Talk:Daniel Brandt/Archive 6

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 5 |

Archive 6

| Archive 7 →

Dilemma

It seems to me that Wikipedians will always object to the deletion of this article because the deletion of Daniel Brandt's article is perhaps now percieved to be an admission of guilt and an act of conceding defeat. This is probably due in part to the fact that the Wikipedia community apparantly makes a point of demonising him - as a result of this, Wikipedians see him as the enemy, and see keeping the article as a method of attacking the enemy (because Brandt would rather it be deleted). In other words, you've all gotten a complex about this whole issue. This presents the dilemma that neutrality is impossible due to this animosity (which appears to exist even among the higher echelons of the Wikipedia community, who are supposed to be setting an example for others to follow - indeed they are setting an example, but a very negative one), and that regardless of whether this article deserves to exist, a move to vote for deletion will always be seen as a pro-Brandt action, even if it is not.

My personal view is that if fanatical Wikipedians would just get over the fact that, yes, heaven forbid, someone doesn't really like Wikipedia, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Part of the whole Neutrality, Good Faith, and remaining Civil deal is that it prevents situations like this, but you people just don't seem to be following it. Making an article for some random person who hates Wikipedia and then voting to keep it just to spite them is not only immature, but is also an enormous waste of time and effort that could be channeled into more constructive things, such as reverting vandalism and verifying facts. Frankly this page reads more like a user page written in third person rather than a biographical article - Daniel Brandt is simply not noteworthy enough to deserve an article dedicated to him.

I'm not voting for deletion, there's simply no point. Neither the presence of this article nor the presence of Daniel Brandt and his website affects or harms Wikipedia in any substantial or appreciable way. It is still the foremost internet encyclopedia, and I believe that it always will be. My only hope is that everyone here who has been acting out of spite will grow out of it, and learn to be more objective in future. The fact is, like him or loathe him, Brandt has highlighted some legal issues that may well come to the fore in the future, and it may even be worth Wikipedia considering their policy on legal action taken against them for failing to remove articles in accordance with the law where the server resides (florida, I believe). Ignoring him and ignoring these issues will not stop a determined litigator from suing to his hearts content.--Badharlick 08:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Badharlick. Just let the article go. And begin to engage in a positive discussion the issues that he raises.DDD DDD 12:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Emile Lahoud, president of Lebanon, and Wikipedia

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

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

Obviously a "right to respond" doesn't mean "unlimited speech including racist attacks, etc". A right of response is not a free tribune for free speach, it is the right of someone targeted in an article to correct what he considers as mistakes. In law, you would consider this as the right to a fair trial — but Wikipedia is not a court, so this "fair trial" goes in the press as a "right of response". The easyness to create a website today is all relative; you first need to know how to do it, and if it doesn't seems difficult to you, this is not the case for everyone. Anyway, this doesn't change the matter: with this argument, newspaper would just respond to request for "right of response" by saying: shove it up your... and finds another newspaper to voice your concerns. The problem is precisely in that the media itself gives voice to the person. If the "right of response" is written in such a manner that it is unacceptable, it may be refused (but again, this refusal should be justified). People who usually write "right of response" don't start speaking like Amhadinejad, if you know what I'm talking about. Tazmaniacs 22:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you could practically enforce the type of polite rebuttal you are thinking about in this medium. What if it includes further accusations that require response? Then you need response-to-response ad-infinitum and get into the same food-fights that started it all. I think the proper way for allowing the response in the modern electronic age is supplying an appropriate link. We live in a hyperlinked world and the WP site is just a tiny (but growing) part of it. Crum375 23:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Right of Response is journalistic ethic and should be required of all our bios and articles on current organizations. Wikipeida should contact every subject of an article and ask them to respond. It doesn't mean it can't be edited for brevity but it should provide a forume. It should not be the responsibility of the subject to provide a website or link. In fact, it should be the burden of Wikipedia to transribe verbal rebuttals to written ones, just like newspapers do. A link that may have substantially less traffic and bandwidth available is not an acceptable alternative to this ethic. Also, it is consibered ethical to do this in the U.S. as well, it is just not legally required as it is in other countries. Newspapers seem to be able to handle your concern about rambling and they have a much tighter space constraint than Wikipedia.--70.190.27.105 14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Going on with "every subject of an article" should be contacted and "asked to respond" is a bit too far (and would mean, in the extreme, that the subject should be careful of vandalism on his page, which of course shouldn't be his concerns - he enters the picture when it is difficult to trace the line between vandalism, libel, etc., and genuinely objective and ethic - according to journalism ethics, article). However, I'm please to see an anonymous user agree with my point on journalism ethics. Maybe we should lift there somewhere where a few named users discuss Wikipolicies? (since the bold editors of this page, apart of Crum375, do not dare give their opinion on what is deemed rather normal on others medias)... Tazmaniacs 15:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the above French incident as indicating any sort of inalienable "right to respond"; rather, it indicates that the French Wikipedia is diligent about getting to the bottom of disputed statements of fact, looking at what both sides have to say and providing a NPOV statement in the article, with discussion taking place on the talk page. Similarly, if Brandt has specific disputes over the factual accuracy of anything in his article, they should be discussed here. So far, in the periods when he was not banned and could participate in the discussion, he rarely seems to have used this ability in the direction of providing specific factual information (though he did this a few times); he seems to have been more interested in attacking the entire concept of there being an article about him (even though the community decided to keep it on several occasions). *Dan T.* 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Brandt's case is interesting exactly in the measure that his problem is apparently the existence itself of this article: he represents a radical form of opposition to Wikipedia, which Wikipedia (i.e. Wikipedians and occasional users) should strive their best to understand, in order to accurately respond to it. I don't know what Brandt's specific actions have been, neither do I care: as I say, what's interesting is that he is essentially opposed to the project. Taking this into account, I still find it quite strange to have him definitely banned, not only from editing his article, but in particular from editing his own article! This is quite amazing, to have such a public article where the depicted person is accorded neither change on the page (not withholding possible vandalism from Brandt, it should be dealt with on a case by case basis & not by a definite absolute permanent forever ban; temporary bans would be acceptable, but not one as this). In any cases, he should be accorded a "right of response" here if he wants to make one, and, notwithstanding French Wikipedia, we should actually think about possibly incluing this as an "inalienable right" in Wikipolicy. PS: I'm sure none of the Wikipedian here would appreciate being in Brandt's position, whatever the actual motive for that would have been! Tazmaniacs 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We do indeed conduct things on a case by case basis. In this case he was blocked indefinitely, unblocked, given multiple chances to act constructively and blocked again. The situation was given considerable thought and debate; and as you stated "he represents a radical form of opposition to Wikipedia." There is little incentive to unban such a disruptive person. Brandt still has the right of response through various means, including his varied online properties. Your idea is impractical and not required as, even in Brandt's case, people already have the "right of response". Setting up a forum of personal responses drains resources and actually can undermine Wikipolicy (since a POV statement cannot be edited nor removed). The talk page already permits responses (which are not altered by others) and discussion can follow; if its especially notable it can even be set apart in the archives for future readers to consider. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned user's contributions are of course an exception to the removal rule. --maru (talk) contribs 22:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

