. I am going to go out of my way and stick my neck out for people who appreciate it, not for people who call me a "Premature ejaculator" (figuratively) for trying to help him. Stuff him quite frankly. I changed my vote to keep on the privacy invading court case, I voted support for the 2 admins who were abusing him, and I apologised to everyone who I was asking to stop abusing Daniel. As far as I am concerned, go right ahead and abuse him. I suppose he thinks that I am a wonderful CIA agent, living in a country which doesn't even have the CIA, and that I went through all of this to spy on him. Who knows. I don't even care. So you guys can all edit this as much as you like now, I no longer care. And for everyone who was decent, well done. I still think that you did the right thing by doing that, regardless of whether he deserved it. And for those of you that attacked him, well, I understand why you did now, and I am sorry for criticising you for it. And for those of you who attacked me because of my sticking up for him, let's make peace. :). Bye now. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, regardless of what your intentions were, you've really only been a minor disruption like Brandt himself. Not sure what Brandt did that elicited your flip-flop, but your attitude suddenly seems to reek of the same kind as the people you've been opposing. Whether Brandt has pissed you off or not isn't supposed to have anything to do with editing this article. I thought you felt the same way. Guess not. wikipediatrix 23:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix: The above comment implies that it is your opinion that many of the contributors to this page are acting in bad faith and for petty personal reasons.

Please assume good faith on the part of the many editors who disagree with your desire to delete this page. jucifer 23:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We all should edit the article in accordance with Wikipedia's goal of producing a factually correct, high-quality encyclopedia -- not on the basis of whether we currently think Brandt is a great guy and valuable, principled activist, or a crank, troll, and privacy-invader... or on whether he's personally pissed you off or talked nice to you, or on what he's putting in his personal Web site about you or Wikipedia or what he's threatening to add or promising to remove from it. And we should refrain from nastiness or personal attacks, against Brandt or one another, even if provoked. And I know I haven't been perfect at all of these things myself, but it's the goal to aim for. *Dan T.* 23:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving forward

I don't believe that Daniel Brandt should have any more authority over this article than anyone else. I do not believe that his dot org/hivemind.html "hive mind" page establishes an atmosphere of mutual good faith. He has made some concessions in modifying this page. I think we can make the concession of allowing him to voice his opinion, like anyone else, on this discussion page, as long as he does not directly violate any of our policies on the site.

We should listen to his arguments, decide if they make sense, and try our best to write a reasonable, well-structured article, as we always do.

One of Daniel Brandt's arguments is that this page puts information which is not of a personal nature (his Wikipedia Watch and Google Watch activities) into a personal context. He would prefer it if this information was largely removed from this article. While I do not think it should be removed, the current approach of summarizing some information in Wikipedia Watch and Google Watch seems to make sense. Currently, both summaries here go into more detail than is appropriate for a summary, this, I believe, can be shortened a bit as long as all the information is preserved in the linked to articles.

Daniel Brandt, as I understand, would also like some other information from his biography removed because he does not find it notable. This includes information about the draft-card burning. As far as I am aware, he has not called this information inaccurate or unverifiable. Since Wikipedia generally follows a highly inclusive approach, I do not see a strong case for removing this information. I do think we want to give a reasonably complete picture of the person Daniel Brandt in this article, not relying on original research, but on published documents, to do so.

I would very much welcome it if we could reach a consensus about the way this article should be structured, and the information it should contain. If we cannot, then Daniel Brandt's opinion is as valuable as any other Wikipedia user's input; when there is a rough consensus in the community, we move on. Whether or not Brandt continues to "expose" Wikipedia users on his website should have no bearing on the matter. If users are uncomfortable editing this article due to fears of being publicly attacked, creating a secondary account to edit this particular page may be deemed an acceptable exception to our normal rules against sock puppetry.

So, to summarize, my suggestion for now is to cut down some of the summaries a bit, make sure that they only contain material in the Wikipedia Watch and Google Watch articles (otherwise they wouldn't be summaries), and improve the general structure and flow of the article a bit. Other suggestions from anyone, including Daniel Brandt, would be welcome.--Eloquence * 23:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think if Daniel wants to see any particular changes to the article that he should make them himself, SqueakBox 23:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography recommends the opposite.--Eloquence * 00:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a good idea to discuss on this talk page any major changes to the article such as the ones Brandt suggests, regardless of who is suggesting the changes. Gamaliel 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to Mr. Brandt's suggestions, except that I understand that "locking down" an article is not consistent with a wiki. One way to overcome that problem would be to delete the article and protect the deletion. Personally, I have favored this outcome for a long time because I believe people in Brandt's position are entitled to assert a privacy interest in the personal facts of their lives, even though those facts may be verifiable and presented in a way that meets the WP consensus opinion of NPOV. To my regret, the last AfD vote was overwhelmingly in favor of 'keep.' Of course, since then the last AfD vote we have seen the flaps over John Seigenthaler Sr. and Alan Dershowitz, which proved, imo, that Brandt's concerns were generally well-founded.

Anyway, if the article can't be deleted, I certainly favor keeping it as short and unobtrusive as possible.--FRS 06:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Does an encyclopedia really need an article about Daniel Brandt? my gut says the admins should eventually decide to delete it, we have enough on our hands without all that severe wikidrama. The question I'm asking isn't "should we cave to Brandt's demands?" but "is Brandt encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion in the first place?" Is he needed in an encyclopedia? would he be in other encyclopedias? Personally I'm a mergist with a slight deletionist streak involving stuff you wouldn't normally find in an encyclopedia. Just my two cents, which don't really matter.

Nick 11:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The admins can't decide to delete it. The only possible way this article can be deleted, barring a Jimbo decree (which won't be happening), is for this to go through AfD. Gamaliel 14:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the only question is whether this encyclopedia should contain this article. Gamaliel is totally right that while Jimbo does have the power to delete an article (as the owner of wikipedia this is all his property, though he might lose the good faith voluntary work of many of the volunteers here if he did) the admins don't have such power as it would be putting far more power in their hands than the community wants, and therefore another Afd is the only way to delete the article, SqueakBox 15:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It should definitely go

Yeah well your opinion might count for more if you hadn't vandalised this article in the past. 207.58.178.22 19:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (User scared of winding up on hivemind)

It's been through two AfDs already, and survived easily. Anybody who calls for it to be AfDed yet again is probably just being disruptive. (User disappointed that I haven't been considered worthy of making it onto hivemind) *Dan T.* 19:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The question for me is, should we have all this content? My opinion is that every article can become a featured article (otherwise it shoould be deleted or merged). If the article must be kept overly short then it can't really become a featured article (it wouldn't be complete). Thus if the article is kept it should be allowed to be as long as people make it (within reason). Did that make sense? It makes sense to me.Broken S 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (a user special enough to be on the page and sad that some people are scared of it)

What is objectionable about article as it exists today?