This article was speedy kept after being nominated by new user. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it Daniel Brandt who keeps re-nominating it? Why does he keep on trying...? -- Bane s 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Because he wants the article deleted. 152.163.100.11 22:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And we won't delete it. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't he know it's futile? Skinnyweed 23:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Resistance is futile. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

He's getting just what he wants, publicity and free advertising. The more failed deletion requests, the happier he is. Hort Graz 23:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Be quiet and get back to the assimilation chamber. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I believe that this article should be deleted because the subject is not notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. Nominating this article for deletion would obviously be pointless because most wikipedians disagree, but I will be happy recommending a deletion in any future AfD discussions. DarthVad e r 06:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike, say, the Star Wars kid, Brandt initiated his own entry into notariaty and continues to act publicly. Now he objects that pseudo-anonymous comments can be made about him on a website. If readers mistake the Wikipedia for an authority, that is their mistake. --Apantomimehorse 13:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth

It is probably quite interesting that an article on Brandt was deleted twice over at WikiTruth.info. See this Wikipediareview thread. Netidentity 09:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to ask...

...but I have to. I want to hear from Brandt HIMSELF here what seems to be the problem. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm banned. If I explain my concerns, my comments will get deleted by Maru or SlimVirgin. -- Daniel Brandt 68.89.128.39 20:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I know there's a lot of archives to go through, but there was quite a bit of discussion about the article in them that might help clarify Mr. Brandt's concerns with the article. Shell ^babelfish 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And he's got his own sites on which to freely make whatever case he might have, though he has chosen to make access of them by interested Wikipedians difficult through a redirect on his server of people whose referers indicate they are following a link from this site. *Dan T.* 21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

I'm pretty shocked about people's behavior here. I mean...jesus christ...I don't know what to say. Come on, massive edit warring over a picture??????? If it was so clear cut, an admin should have protected the article until the dispute was resolved instead of leting it degenerate into "No I'm right" "No I'M RIGHT" "NO I'M RIGHT " Can someone explain to me the reasoning for this? --mboverload @ 20:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

...and then there's all the many attempts to delete the article, with descriptions like "This guy does not want an article on Wikipedia. You all are failing to understand this." No, we do understand that argument; we just reject it as a valid criteria for deletion. *Dan T.* 22:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I thought that the WP:LAME entry was just to spite Brandt, but this war over a picture is pretty lame and funny. Hbdragon88 04:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish translation

To Polish people here: plese verify translation (especially of quotes) in pl: article.

Why does this Brandt want this article deleted in the first place?

Seriously, what is so unspeakably vile about this article that he wants it permanently deleted without any chance of restoration? Is it inaccurate or misleading information of some sort, or is it merely the existence of said article that Brandt can't tolerate?

As an unrelated note, I'd like to state that his behaviour seems to resemble that of vandals (the use of sock puppets and threats of legal action). Anyone else think so? CameoAppearance 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's because he wants to remain "just a name", and for valid reasons of privacy etc. He doesn't oppose the fact that he is well known on the internet, but he opposes sites like Wikipedia writing a biography which he didn't give permission for, or is allowed to edit.--DrPoodle 09:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

DrPoddle is a contributor to Daniel Brandt threads at Wikipedia Review. Hort Graz 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

a)Dr. Poodle. b)Your point? Dudewhiterussian 05:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try to answer the original question here, to the best of my knowledge. (This should not be taken as an indication that I don't think Brandt is wildly unethical in the means he uses to attempt to achieve his ends.) Brandt has stated something to the effect that having a Wikipedia article on oneself is like getting a life sentence: you will have to watch the article forever. It may be ok today, but there's no assurance it will be ok tomorrow, and Wikipedia's processes can't offer that assurance. Of course, the same could be said about any web page discussing the man; I believe Brandt thinks his fixation on Wikipedia in particular is justified due to Wikipedia's enormous popularity. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the forum to discuss these sorts of questions. Broken Segue 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

True; sorry. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The article covers this very question, so the answer is appropriate for this talk page. Daniel today says:

So let's say that I need to send out my resume because I'm looking for a job. [...] My resume would be trash-canned immediately. San Antonio, where I live, is an Air Force town. Everyone knows someone who is involved with Iraq. I'm building a case for what I expect will be a major lawsuit against Wikipedia. [...] if I can introduce all the archived Talk pages into evidence (and why not? -- Wikipedia lets it all get indexed by the search engines), then I think libel might be part of the case too. - from http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2218 WAS 4.250 13:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Brandt's article here won't hurt him. Just google his name and there is plenty of damning stuff about him outside wikipedia. So if he applies for a job and submits his resume, he can't blame us for being rejected. Hort Graz 20:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Anybody has the right to privacy. By publishing information about a private person (and Daniel Brandt is a private person, the fact that he runs several websites doesn't make him public) against his will you're going too far. This is unethical. If a person requests that an information about him/her will not be published, anybody who publishes such an information has to delete it, like this or not, no questions asked. There is no place for asking "why" he wants the information deleted. It's his business, not yours. I was - and still am - a great fan of Wikipedia, but Daniel Brandt's case makes me look a bit differently now at the Wikipedia community. I would expect higher ethical and moral standards from people who are editing an encyclopaedia. Your persistent resistance against deleting this article, despite Brandt's requests, makes me think that you are egoists who don't care about other people a bit. If someone would put an article about me on Wikipedia, without my knowledge and consent, and I would have that article deleted, and you won't delete it, I will be really pissed off - regardless of the actual contents of the article. I would feel being hurt by you, so, I will probably try to make something that will equally hurt you - I don't know what, but there are several possibilities. 149.156.26.251 19:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? Why would an article be written about you on here? Brandt's article exists because he is notable, he is mentioned all over the internet, in news articles, as well as his own websites, and to be honest it's quite a good article (in my opinion). Why don't you ask the other sites to remove information about him? This site only includes information that has been published previously. If you find anything unreferenced in the article, you may remove it. --Majorly 19:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please don't threaten us, in trying to "equally hurt you". --Majorly 19:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You dont need to be famous to have an article written about you. Articles containing untrue or highly personal information can be the subject of lawsuits but to write about someone per se is freedom of speech, SqueakBox 19:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Brandt is not a private person by any legal standard or by any other reasonable standard. He has been interviewed in newspapers and has been in the news many times. Reporting on matters which are found in public newsources is not an invasion of privacy. JoshuaZ 19:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Has to" according to whom? If some celebrity (let's say Tom Cruise) wants his article deleted, why should we grant it? How is this different? The law does not compel us, in fact it explicitly permits freedom of expression and all that good stuff. Just because you think it does not make it reality. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Time to permanently declare the article worthy of inclusion?