Having expressed some sympathy to Mr. Brandt's general privacy interest in deleting or minimizing the content of this article, I should also add that I don't understand the nature of his objections (if any) to the existing content. Since it seems impossible to delete the article altogether, I would like to address any reasonable objections to the content. The one part I was uneasy about--the 35 year old reference to SDS activities--was apparently provided by Mr. Brandt himself. The rest of the article looks OK to me; so what are the problems?--FRS 22:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The SDS reference was from a 1968 New York Times article that Gamaliel dug out of the ProQuest database. He knew where to look (page 20) because I mentioned it in connection with the draft card burning. I mentioned the draft card incident on the Talk page before I realized that the Talk pages end up on Yahoo and Google. The only reason I mentioned it at all was because wording about the draft case made me look like a delinquent ex-con instead of an anti-war activist. I was trying to establish that I was an activist, acting publicly and conscientiously. Wikipedia has no business playing with people's lives like this when they are non-notable and want their bio taken down. Just the other day I was reading about a college student who got visited by two federal agents because he ordered Mao's little red book through inter-library loan, and the book was on a federal watch list. Yes, this was Mao, not Osama! See this [6] if you find this hard to believe. (Days later: Oops, it was just revealed that the student who pushed this story did it as a hoax. [7]) And the other day President Bush admitted ordering the NSA to illegally wiretap Americans, and claims it's okay because he's above the law. Even if you folks clean up some details, it's too late for that. What am I supposed to do, check it every day? Take down the bio -- I don't care how you do it. Daniel Brandt 00:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Re the "Mao story" turning out to be a hoax... that figures. That's the trouble with using anecdotal incidents to justify a general paranoia about the state of civil liberties and the need for extreme personal privacy; some people play to this by concocting outlandish stories which some people seem to lap up uncritically if they confirm their belief system. (Unfortunately, this also causes a "Boy who Cried Wolf" effect that may cause some true stories to be ignored.) *Dan T.* 19:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt's "acting publicly" in the late 1960s and his current activism regarding internet privacy appear to meet the standard for a public figure in the sense of a "limited purpose public figure." I just added an article on the concept of "public figures" and on Terry Rakolta, a similar activist whose efforts made her a limited public figure (as well as the butt of jokes that fell under fair comment).

I would also like to add that the criterion for including biographical information on Wikipedia is a verifiable published source. Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, including adding information about a person provided by that person, unless it has appeared in a published source. If every article were held to this standard, we wouldn't be having a lot of these debates. Contributors who add unsourced/unpublished information are not following Wikipedia guidelines. Jokestress 01:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

But, this article is well referenced. No? Broken S 01:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Earlier in the thread, people were encouraging the article subject to revise the information here, which should not occur unless it is a published source. The Daily Trojan article is actually referenced by Daniel Brandt himself in a self-published profile of his activism. I do not know if anyone has independently confirmed it. The article as it stands is well-referenced but also in need of condensing. Jokestress 03:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Brandt basically wants things both ways... to be renowned for his decades-long activism, and to be a private person, and he reserves the right to change his mind with the phases of the moon regarding what information about him is public or private. We should basically ignore all his sniveling and do what's right by Wikipedia policy. *Dan T.* 01:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you point to some evidence that DB wants "to be renowned for his decades-long activism?" and the specific conduct which you regard as "sniveling?"--FRS 02:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's the fact that in his above comments he admits to pointing out facts about his past in order to "establish that I was an activist". Then he suddenly got offended because, once he pointed out those facts in a public forum, they actually became public, and now he's whining up a storm about how the Homeland Security goons might abuse it. *Dan T.* 02:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I should have been more concerned about how Wikipedia goons might abuse it. Live and learn. Daniel Brandt 02:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

To those using judgmental terms like sniveling and goons, please avoid personal remarks. Thanks! Jokestress 03:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well this is 2005, and this is what it is like, and unless you (Daniel) or others of a like mind manage to somehow to substantially change things internationally I suspect this is how things will continue. Wikipedia up till now has been clear that someone not wanting an article about themselves has to live with it, and I don't see that policy up for review. Whether we like it or dislike it we have to accept it as a reality of modern life, as we have to accept all the other baggage that comes with modern life like cars, pollution, nuclear weapons, etc, SqueakBox 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Good lord, you people are insane. Wikipedia is being scrutinized by international press for privacy violations. I don't care if the stupid article is correctly sourced, IT IS HAMRING AN INDIVIDUAL AND IT IS HARMING WIKIPEDIA. Brandt is neither famous nor a politician. There is no reason for this article, or this article as excruciatingly sourced as it is, except for your own little petty and personal vendettas. Would you please pull your heads out for two seconds and LOOK? (unsigned comment by User:66.141.178.131 06:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Please go to Daniel Brandt#References and count how many of those articles in nationally-read newspapers and major websites are about Daniel Brandt and then defend your premise that Daniel Brandt is not famous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, most of those articles are not ABOUT Brandt, he is merely mentioned in them. And once again, they would be fair game if Brandt were famous or a politician, in other words, if he put himself out in public for his own gain. HE HAS NOT DONE SO. Your arguments are therefore idiotic.

It is true that some of those articles merely mention Mr. Brandt, rather than being about him. Others, like "Searching for Daniel Brandt", are indeed very much about him. Your assertion that Brandt is not famous is therefore questionable; your logic that nobody is a public figure unless they are "famous or a politician" is also highly questionable. I'm having trouble parsing the rest; are you trying to say that "put[ting oneself] out in public for [one's] own gain" makes one famous, or makes one a politician? Neither one is actually correct, of course. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that. Granted, I have been guilty of vandalism of the page, but seeing as how it has now turned into a big target, wouldn't it be an idea to simply delete the article, and thus save the hassle of having to continually argue with Brandt? (unsigned comment by 217.33.207.195 (talk contribs) 08:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Whoever you are, please don't vandalize the article again. The goal with this article, as with every article, is to summarize verifiable sources about noteworthy topics using a neutral point of view. Let's try to find a consensus on the best way to do that. There are other webmasters whose biographies we've merged back into their websites due to marginal notability. If that's the best way to handle the limited amount of verifiable information about this subject then let's just merge and redirect. -Willmcw 10:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't vandalize this article, so my comments constitute vandalism? Explain what you mean by that. So a comment that you don't like constitutes vandalism? How about you try not to vandalize this article by posting idiotic and emotional claptrap?

Once again, you people are insane. This Brandt argument is harming the Wikipedia effort in measurable ways. Academic institutions are slamming you. Professionals in the media are slamming you. Haven't you had enough yet?

Here is my suspicion. None of you have anything to lose. You don't know how bad things can get when a pack of hyenas attack you. I, on the other hand, can imagine myself in Brandt's place, and I want none of it. Once again, if you think this is the right way to proceed, you are insane.