I'm sure that the article will be AFD'd next week and the week after and the week after that, etc. It seems like there is no circumstance under which this article will pass into the realm of deletability, so I'm thinking maybe that a blanket statement of worthiness is appropriate, allowing any admin to close AFD debates on the spot? I can't see how any further AFD sessions are going to be worthwile. - Richfife 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. --Cberlet 01:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree. BabuBhatt 01:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree. CameoAppearance 05:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree --Anchoress 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this should be protected from deletion for all eternity, but it's also kinda obvious that every nomination with already stated reasons will be speedy kept. No one will seriously object to that because it's against the rules, I guess. --Conti|✉ 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly a ridiculous way of being smug. LEft leaning individuals acting like fascists. Daniel Brandt is an idiotic pig. But by refusing to reduce the article, or remove it, your thick headedness then opens this site up to all sorts of legal attacks, one of which, whenever undertaken will swamp this site. It's time to let go of the rabid dog mentality and try to be a more smooth flowing entity rather than a bully, because not only is Wikipedia not able to be cited in scholarly papers or discussions, it has also become argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, rather than for the sake of being informative.Do it again 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Chill out. I was just musing on the idea. Where did "Rabid Dog" and "Thick Headedness" come from? That's a pretty surprising way to plead for a reduction in argumentativeness. - Richfife 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do it again is a sockpuppet of Jonah Ayers who used this particular account to do nothing but libel me and deface the Biff Rose and this page. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 23:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No binding decisions. Kotepho 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. The no binding decision policy effectively trumps this. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's a good idea, but I have to abide by the policy as well. CameoAppearance 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something non-binding would work. For example, if there have been no significant changes in the situation and no new rationale is given for deletion, we could close the AfD, much like content that is recreated without any significant changes can be speedyed. But even then, keep in mind that this article has nowhere near the most AfDs - see GNAA with its 18 noms and 2 bad faith noms, for example. This is not a huge problem. --Philosophus ^T 01:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did Magmaguar remove my comment and Philosophus' (regarding the policy), and that of HopeSeekr of xMule (regarding Do it again being a sockpuppet of Jonah Ayers) from this page? I checked out his only other contribution, a post on HopeSeekr's talk page, and it seems to be an attempt to defame him. That makes that removal make more sense, but what did the other two have to do with anything? CameoAppearance 07:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Trolls like to stir stuff up wherever, whenever and however. It's been reinstated, so no biggy. - Richfife 16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldn't have tried to make sense of the Way of the Troll. CameoAppearance 03:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Daniel Brandt is an idiotic pig". Of course, nobody here will block User Do it Again (apparently a sock) for Wikipedia:No personal attacks... Sigh. Tazmaniacs 00:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I too disagree with people making such personal attacks. Perhaps somebody should report it on the Administrator's Noticeboard? How well-liked or well-disliked the target of the attack is, or their status vs. Wikipedia (banned, etc.) shouldn't be relevant. As for the "No binding decisions" issue, there needs to be some sensible middle ground; things decided here shouldn't be regarded as carved in stone forever, but they shouldn't be constantly reopened every time another newbie comes along who disagrees with them, which can be every couple of days in the case of particularly contentious issues. *Dan T.* 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Brandt on Other Wikis

I wonder if FloNight is Malber. Anyway. Here's the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=61087702&oldid=61076417

I added:

===Daniel Brandt on other wikis===

<removed link to attack site>Brandt article on Encyclopedia Dramatica

The article there is actually more positive to Daniel Brandt than this one. It is written entirely so far by Blu Aardvark, who is a close friend of Daniel Brandt. So it is a positive article. DyslexicEditor 02:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is notability and reliability. If the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Brandt gets mentioned in a published source, then it can be added with the citation. Until then, it is neither notable (not cited) nor reliable (will likely change frequently). Funny? Yes. Encyclopedic? No. Jokestress 03:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you put any faith in Brandt's hive mind page you'll know that Flo is not me. The edit is legit because the addtional section had no context. It may have been appropriate for external links, but I'm not sure a parody site would be appropriate there either. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I also no longer actively edit this article. I don't think it's suitable for inclusion, and I have come to the opinion that people of semi-notability should have the right to opt out of inclussion in the wiki. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To Jokestress--Hmmm... I added it for the most part because Brandt always complained about this article and wanted it deleted, and since he has an article on another wiki, it shows that he's internet famous enough to get into many wikis and cannot delete them all. So I figured it's notable. Maybe a mention that it's in encyclopedia dramatica will do and mentioning ED is not necessarily accurate, just that he has an article there. (same for if he's on other wikis).

To Malber--since this talk page comment is still here, I assume you're not him. Also, I don't know why Brandt didn't go to wikipedia office to get this removed. Also I think this is a good parady of Brandt not getting his article removed <removed link to attack site> says, "[Seigenthaler's] cronies tried changing the wiki [to remove the JFK assassination claim] (because Seigenthaler is too old to know how to get online), but their vandalism was reverted by the admins and they were permabanned." Who knows maybe Seigenthaler did try to remove it and got reverted. DyslexicEditor 01:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Like, "Although Brandt did want this wiki article deleted, he is also on another wiki, Encyclopedia Dramatica, which although is an innacurate satire site, it still is another wiki article about Brandt." Should go in the article. DyslexicEditor 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Although Brandt did want this wiki article deleted, he is also on another wiki, Encyclopedia Dramatica, which although is an innacurate satire site, it still is another wiki article about Brandt" should not go in the article. There is no point to it. Anybody could put up a wiki with a page about Brandt; it is an obvoius fact that anybody could do so, and a non-interesting fact that someone has. The fact has no encyclopedic value. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"The fact has no encyclopedic value." Why?

(I just wanted to highlight that why) Okay well, I don't get it. The man was all against a wiki article about him and now not just here but other wikis have articles about him. I don't see how that cannot be quite relevant. He protest here like he didn't want any wiki article about him and now there's other wikis with articles on him, too -- just that fact is important. DyslexicEditor 10:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is notability of WP itself. Brandt realizes that anyone with a Web site, i.e. anyone, can say anything they want about him and there's not much he can do about it, but most Web sites are obscured by the very proliferation of sites and blogs. OTOH, he realizes that WP, as the 600 lbs gorilla, is very notable, comes up first in Google searches and is increasingly used as reference by everyone (admittedly or not). So he's concerned about WP; the other wiki-wannabes are below the radar for him, and they are not notable or reliable enough for us to be encyclopedic. Crum375 12:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article shouldn't have undue focus on Brandt's relations with Wikipedia. It's self-referential, and as Wikipedia editors, we have a strong tendency to overinflate its importance. Not only that, but just making the argument that Brandt hasn't gone after other Wikis (implying that there is something wrong with him going after us) is at least skirting the "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis" clause of WP:NOR. Unless if this fact became interesting enough to be reported in a reliable secondary source, it should not be mentioned in this article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be at least mentioned that he has articles on other wikis, too. Can that at least have a bit of a mention? DyslexicEditor 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. CameoAppearance 04:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody put it up then? I find that too many people's sole purpose on wikis is to revert everyone to amuse themselves and I hate being reverted outright instead of being edited. DyslexicEditor 15:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, disagree. I think that 'other wikis', until proven notable (e.g. deserving of their own WP article), are effectively invisible to us. For example, if some blogger puts Mr. X on his non-notable Web site, that is not an acceptable or encyclopedic fact that merits mention in the article about X. A non-notable wiki is no different. Crum375 15:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree too, of course, per reasons stated above. Stating the fact without implying an interpretaton of that fact is impossible here; that interpretation violates WP:NOR until the fact and interpretation are found in a reliable source. Until such time, it doesn't belong. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe wikipedia's policies on something anyone can verify is allowed. It's like anyone can verify the sky is blue. The point isn't what's in the other wiki article, it's simply that they exist. DyslexicEditor 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirection

I notice that brandt is no longer redirecting people who come to his sites via wikipedia but I notice I can't fix the links as they're on the spam blacklist. Is it possible to alter this Ydam 05:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If the addresses are on the spam blacklist, then we can't link to them. Since that's so, then how has it been possible to test that they're not redirecting wikipedia links? We've had confusion over this before, twice. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You can test it out by going to an older version of the article, for example: [1]. If Brandt's sites are relinked he may just start redirecting again, though. They're probably fine the way they are now. Ehheh 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You can also test them in previews. Try it yourself. Wasn't the whole reason they were on hte blacklist was becasue they were redirecting Ydam 17:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In my own (generally considered irrelevant) opinion, the spam blacklist shouldn't properly be used for any purpose other than the blocking of actual spam (e.g., the "herbal Viagra" links that get indiscriminately posted in all sites open to postings from the public). Using this blacklist for political or social purposes, like to block links to sites that criticize Wikipedia, or sites belonging to people that many prominent Wikipedians dislike, is an abuse. *Dan T.* 15:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they shouldn't be blacklisted as it's a form of censorship. If Brandt starts to redirect again, then a simple notice stating that he has decided to redirect if referred from Wikipedia would suffice. -Etienne 04:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Etienne.navarro. They shouldn't be on the blacklist, because the blacklist is for spam. As far as I know these sites are not spammed all over Wikipedia. — mark ✎ 07:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was out for a few weeks and then Raul put it back without discussion and labelled it as redirecting even though it's not. Anomo 18:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Website

I think that the article should have more about his wikipedia-watch.org. As one of the only Anti-wikipedia websites out there, it does have some notability. Maybe something should be said of this company, Public Information Research, Inc., as it has supported wikipedia-watch's content under it's name. I think it is notable that a website that stalks wikipedia editors and comits what could be libel against Jimbo Wales has a status with the government that allows donations to be tax-deductible. I'm interested to see how Mr. Brandt managed it. --unsigned for fear of being stalked by wikipedia-watch

I'm not sure if it's actually stalking, since he at least implies that all his information was gained from search engines (and userpages, probably, but he doesn't mention those). But, yeah, it'd still be nice to see how he managed that. CameoAppearance 05:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Activism and Brandt's birth

It sounds strange that the sentence "Brandt was born in China to missionary parents" is in the "Activism" paragraph. Getting born in China is not a political statement. :-) Subst:nsd 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the event of somebody's birth could conceivably be a political statement of some sort, though on the part of the mother rather than the infant; she might be making a "statement" by allowing the baby to be born instead of being aborted, or by going across an international border expressly to have the baby be born in a particular country for political reasons. Not that any of this necessarily applies in this case... *Dan T.* 18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Most biographies list place of birth in a section on personal or family life, but we don't have a lot of specific confirmed biographical information in this case. It does in some ways connect with his own life's missions, though. Some people have suggested that tendencies toward altruism and activism have a heritable component. Jokestress 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That is an astonishingly weak argument, Jokestress. Obviously, if the only personal information you have about him is where he was born, then you make that the sum total of the personal info section, not crack a hair-brained theory about altruism being heredited, with no reference to back that up.