I think you misunderstodd that statement. "Please don't vandalize this article again" was in response to your previous statement of "I have been guilty of vandalism of the page" and not on your writings on this page. You have the right of posting contrary opinions on this page, that's what free speech is all about, even though free speech on the Internet tends to be a bit like playing with fire in a munitions factory. I do however resent the personal attacks and generalizations. --194.215.208.5 09:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If we decide to ignore procedure on this article and delete it against the will of the community because the subject wants it deleted that is the thin end of the slope, and will allow any other individual to then demand that, like this one, their article is deleted because that is what they want. Then we would have to decide who is nottable enough to have ana article about them when they don't want one. What if Prince Charles, a man suing right now over privacy issues, wants his article removed? Do we say yes to that too? If we do we lose our repuataion as a quality objective encyclopedia, so far from being insane in our stance of treating this like any other article we actually cannot afford to delete an article only because the subject wants it deleted. Thus the only way to make decisions on this and any other article is through consensus. Its not that I am unsympathetic with Daniel, but I do wish he would see it through wikipedia eyes, and that our job is to write a decent encyclopedia within the current rules. The article should never be used to attack Daniel, or any other individual, and indeed should always be fair and balanced, SqueakBox 15:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes... I agree... and I apologize for sometimes losing my cool on this talk page and getting in attack mode. Any personal feelings, disputes, arguments, etc. regarding Mr. Brandt must never get in the way of maintaining a NPOV, fair-and-balanced (not in the Fox News sense!) article about him. *Dan T.* 15:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Idealism got us this far, and now it's stopped working. We can either keep wishing on a star or wake up and smell the burning corpses. Democracy on the Internet is like a zeppelin: It's awesome, astounding and liable to expire in a massive fireball. --Agamemnon2 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with you, Agamemnon. It is because some of the issues this page represents seem vey important to me that I am here. I am very concerned about the possibility of losing the level of freedom we are developing on the net, and personally think defending that freedom is very important, SqueakBox 15:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Freedom of the net is not the issue. The internet is free and setting up one's own blog is practically free. Any one of us could paste the content of the existing article in any number of places on the net. The real issue is the following: how should an entity wishing to be perceived as a responsible encyclopedic enterprise, and with a currently huge voice on the net [8] conduct itself. The subject of this article is neither running for office nor a celebrity. He has been mentioned in two NYT articles over a thirty seven year period. IMO, Putting his personal history against his wishes on the 34th most visited site on the internet is irresponsible. --FRS 18:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's about eight NYT articles. Regardless, this isn't "personal history" we are talking about, it's public record. Gamaliel 18:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was counting the two articles listed in the references section of the article that predated the creation of the article. And I believe it is personal history when we discuss his upbringing, his student activism days, and then conflate facts from a 30 year career into a single article, even if most of those facts were at one time or another published (or disclosed by the subject). --FRS 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What is actually wrong with gathering and publishing that information about anyone, notable or not. I can't see how it breaks any laws or is any different from what the media do every day. I am not sure we do have the right to the level of privacy Daniel and others want, in fact I would say none of us have that right, SqueakBox 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the current WP article violates any legal right of DB's. I'm saying:

(1) there's a distinct risk that such a violation could occur in the future, because, as a private person, DB does not have to show malice, or even negligence, if a defamatory statement or an intrusion into his privacy is published.

...so we are supposed to make editorial decisions now based, not on what's actually in the article now, but on some hypothetical scenario about what might possibly be placed into the article at some arbitrary time in the future, and what conjectural harm this might cause? *Dan T.* 20:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

well, yes, in the rare case that a non-public, marginally notable person asserts a privacy interest. Especially, where a substantial number of editors have made clear that they dislike or disrespect the subject of the article, some to the extent of applauding tricks played against the subject's website. --FRS 20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

(2) as a matter of editorial judgement, it's my opinion, or vote, that it's bad practice to retain an article about a person whose notability is very marginal, when that person objects. It's bad practice because (a) the article provides very little benefit to WP's readers, (b) is harmful to the subject (at least in his opinion, to which some deference should be paid), and (c) is, frankly, a huge waste of editors' time.

WP has more than 1200 articles with PoV flags; there are countless people more notable than DB for which articles haven't been started. There's lots of other more important things we could be doing. Finally, the comparison to other media is not appropriate, where the "other media" are authored by non-anonymous writers with accuntable management and, as a general rule, are sueable (defendant generally has money, or insurance). --FRS 19:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

While I take full responsibility for my edits that is where my personal responsibility ends regarding wikipedia. You should be addressing these points to the wiki media foundation, as apart from the individual responsibility of editors (Chase responsible for the Seigenthaler incident etc) it is the foundation who are responsible, if so. Right now they are saying we have to make the decision based on notability and on community consensus of notability. We are not empowered to take the points you raise into consideration, nor are we aked to do so. If I start an article on someone the fact that someone else abuses wikipedia libelling that person later on is not my responsibility any more than it is gun manufacturers who are responsible for someone shooting someone. So I think you should either take your points up with the foundation (who none of us can speak for) or at the Village pump policy page. By all means try to change policy. In the meantime I don't feel we can really respond to your points in regards to this article, SqueakBox 19:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a policy proposal being drafted now that is heading in a direction I approve of. In the section titled Presumption in favor of privacy it presently says, "...there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, may nevertheless feel that they are private individuals, and who may object to being on the receiving end of public attention. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and, in the case of a dispute, should err in favor of respecting the individual's privacy....In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." "--FRS 21:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Something that page says is "newspapers know how to handle this sort of thing". Journalists get taught how to write print that is not libellous, and have a legal team to advise in tricky situations. Maybe some kind of imparted knowledge to wikipedia users about how to avoid writing libel would be useful, SqueakBox 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Here we can see that even wikipedia owner Jimbo Wales has problems with his own article, but as far as I am aware he is stilld defining the right of the community to have an article about him with contributions open to almost everyone (as here), SqueakBox 15:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia does NOT have a "reputation as a quality objective encyclopedia". At the University at which I work, most Professors forbid Wikipedia be cited as a source in any paper, and discourage its use as a research tool entirely. And this has been going on long before the Seigenthaler incident. Secondly, people DO sue and harass real encyclopedias to try to get their entries changed. My concern here is not so much Daniel's plight (although I do sympathize with his position) but that the standards of "notability" here are completely random and arbitrary. I've seen good articles deleted because a small posse of Wikipedians decreed the subject was "not notable", and yet these subjects were far more notable than Brandt. Go out on the street and try to find someone - ANYONE - who has heard of Daniel Brandt. You'll be out there freezing your ass off a looooong time. wikipediatrix 15:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia's rep is dreadful, and is not likely to improve without some serious PR effort, which would only be misconstrued as an act of desperation. I think there is an illusion that this state of affairs can improve, too. It is false. The facts are one thing, but what people look for in an encyclopedia is reliability, which is not subject to facts, but rather to perception. To be perceived as credible, Wikipedia cannot remain open. To remain open, Wikipedia cannot attain a standard of credibility. --194.215.208.5 09:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly wikipedia actually fared well in a recent test on its scientific article, as in science and many other areas wikipedia is brilliant. Where it tends to come unstuck is on biographies, politics and generally any stuff that generates controversy in the wider societies in which wikipedia exists. So for many things wikipedia DOES have a good reputation. For TLA's and computer stuff I continuously use wikipedia in my job, and find it reliable almost always (and when it isn't I try to improve the article). Clearly to change policy on nottability is a pol.icy issue that doesn't belong here, though for me the fact that the article has failed 2 Afd's is compelling, SqueakBox 16:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is very much true. Just now, I needed to find the blueprints or some good pics of a Russki KV-2 tank, and lo, there they were. Were I looking for the facts in the OJ case, the truth behind Elvis, or the justifications of the Iraq war, I certainly would not find nearly as good results. --194.215.208.5 09:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Homework assignment for Wikipedia editors

floridabar.org Daniel Brandt 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well. The only "invasion of privacy" precedent that might vaguely apply appears to be "publication of private facts." However, matters of public record are not considered private facts, and this article relies on published sources, most (if not all) of which you participated in directly, thus making yourself a limited public figure. The authors mention some cases that echo some aspects of your concerns:

Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corp., 113 F.2d 806 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 311 U.S. 711 (1940)
Virgil v. Time, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 1286, 1289 (S.D. Cal. 1976).
Cason v. Baskin, 30 So. 2d 635, 638 (Fla. 1947) (citations omitted). (it seems your desire for credit and publicity in light of past and recent activism qualifies you as a limited public figure)

In each case, the subject of publication did not prevail. In summary, the facts in the Wikipedia article have been supplied directly by you for publication in almost every case. The rest appear to be from the public record. Jokestress 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Very unlikely. The press reported something 37 years ago, and it is totally unrelated to any current activity for which Wikipedia can claim that I am notable. You are stretching the definitions here. You will lose on this. I supplied facts in a context that I presumed was not publishable (the Talk pages), and I did it for the purpose of arguing a completely different point. I was trying to argue that a particular characterization of my activities 37 years ago was inappropriate. Now Wikipedia steals these facts and applies them to a situation 37 years later. It will not fly. Daniel Brandt 05:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I must say that I agree that some things that Mr. Brandt did were not exactly "notable". The entire bit about the draft card stuff is not, in my opinion (which is not final, of course) in any sense notable. That being said, it might be possible to have a bit on Brandt as a public figure... related to Google, Wikipedia and Namebase. This is similar to what we have on Jimmy Wales... I'm just throwing ideas out here and there. Thoughts, Daniel/everyone else? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 06:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The draft resistance activism done in front of cameras appears to have qualified Mr. Brandt then as a limited public figure. "Notability" is not a legal issue, it's a Wikipedia guideline for inclusion. For instance, biographical information about Jimmy Wales (like where he went to school) is not notable per se, but is a public fact listed in a notable person's biography. In other words, if someone is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article (as Mr. Brandt is), and is a limited public figure (as Mr. Brandt is), the other basic biographical details such as birth date, etc. appear to be considered public facts, not private ones. Jokestress 06:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Also, Jokestress is doing the "lawyer thing" -- arguing very narrowly, and most likely incorrectly. Let's consider this: there are two ways to get my biographical article suppressed. One is legally. The other is to get the media to the point where anything in Wikipedia is disregarded, and every high school and college teacher circles in red any Wikipedia reference in a term paper.

While lawyers are playing lawyer games, the media is probably the deciding factor. There are laws, and then there is perceived reality. Perceived reality tends to trump mere laws.

God, I hate lawyers. They just get me mad. I prefer working the media. Daniel Brandt 06:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Note how Brandt is flipflopping... first, he claims that he's got a solid legal case, and then when others point out (using the legal references Brandt himself supplied!) how far off base he is, suddenly he switches to where he argues that the law doesn't really matter if he can character-assassinate Wikipedia in the press. *Dan T.* 20:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually wikipedia has a gaining credible reputation. The nature article on the back of the Seigenthaler episode and wikipedia is more popular and more trusted than ever, certainly if the British press are anything to go by, so while there are vandals dedicated to destroyingg wikipedia's credibility I think on the whole our credibility is increasing, and rightly so, SqueakBox 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bluntly, high school and college teachers should be doing that already. They won't accept Britannica, or Encarta, as a source - they certainly won't Wikipedia.

Oddly enough, of course, all this fuss about your Wikipedia biography has probably made it one of the more accurate on the whole site. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Scope, i think, is the issue here. The article for someone famous in a given field should contain mostly information on him relating to that field. There is no need to note that Bob the famous violinist was sued by his neighbor for not keeping the stereo down in 1985 unless such an act influenced his musical career in some way. It wasn't Bob the famous violinist on trial there, it was Bob the annoying guy next door who listens to Bach all night. See where I'm going with this? Of course, that approach has a lot of problems. Should Einstein's childhood be considered encyclopedic? Does fact that someone's deceased make a difference? It's a big can of worms. In general, though, nothing worth doing is easy. --194.215.208.5 09:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's disappointing that you've chosen to resort to threats once again. Gamaliel 07:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's disappointing to me that you are still anonymous. So block me -- I was doing better when I wasn't arguing here anyway. I'm reverting hivemind. There is no point in waiting two weeks to see if anything will happen, when it's already clear that nothing will happen. Daniel Brandt 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame, because I don't think this conflict is insurmountable. You said you'd give this two weeks, but within two days you were already back to namecalling and legal threats. It's apparent you were never serious about this so-called "olive branch". Gamaliel 18:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that the linked article was a very interesting reference... but one from which I draw a diametrically opposite conclusion than Mr. Brandt. It makes it very clear to me that Brandt will lose any case he tries to bring regarding anything that's been written about him in this site. Every case in that article that has the slightest bit of relevance to the situation here was decided in the defendants' favor. This includes cases where publishers dredged up old news articles on a person not particularly relevant to his current situation, and cases where a subject pointed things out in an interview and later changed his mind and started insisting the same facts be kept private. Also, regarding the publication of true but private facts, it says that there is no liability unless the personal, embarrassing facts are "highly offensive." How is '60s anti-draft activism in this category? Personally, as somebody who thinks that the draft is immoral and unconstitutional, I think resisting it is more heroic than offensive. The cases in that article that had some chance of prevailing were ones with no application to the situation, like where reporters entered the subject's home or business under false pretenses and secretly photographed or tape-recorded him, or when the subject's name or likeness was appropriated for commercial purposes (an action which actually has a better chance of succeeding if the subject is a notable public figure, for whom celebrity publicity rights are valuable). None of that applies here. *Dan T.* 13:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see I finally made it onto your hate pagedot org/hivemind.html... what took you so long? *Dan T.* 13:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand the wiki media foundation may be subject to Florida law (though this hasn't, apparently, been given as their homework), as indeed the American wikipedia editors may be subjected to Florida law, but I have no idea what it might have to do with someone like me who has zero connections with the US. I am subject to Honduran law, as this is where I live, and quite possibly to English and European law as my passport and country is the UK. Perhaps you should have said homework for the American wikipedia editors? I don't see that it is in any way relevant to non US or non US based editors. If the wiki foundation want to change their rules because of Florida law that is fine but to assume that we non-US editors are subject to Florida is something I for one strongly dispute. If I thought that was the case I wiould stop editing and urge all other non US editors to do the same, but I don't believe it is the case, SqueakBox 14:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Further homework for everyone, Private international law. Explore the template, particularly lex loci. -SM 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"hey, old guys!"