Even if it were true, which is dubious, this is still personal info and belongs in a related section. Otherwise, to use your logic, any personal information about parents belongs in "Activism" and various similar categories. This is daft.

Hypokrysis

Trollish user Hypokrysis has used three different spellings of his/her/its/their name so far, containing identical-looking characters from the Unicode range to make it impossible to distinguish them at sight. That's a loophole in the system caused by its support for international characters. Cybersquatters are exploiting the same thing when registries and registrars allow similar characters to be used in internationalized domain names. *Dan T.* 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, it is an irritating thing about MediaWiki's support for unusual UTF-8 characters, although if it didn't have this support non-English language Wikipedias couldn't be operated, because other languages need some rather esoteric character codes. It would be worth, however, proposing some kind of fix to prevent people creating visually similar names to existing accounts. I'd write one myself, but the MediaWiki devs, in my experience, are not terribly open to newcomers contributing their own patches; perhaps I'll see if I can get someone to look into writing such a patch.

Re the sockpuppets, I suspect they are reincarnations of Brandt himself again, and I've tagged them accordingly. I sincerely wish he'd get the picture that the article will be kept, and that no matter how many times he AfDs it, he is notable. (If you're reading this, Mr. Brandt, please understand we've already come to a clear editorial decision on this and alas I think you definitely fit the notability criteria, whether you like it or not.) Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

links section

Why aren't they actually hot linked? rootology 19:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Brandt's sites were added to the badlinks list because he was redirecting our links elsewhere on his servers. If people copy and paste the links they work. Broken Segue 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Make sense. Where can one see the list out of curiosity? rootology 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

meta:Spam blacklist. --Conti|✉ 19:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

meta:Spam blacklist. Broken Segue 19:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked and it said it was blocked for redirecting to a third party site if the link has an HTTP referrer from wikipedia. I tried www.wikipedia-watch.com normally and compared it to this with the http:// in front of it in a show preview window and clicked it from wikipedia. I saw no difference. It was the same thing. Nothing went to any third party site. Did I do it wrong? I tried all five links to his site in show preview and none went to any other site but what it said. What was supposed to happen? Playingviolin1 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you did it right, but Brandt stopped redirecting people from wikipedia early in July. This was mentioned at the time (under the redirection header above) but nothing much seems to have heppened as to fixing it. Ydam 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The moment we fix it, he'll be tempted to do it again. Let's leave things as they are. It's no great bother having to cut and paste. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a protocol for this, but perhaps a quick line above the links explaining that the links are not hyperlinked for a reason? I assumed bad formatting and was about to link them - I thought to check the discussion page because it struck me as odd, and that's the only reason I knew not to do it. A little italic text "Links in plain text to avoid redirection" would be sufficient to explain what's going on. CastorQuinn 12:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I found myself a little confused when I saw they weren't linked. If this were any other article, I would simply assume that someone forgot to do it and I would go about "fixing" the links. I think some sort of notice is appropriate. -Anþony 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sick and Wrong, and maybe illegal.

I find the content of this article humorous, as well as the content of this talk page. What everyone seems to be missing are these facts;

Dan Brandt is American. (From the article)
Dan Brandt currently resides in The United States. (Ibid)
Americans, residing in the States, are entitled to Personality rights.

I take these three facts together to mean that this article is not legally allowed inclusion into any work published and sold by Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia itself seems to be treated by what Brandt calls "the administrators" as no more than an online chat room, I imagine this content in particular is fair use and fair game. But I would take a stance of immediate opposition against "the administrators" the moment they decide to disseminate any similar article of any living person in a work published for profit, especially against their will.

Good for a laugh anyhow, but beware the implications. You could be next! --Ayelis 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal interpretations are indeed good for a laugh, and a little chat. If this was a realistic implication; I'm unsure how tabloids could remain viable. Granted they cover public figures and there is an interesting gray area for those who go in and out of the public arena in their lives, but I'm pessimistic it is interesting in this instance. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tabloids... Of course! Now that's some good ethical guidelines for Wikipedia! What would have happened to freedom of the press without the paparazzi? Tazmaniacs 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was debunking the legal interpretation above; not discussing journalistic or ethical guidelines. (as ours would obviously differ, and as such our accountability would be higher) In answer to your rhetorical question, the press would remain (and evolve) as it has been, largely controlled and serving the interest(s) of the ruling class. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This thread looks like Brandt started it. I may be wrong, but I have seen Brandt reverted a lot here. To Brandt: Please don't post here. Try actually checking and answering your email. I have emailed you many times requesting the larger pictures (if you checked your email you would know what this means). So Brandt actually respond to the email and send the pictures. Thank you. Herbcraft 01:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I'm not Brandt. I'm Steve. You may notice substantial differences inherent in our usage of grammar. I just read too much encyclopedia dramatica. *lulz* --Ayelis 06:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you know, I don't want a page about my personal life on Wikipedia either. Maybe just saying that will make me famous. WOO LOOKIT ME, I'M THE NEXT BRANDT! --Ayelis 06:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit by Brandt

The recent edit by Brandt was a sensible one, but it got automatically reverted for being made by a banned user. I don't think the version before his edit was really libelous, as Brandt says, but his edit simply introduced a more accurate wording of how things are at the moment. Therefore I have reinstated the improved version. — mark ✎ 07:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference is in the word "published" and what that actually means is the argument. Anomo 07:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So I guess I agree with Brandt here that it is quite sensible to make a difference between 'making available for searching' and 'publishing'. In any event, the phrase 'making available for searching' covers the facts in more detail, and then the issue whether or not that could be called publishing becomes irrelevant. — mark ✎ 07:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mark. Haukur 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This month I've been seeing Brandt socks editing the article and no one's been reverting them. Anomo 22:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Brandt has now published the logs; see www.wikipedia-watch.org/findchat.html. I have updated the article accordingly. I must say this leaves the impression that he didn't really care about whether the article was accurate or not on this point; it rather looks like he was glad to have found a reason to publish them. — mark ✎ 07:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistake???

Why are all the external links in <nowiki> 's

see #links section. Broken Segue 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion...

Would you folks please consider (or re-consider? I have not followed the matter closely) a merge of this bio into Googel Watch? It seems that even Jimbo considered this to be a reasonable compromise at http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t774-50.html . -- 64.175.41.78 10:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any posts by Jimbo Wales there. By the way, wikitruth said that Angela Beasley tried to get her article removed from wikipedia, but failed, too. She co-founded Wikia with Jimbo Wales. Anomo 11:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The part that says: Daniel Brandt, Wed 3rd May 2006, 1:10am

... both (Jimmy and Linuxbeak) seemed interested in some sort of compromise that would involve taking down my bio and merging some stuff into Google_Watch or other articles. It would also mean the deletion of the Talk pages connected with my article.

My point is: if Jimbo felt that such was an acceptable concession, then it should also be on the table here, indepently of anything Jimbo is or is not now trying to do to resolve the issue. See that {{blp}} thing at the top of this page? That means that you are supposed to negotiate and make concessions. That is how you finally come to a mutually acceptable agreement and then shake hands. Oh, and NPOV really means that the remaining material, if any, should be balanced. Jimmy said "non-negotiable" on NPOV, but that does not imply that you get to keep in every bit of gossip and poop just because you have some supporting documentation. You are prefectly free to swtich between verbose mode and terse mode, especially for stuff that might not matter at all in ten years time. It seems that Daniel would prefer the terse form of his biography. Eh, just my two cents. -- 75.24.210.72 15:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Negotiate? Concessions? Where does it say that? All it means is that the article needs to be accurate and that defamatory material is not allowed. No true fact is defamatory. Ever. Show me "gossip" or "poop" in this article. Show me information that is too trivial to be included. Please, the guy had appeared in the NYT multiple times and has made national news throughout his life. Leonardo 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is not that bad about him. There's a different wiki that says all kinds of bad stuff about him. Between the two wikis, wikipedia's one paints a more favorable light of the man. Anomo 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair play?

I've been (happily) editing at wikipedia for a little more than 6 months now. In that time, I've probably made close to a 2500 edits combined in the English, French and Japanese wikis - (Yes, I know, it's not the size of the edit counts that matter, but the content of said edits that flatter - just made that up, too many Sapporo beer.) - when I went for the first time to the wiki article on wikipedia and then to criticisms of and this Brandt article. I wonder, is this article, the talk page and the wiki treatment of Brandt fairplay? It seems rather Orwellian that anyone can write anything about him but he cannot respond. Frankly, I admit, even me writing here and he really can't do much about it weirds me out. Please don't give me the BS that he has his own sites. People read wiki. He should be able to edit here. Or, this article should be deleted and in an article on criticism of wiki, he can be mentioned. This talk page, the article and his banishment from wiki seem, apart from Orwellian, all very primary school bullying - we're having a party and you are not invited. Society is full of people that are on the fringe, but we give them that right to be there. Surely, wiki, in its 100s of languages, with its 1000s of editors and millions of articles can survive with a Daniel Brandt editing at will.DDD DDD 15:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

How is the presence of an article about Brandt any worse than that "Wikipedia Hivemind" page of his, which apparently exists solely for the purpose of posting personal information (and as much personal information as he can get his hands on, at that) about editors Brandt has come into conflict with? At least our article doesn't insult its subject. CameoAppearance 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a series of messages here relating to Daniel Brandt and another user. This has, indeed been an unfortunate series of circumstances, but let's not drag all of this through the mud again. Instead, let's respect the user who left for the great contributions to Wikipedia, and let's not dwell on this issue. Danny 14:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think in one sense, one wants to appreciate Danny's attempt at maintaining a certain peace here. Unfortunately, I for one am not to happy with his solution of simply removing comments by others and myself. I raised a series of issues which I believe were not addressed or readily dismissed.