Am I the only one who's noticed that the "Reaction to Google Watch" section consists of two anti-Brandt reactions, and no positive ones? An entire paragraph is devoted to Chris Beasley, who was so non-notable that his article has now been deleted, and now his Google Watch Watch is near deletion as well. Farhad Manjoo (whose Salon article about Brandt is such a mean-spirited piece it really should be considered an editorial) gets an extensive paragraph while Brandt gets a weak one-sentence rebuttal. C'mon, you guys, at least PRETEND to be fair and impartial. wikipediatrix 14:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So find some positive reactions we've left out. Gamaliel 18:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I shall. But I kinda thought this would have been the original task of whoever it was who decided to load up the page with long analyses of Brandt's detractors in the first place. wikipediatrix 19:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be delighted to contribute positive data. However, I know that the hivemind would never allow it. So I don't bother.

What utter rubbish. The hive mind is only a concept in Daniel's mind. It doesn't actually exist, and I for one won't give its existence any credit. Please don't do so either withoput some non-Daniel sources that this idea of his actually exists. Do you never leaver your house either? After all you might get hit by a car. To blame others for your refusal to edit is actually a personal attack so desist, SqueakBox 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never been so happy to be part of a group in my entire life. I happily stake claim to a section this proported hivemind. It apparently involves rational thinking and has a basis in reality. --DaiTengu 04:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Public Information Research

Started 1989. "specializes in monitoring privacy violations on the web". What did it do pre 1990/1991?Geni 17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

<Daria-esque sarcasm> While we're researching this very important matter, let's also try to determine what type of breakfast cereal Mr.Brandt was eating in 1989, if he prefers Hollister to Abercrombie & Fitch, what he likes on his baked potatoes, and whether he wears boxers or briefs. </Daria-esque sarcasm> wikipediatrix 19:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I assumed the point of the question was that the web didn't exist for practical purposes before 1991, see, e.g., WorldWideWeb, so there couldn't have been too many "privacy violations on the web" in PIR's early years--FRS 20:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I also assume that the "on the web" was added to their mission statement after the web came to exist. Regardless, I still maintain the whole thing is about as notable as my Uncle Ned's annual barbecue. wikipediatrix 21:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps but specializes in monitoring privacy violations would give it a very broad range of things to cover.Geni 21:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This article needs continued close scrutiny

First off, I think quite highly of mr. Brandt's work and think his watchdog activities and concerns are mostly very legitimate. I also think his treatment by a large number of Wikipedians has been abysmal and even though only one has had the guts to apologize publicly, many others clearly owe that to Brandt too.

However, I also think that Brandt has no cause to demand this article to be deleted, because his recent activities clearly meets notability, both for legal determination and under WP policies. At least in my part of the world it's very well established with precedent that a person who gives interviews to major media with his own name as an executive of an NGO involved in public criticism of business and politics, is a public figure and has no privacy protection for biographical information.

The draft resistance issue is quite probably also within legally publishable information, but there I believe that for ethical reasons it would be better to lean against using it, especially when it clearly causes anxiety to Brandt. I don't see any additional value it brings to the article and removing it would decrease the harm done to mr. Brandt. I think that even if it's biographical information about a notable person, it's still in itself non-notable per WP:BLP.

There still seems to be a lot of bad blood shared among the editors and admins discussing this issue and I think it would be prudent for these folks to take a step back and just recuse themselves from further editing of the article. As stated by Eloquence and others, Brandt's stance towards WP in particular with the "Hive Mind v. Brandt" page of his own must have zero bearing on the article written about him. Those who can't make that adjustment for objective approach, should recuse themselves for any editing or voting about the matter. This obviously goes for those who are on the list. It documents anti-Brandt sentiment after all.

Legally speaking the WP editors and admins who have their names on HM might have higher expectation of privacy and listing of their real names and locations is clearly personal data processing. In some countries Brandt might be violating personal data protection laws even though the WP writers are not. However, from an ethical point of view by not respecting his privacy you are not entitled of any privacy of your own. By contributing to a WP article or public discussion against his wishes you are making a choice to become a voluntary target for this sort of thing. There are ways to acquire strong anonymity, and if you forgo that after being put on notice that someone is offended by your participation, you had it coming.

Because of this being on notice by Brandt that the article is harming him and causing him displeasure, it's very important for any future edits to be very carefully considered. This article requires special attention according to WP:BLP and WP should make the best effort that the article gets it. The way it's today seems entirely reasonable to me, except for the draft resistance matter which is not relevant enough. --80.186.112.54 09:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Two minor points, as I am in a hurry.

WP:BLP is only a proposed guideline and has yet to have gained the support of the wikipedia community.
The idea that wikipedian on the hive mind chart not editing this article is ridiculous, as it effectivly gives Mr. Brandt control over who edits his bio. This is unacceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

JiFish, do you contest that the WP usernames listed by DB in the HM page wrote in a hostile manner against him? I don't claim to know the motivations behind people expressing their views against mr. Brandt, but I haven't seen anyone contesting that the quotes are accurate (some have made minor reservations about the context included, but not explained in detail that they were completely misunderstood). I think it's a proper reason to recuse editing or voting if you have made overtly hostile statements against the subject of the article. It shows that you have emotional attachment. If the end result is that nobody willing to edit the article is able to do so in an impartial manner, then I don't see any harm in the article being left alone or even allowed to be voted out of existence. It's better to have no article than an article written by biased people or even people who could be made to even seem biased. Just not worth the risk.

I have never acted hostile towards Mr. Brandt and I have now been added to the page (although, he got my name wrong.) In fact I have only ever made one contribution and it is above. I agree that biased parties should not edit the bio. However, Mr. Brandt cannot be the one to decide who is bias, because he himself is personally involved. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you there. He should not have control over who edits his article, but you seem to go much further than that. If the entry of some WP user in HM contains clear evidence of bias, and the accuracy of that quote is not disputed, then that evidence is enough for that user to stay away from this article. Just that it appears in his page, doesn't mean that there is no bias because he is the one pointing it out. I would not ask you to recuse yourself because your name is in the list. But if you wrote something clearly biased, I think you should recuse even if that ends up in HM. --80.186.112.54 14:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The HM list is a list of people who disagree with Daniel, nothing more or less. It is not a list of people who have shown prejudice editing the article. Though some people on the list may have done so the only reasonable conclusion is that the list contains people who disagree wuith Daniel. Please don't confuse the 2 things. It is unacceptable that anyone should recuse themselves merely for disagreeing with Daniel. The bio policy makers is clear that it is not acceptable for the subject of a bio to dictate who can or cannot edit said person's article on the basis that no-one who disagrees with the article subject can edit the article. Imagine if George W. Bush tried to impose such standards, or indeed any public figure, SqueakBox 15:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between just respectfully disagreeing and showing emotional attachment and calling names. Also, I don't think you have to have shown prejudice in direct editing of the article to be recused. Imagine that Michael Moore came to edit W's article, would you not ask him to be recused, just because he hasn't edited the article before? --80.186.112.54 15:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the view that Brandt is not so important and that there is really no justification for all this flaming about him, but this doesn't mean that his concerns can be completely ignored and the article end up being opionated against him. It means that the hotheads just need to move on to something else. It's better that there are no contributions to it than contributions from people who have overt emotional attachment. IMHO. --80.186.112.54 18:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone on the list, but I never wrote an unkind or hostile word about Brandt before I ended up on the list, and I am sure that is true of others as well. Gamaliel 20:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[dot org/hivemind.html Hive Mind] lists your contribution to the debate as:

2005-11-06: added true but objectionable facts from many years ago, which is a violation of Florida's invasion-of-privacy statute

2005-12-18: quotes Wales' letter to E&P in Brandt's bio: "I tried very hard to help him, and he misrepresented nearly everything about our conversation in his very strange rant." (Brandt has never had a conversation with Wales, and this is the second time an administrator has inserted this.)

What exactly do you contest? You say that you wrote no unkind or hostile word, but DB says you wrote objectionable facts and also quoted Jimbo with a passage he disputes (it's not entirely clear for me whether DB disputes that the exchange took place at all or just that it was a an audio coversation as opposed to email or IM exchange). I haven't read of any word from Jimbo about this disputed exchange though. --80.186.112.54 21:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I contest your statement that "the WP usernames listed by DB in the HM page wrote in a hostile manner against him". I added the Jimbo passage several weeks after I was already on the hit list, and I don't consider adding a fact from a NYTimes article "writing in a hostile matter against him". Gamaliel 21:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I tend to believe that you had no ill will against Brandt when you added the NYT article contents. Was this about the 60's draft resistance issue? In that case, what did you do to resolve the issue to mr. Brandt's satisfaction? Even if your initial involvement may have been to good faith, your subsequent actions seem to me to be quite biased agaisnt Brandt, so you should definitely recuse yourself if you believe in neutral point of view editing and the responsibilities it entails --80.186.112.54 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think I've personally done anything "biased", please bring it up on my talk page and we can discuss that there. I have striven for neutrality and accuracy in every edit to every article, and I see no particular reason to recuse myself in this matter. If you feel the editors here are acting inappropriately, you can go to WP:RFC and request other editors to look at this article. Gamaliel 00:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We are discussing it here and now. I'm not interested in getting involved in protracted WP comittee proceedings, I just think you're wrong. Adding marginally relevant information and then refusing to remove it (instead adding details not disclosed for that purpose) against the very wishes of the subject seems pretty biased to me. If you were really interested in comparison of interests, you would be willing to back down and compromise after getting informed that what you added is causing distress. If istead you put more pressure, add more irrelevant information and then defend the whole thing vigorously, it seems you are doing it just to be confrontational. --80.186.112.54 15:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

What "protracted WP committee proceedings"? I just suggested we move part of this discussion to my user talk page to save space on this page, but if you don't want to, whatever. I am actually quite interested in compromising on this issue if I knew what would satisfy Brandt without compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, as many of his demands would be quite impossible (removing or locking the article, deletion of critcism or links to criticism, etc.).

As far as my "refusing to remove" information, that's not how it works. I don't control what happens to that sentence just because I added it to the article. If I removed it, some other editor would add it right back. If a consensus of editors decides it's relevant it stays in; if a consensus of editors decides it's not relevant, it goes. I have nothing at all to do with it, beyond having one opinion among many about this matter. Gamaliel 18:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Me neither. I have never written about Daniel in a hostile manner, nor less so have I done so in the article. My only crime is to defend Gamaliel and freedom of the internet (which I am very proud to defend) but in this modern world to some people expressing an opinion can be a crime, as we know well in the UK of 2005, SqueakBox 22:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with a lot of what anon says (though Fish is right we cannot allow Brandt to indicate who can edit or not, only wikipedia can do that) I think that as he burnt his draft card in front of cameras and a Senator that that makes it clearly notable enough to include. If he had wanted an obscure action he could have avoided burning it in front of the cameras, but as he chose to burn it in front of the cameras I think the event is notable. Personally I think good on him for having done so, SqueakBox 15:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering that his notability, in general, is as an activist for a variety of causes, his '60s anti-draft activism is certainly notable and relevant. He, himself, is the one who brought it up when his beef with Wikipedia (early on) was that it focused only on his recent actions without citing his decades of activism of which he was proud. It's totally ridiculous for him to turn around later and say that mentioning that same activism is somehow defamatory and privacy-invading. It's hardly true that calling somebody a '60s draft-resister is inherently an offensive attack; in many circles that makes one a hero. *Dan T.* 16:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The idea that calling someone a draft resister is in any way an attack is an idea that needs to be challenged, SqueakBox 16:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Brandt has stated that he introduced the additional details explaining his draft resistance involvement to counter the representation of the episode which he found offensive, not to voluntarily introduce the whole issue to further dissemination. I guess it was his choice of trying to find a compromise instead of just demanding further censorship. I think he didn't volunteer it primarily for publication but to refute the then current version of that section of the article. See [DB about the SDS affair].

Still, one can't have it both ways; if somebody objects to the way they're characterized in an article, and, when asked for specifics, brings up particular facts about his past history that he claims put the characterization in a different light, then he hardly has a fair objection if those facts are then used to characterize him in a later revision. *Dan T.* 18:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I agree that he should have made it explicit from the beginning that the point of providing the additional information was to support the position of removing the whole section or mention of the 60's incident. However, he has elaborated on that recently and we should now stick to that. I hardly see it fair that if he manages to convince you that the original version mentioning it the first time was biased, you incorporate the privately offered refuting evidence to support keeping a mention of the whole affair. Suppose you didn't accept what he offered (references to court records) as credible. Would you still either include the original biased version or a new version including the information you find objectionable?

Now what if he told you that the original version was wrong but refused to give corroborating evidence on the assumption that you would not keep it off the page? How would you react? I think it's you who are wanting to have it both ways (be damned if you tell us and and be damned if you don't). It's a matter of simple misunderstanding, which is now corrected by DB by explicitly detailing why he offered the information, to support removing it all and not adding new details to it. --80.186.112.54 19:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter why or how the citation first came to the attention of WP editors. You can't say, "Here's a newspaper article, but you can only use it for these purposes only." It's a public record and a legitimate historical reference. And even if Brandt hadn't mentioned it here, some editor would have soon found it anyway. This is the New York Times we're talking about, not the Walla Walla Washington Weekly. Gamaliel 20:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope that you are not really suggesting that every newspaper article is admissible just because it pertains to the subject in question. If you are, I still stand by my reasoning that DB gave the information in good faith that it was not going to be used to write more about him, but to remove what was written before as being biased and misleading. I don't actually (even if it might seem so) want to get into a lengthy discussion about the rules of evidence admissibility in a court of law, basically because I don't practice law in the US, but I still strongly stand by that you have no right to use any information completely regarless of how it was presented to you. If it goes to what you seem to argue for, anything ever given to WP in any context is free for all, then it seriously limits the options of people wanting to pentition for any action regarding your content. I think this opens up a huge issue with legal liability if your view prevails as standard policy.

I think, like I told already, that DB should have been more clear about the conditions of introducing that evidence in the public talk pages. However, he's still a fricking WP newbie. You should not expect him to know what parts of your very complicated and extensive procedures (at least when it comes to arbitration etc. conflict resolution) are public and which not. You can't possible expect everyone to have read your procedures and act accordinly, unless you have given prior written notice! (sorry if this doesn't conform to higher editorial standards, please excuse my for the time and date noted, we don't spend christmas eve drinking just mild ale, you know) --80.186.112.54 21:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

At least for those of us who are in parts of the world where there are constitutional guarantees of free speech and press, the default condition is that everybody has the right to use or republish any information. The exceptions to this are very limited ones carved out to handle specific cases like defamation, intellectual property, privacy rights, and the like, and the burden of proof is on the claimant of such rights to show they take precedence in a particular situation over the normal state of free press. Many court decisions show that this burden is very heavy. Anyway, talk pages here are open discussions, not private communications. *Dan T.* 23:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it's unethical and against a humane interpretation of the proposed policy (WP:BLP), not that it's illegal. I also think that if you have this "everything you say can be used against you in future articles" approach to dealing with living biography complaints, it may lead into a situation where nobody is willing to try to resolve their concerns with you first, but instead sue the editors and WP as the first action. It's never a defense to be ***holes just because it's legal. --80.186.112.54 15:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't some private correspondence or confidence that Brandt shared with us; if it was then he might have some call to claim we screwed him over. This is a New York Times article. It would have been found soon enough through routine research in any case. Gamaliel 00:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware of other mechanisms than the talk page for petitioning changes to an article in which one features. These kinds of rules have to be changed at the policy level, not here. All he can dio here is argue over content is a peaceful manner, SqueakBox 21:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

By basic point is that the current article draws the notability influence from Google Watch and the Seigenthaler affair (related to Wikipedia Watch). The draft resistance part has nothing to do with it. I would accept the draft resistance issue as currently relevant if Brandt was involved in any current pacifist activisim (notable kind, not just harboring some personal opinions about it). It's from almost 40 years ago! He definitely has the right to alienate himself at least publicly from that if he so chooses. Also take not that the SDS article linked from DB doesn't offer the names of the other two draft card burners or even mention whole entire incident! From where I stand, drawing the whole SDS affair to an article of DB against his wishes and denouncement of being currently actively involved in similar activities makes it seem like yellow press kind of dirt digging. The matter would be entirely different if he was still willing to stand up to those values (as opposed to pointing out that being involved in any activity, even studying, of leftist ideology has government control and anti-privacy implications in the form of DHS monitoring your activities through numerous databases of information, which is labelled current by one party or another). --80.186.112.54 18:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this one. The political situation has, IMO, substantially deteriorated in botht he US and the UK since 9/11. When I happened to mention my own past activism to a customs officer while entering the UK 3 years ago resulted in me having to fill in a an anti-terrorist form. Routine they said, and were friendly. And from what I read and see through media makes me think this situation is getting much worse, so I can understand how Brandt feels about that one. Yet wikipedia is not to blame for the deteriorating political situation, and nor is the siolution to ban wikipedia from being able to do certain things (like write biographies). I do believe we have to take responsibility for everything we have done in our lives but being an activist in the past doesn't signify being one now so we are not labelling Brandt an anti war activist any more than we say that about Javier Solana (anti NATO activist and Vietnam war opposer who became Secretary General of NATO), SqueakBox 18:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I see the relevance with Javier Solana, but I don't see it with DB. I think your example is contrived. My reading of WP:BLP which we should IHMO be using as our guideline, unless we want to argue against it in that page, is that even public figures are subject to some privacy and that includes matters they are no longer involved with and which carry no interrelation to the matters they are notable today. However, I do agree this point is debatable and matter of interpretation with regards to WP policy. So I base my argument on that we should err on the side of caution with this one. There are strong reasons for including most of the article even if that causes personal harm to the subject. However, when the justification is on the thin side, I think you have the obligation to balance the harm and the benefit, and back off from including any material which is marginally relevant or not relevant at all depending on POV. I think this kind of compromise doesn't erode the credibility of the institution, but enhances it by showing that you are capable of comparison of interests. --80.186.112.54 18:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Customs officers in the U.S. have been known to google people at the border [9], and corporations are googling resumes before they decide who to interview (except in Finland, where it's illegal without the applicant's consent). It's easy for you to recommend freedom for Wikipedia editors, SqueakBox, because your real name isn't unusual enough to show up at the top of Google even though it's now in hivemind. But if you had a more unusual name, you might see my point more easily. "Hmmm. Your also go by the name of SqueakBox? Let's see what you say about yourself on Wikipedia!" Daniel Brandt 20:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? SqueakBox 20:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that if you can't get the sort of privacy you require, you'll deny it from everyone else as well. the Hivemind Page is proof of this. That can hardly be called bona fide activism, as it clearly has no intention to be objective about its standards. If one is advocating privacy, that ought to mean privacy for everybody. One cannot say "except these guys". The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is on a downward slope, and we're facing a catch-22 regarding our credibility. Without credibility, we're as good as dead. It might or might not be a great triumph for privacy, but it's a great loss to general availability of information (such as the history of the Golem legend, the heroes of the Kalevala, the Renault FT-17 or the life of Gerrit Jan van Ingen Schenau). It's not that information wants to be free, it's that there are powers in this form that don't want it to. So, buy yourself a pint and clap yourself on the back, the countdown for the unmaking of all we've striven to build is underway. Your case will be won by human nature itself, in all its grotesque malignancy. Kudos, sir. --Agamemnon2 22:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. And if wikipedia does fall people can save the useful content and publish it elsewhere (eg all the Latin America content could be published separately, which is of interest to all those interested in Latin America, and without wikipedia it would be much easier for individuals to making money from such content by presenting it in the right way). But I think wikipedia has got way too much good info to be threatened in the way you fear, Agamemnon, though you are right that this is the core issue, SqueakBox 22:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

A minor point, if you'd please. I do not fear such a scenario, I merely predict it. Were it to come to pass, my reaction would range between a quiet satisfaction at my own self-righteous precognition and a sadness for the hundreds of thousands of volunteer donations that were so needlessly wasted. Fear, not. I don't take anything seriously enough to fear it. --Agamemnon2 18:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

(except in Finland, where it's illegal without the applicant's consent) Please elaborate, I don't know of any personal data processing law precedent (or even Data Protection Ombudsman decision) to back that up. Also, take note that I've never even implied that I'm actually based in Finland, you can't infer that just based on the IP address my edits are popping out from. Just using an I2P outproxy at this address never establishes it. I'm not trying to be snippy, I'm just interested in the source of your information, it might be something worth investigating. --80.186.112.54 20:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.mol.fi/english/working/dataprotection.html Daniel Brandt 18:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, your link is to an article discussing the repealed version of the law. The new laws is the [Act on the Protection of Privacy in Working Life 2004/759]. In any case, like I already said, there is no precedent or DPO decision about the employer doing internet searches on job applicants. It's very much open to interpretation whether such searches constitute "data collection" in as much as it's done to locate information which meets the "necessity requirement". The law also includes several exceptions for collecting information without the employee's consent, information collected from the Internet could conceivably fall under one of those (applicability of those exceptions are very limited, though). It's advisable for an employer to exercise restraint and not permanetly store information from the Internet which isn't relevant to the job of the employee, but you can't go as far as claiming that just googling someone is illegal, unless there is a clear precedent. --80.186.112.54 00:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually my business is promoting a business, so to get myself to the top ranking in Google (as SqueakBox is) would be a good thing from my point of view. I am also very proud of my edits, they are on my CV as proof of editing experience, and am very happy to see my name promoted on the internet. So fundamentally, Daniel, I disagree with you about privacy issues, and that absolutely includes being transparent in what I do. I don't have anything to hide, SqueakBox 20:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You run a database keeping tabs on government intelligence activities. You worked with Phillip Agee! You really think you're going to be subject to government harrassment because of burning your draft card and not because of anything else you've done? Gamaliel 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep digging yourself deeper, Rob. I've got your photo but you don't have mine. Daniel Brandt 21:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to continue to post here, you will not make threats of any kind against other editors. Is that clear? Now let's stick to the topic at hand please. Gamaliel 21:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who is threatening me, Rob. This page shows up at number five in a search for my name at Google. Now it includes a gratuitous, unnecessary association of me with Philip Agee. Everyone can see what you are doing to me. This is clearly intentional, and it should be grounds for banning you from Wikipedia. You may be a professional librarian who is adept at digging out obscure information about me from obscure databases, but on Wikipedia you are a publisher, and different rules ought to apply. Now please zap that reference to Agee, immediately. Daniel Brandt 21:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

How can we ban someone for doing their job? It sounds like a request which, were wikipedia to fulfil it, would be the end of wikipedia as once we start to ban people for doing what policy indicates they should be doing (adding sourced and relevant material to current articles). Like any individual, wikipedia has to act with integrity and without hypocricy, which it could not do if it were to ban Gamaliel for doing his job, SqueakBox 14:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Brandt, <personal attack removed> You're a public figure, who makes a <personal attack removed> living acting as an aspiring media [expert]<personal attack removed>, and generally trying to promote your <personal attack removed> activities. There's a huge difference between you and the various anonymous Wikipedia editors here. Your pretense that it's perfectly all right for you to invade the privacy of private individuals, while objecting to having your own very public activities documented is the worst sort of rank hypocrisy, <personal attack removed>. I can understand why someone like Agee (or, indeed, anyone) might not want to have his name associated with <personal attack removed> yourself, but see no reason why your association with him should not be highlighted. Frankly, the article here is far too favorable to you - an honest one would have been much more hard-hitting. Don Leller 06:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC) <personal attacks removed by Willmcw 09:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)>

(moved back left for space reasons) ProQuest isn't an "obscure database", you can find it at pretty much any decent library I believe, and in any case what I searched was only the New York Times index, and indexes to the Times, in paper or computer form, are quite common. The Philip Agee reference came from the article, or at least Agee was mentioned in an earlier version of the article and it seems to have disappeared. (I don't recall who put the reference to Agee in the article originally.) If you object to being associated with Agee, perhaps you should contact the publishers of this Counterpunch article or Agee's book On the Run. I'm really not trying to smear you in any way, and I'm not digging out obscure facts to attack you, I'm doing what I do with any Wikipedia article: research. I've done ProQuest searches on five or six people this week alone for WP articles. I have professional knowledge of and access to many dozens of "obscure databases" that I haven't even thought to use in your case. And even if I did, how could I possibly get banned from Wikipedia for doing research? Your conduct towards myself and other Wikipedia editors has been quite atrocious but I take my WP work quite seriously and my goal here is a neutral, accurate article. If you were not so paranoid, you would see that my goal is not to smear someone whom I had never heard of two months ago. Why on Earth would I? Gamaliel 21:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on. I'm really not trying to smear you in any way, and I'm not digging out obscure facts to attack you, I'm doing what I do with any Wikipedia article: research

Really? So for you any bit of information is free game, as long as someone has done the dirty work of bringing the person in question out of the protection of privacy to the limelight of a "public celebrity"? I find you just about as repulsing as any paparazzo or a yellow press reporter. Nothing seems holy to you. Is "selective conscious reporting" even part of your vocabulary? Why don't you just leave the poor man alone? Cite even one compelling public interest reason in "exposing" the decades old activities and associations of mr. Brandt! I'd like to have a vote on this, whether your activities really come down to "legitimate Wikipedia research" and not "personal vendetta"! --80.186.112.54 22:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that "any bit of information is free game". A hypothetical that I've brought up before is that if Brandt had been involved in a messy divorce, all that would be in the public record, but there would be little value added to the article if we went to the courthouse to view public records of that court case. This is hardly the same thing. One of the reasons I think Brandt is notable is a long history of admirable activism, a history we wished to document using already published materials from major media sources. That isn't "yellow journalism", that's pretty much mundane historical research. Now if you think something that Brandt did in front of network news cameras is in fact a private, personal act, you are welcome to that opinion, but obviously others disagree. Note the plural: Brandt may think I've become his personal oppressor (*eyeroll*), but if other Wikipedians thought I was actually indulging in a "personal vendetta" against someone I'd never heard of two months ago, they would act to prevent it. Gamaliel 00:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hypothetical "Javier Solana" scenarios won't support your point. The discussion is about whether some activity 40 years ago he is no longer involved and doesn't want to be involved, is notable. It clearly isn't notable for the two other people who did exactly the same thing in front of TV cameras, because they are mentioned nowhere in WP. So why should it be notable for mr. Brandt? Just because he has attacked WP and that makes him special? Like WP:BLP says, Only details relevant to the notability of the subject belong in the article, DB is not notable as a draft resisting pacifist, he is notable for Google Watch and chasing down Brian Chase. --80.186.112.54 15:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm honored to be included in the dot org/hivemind.html "Hivemind" page... but there's plenty of personal info you've so far failed to include! How about adding my birthdate (1963-07-04) and my personal URL (http://dan.tobias.name/)? *Dan T.* 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If I were to come top for Richard Weiss in Google that would go on my CV as well, let alone were the community to think me sufficiently notable to have an article on me, SqueakBox 20:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/u/b/Talk%7EPublic_Information_Research_Archive_3_b19e.html"

Category: Talk archives