(And I removed them again - please don't readd them) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing Other's Talk Page Comments

Danny and Theresa knott: Please do not remove other people's talk page comments in future, even if you disagree with them. Removing such comments is considered vandalism (look up "Changing people's comments") - remember that there is no censorship on Wikipedia. --Badharlick 15:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I will act in the way that I feel is most approriate and best for wikipedia. I don't need to look up our policies. I am fully aware of them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've raised a number of questions beyond the "Brandt-Kate he said/she said". One was, is wikipedia simply no better than the worst that's out there, as Cameoappearance suggests? No one has answered yet. I'm hoping that the answer is that wiki strives to be much greater than ... but the evidence from this page is not so good. Next, the article allows criticism of Brandt that basically says he is absurd and not a valid sourse. As I asked above, either he is or he isn't. If he is absurd, why is this somehow notable and pertinent? All of this beg the question, has been barred because his ideas and thoughts make people uncomfortable. And the result of being barred, he is unable to even defend himself here to whatever anyone says, true or not. As we saw above from Joshua's unproven allegations - and Danny's attempt at peace but simply removing the comments, while doubt lingers. Did or did he not call and harass Katefan0? Surely, in our democratic societies, we can appreciate for the need to not only tolerate but celebrate difference. We are all not marching to the same drum, and that's probably a good thing. Furthermore, the Internet, and wikipedia too, is seen as a representation of our democracy, but even more so, by giving voice to those on the margins. But here we are in wikipedia saying to one person, sorry, but, we don't like what you have to say. As I had previously written, this seems like a slippery slope, but then again, it also appears like a representation of current politics in certain 'democratic' countries. Who's next? Who is making too much noise? Whose politics are too 'absurd', 'to easy dismiss'?

Ah, a long post... apologies for that. But, still waiting for answers... DDD DDD

I wasn't trying to suggest that Wikipedia is no better than the worst that's out there so much as point out a wrong (just one of many, or at least so I've heard) Brandt's done to numerous editors that, in my opinion, is a lot worse than simply having a Wikipedia article about the person in question. CameoAppearance 16:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe that earlier post included a bad choice of words. And here to, when you wrote: "or at least so I've heard". From my point of view, looks like hearsay. Hmmm, there's this line too "Brandt's done to numerous editors that... is a lot worse than". This looks like some kind of attack or bullying which does NOT raise the bar for wikipedia. Your comments, Cameo, haven't cleared anything up for me.DDD DDD 16:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I should have clarified that, then; I've seen a few references to harrassment of users and legal threats, but I haven't personally dug into all the talk page archives and the like to find out exactly what happened in the past. I'm working on this, though. As for that other quote... well, as I stated, that was simply an opinion. I'm not entirely sure how it could be considered an attack (I didn't say anything about Brandt as a person, and I never claimed what I said was objectively true), but I really don't see how it could be construed as bullying. CameoAppearance 17:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so I am clear, your opinion of Brandt is based on things you've heard, not experienced for yourself and not seen happen. As I saw yesterday and commented on yesterday, one editor accused Brandt of doing things he denies ever doing. So, things get written which not be completely accurate. This could be interpreted as bullying. The point I tried to make about the attack or bullying relates to this very issue. People feel OK with making comments based on things they've heard. Hmm, maybe my choice of words was wrong. How about gossip? But gossip can be, and often is, malicious. Theresa has already pointed out that there is a long story involved here but that she doesn't want to explain it. Is that something we would say to a new voter - 'ah, the issues are complicated, so I can't explain it, and therefore, you can't have a voice in the matter'. Or, is that something we say to our students - 'ah, this is a difficult subject, so we aren't going to learn it'... (Forgot to sign.)DDD DDD 17:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true that a portion of my opinion of Brandt is based on things I've heard, but the majority of it is based on what I've already seen for myself: things like the discourse on this Talk page, the things Brandt states and has put up on Wikipedia Watch, and his block log, for example. I am attempting to find out more via archived discussions and the like, but I haven't read through everything yet. (You haven't said anything regarding the way my own comment comes across as an attack; would you mind clearing this up?) CameoAppearance 18:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that I am new to this discussion, I am trying to come at it from an open mind, trying to understand all that has happened. This talk page AND the article has several comments from people that seem to marginalize Brandt (my own opinion). Your own comment "Brandt's done to numerous editors that... is a lot worse" seems to continue that marginalization of him/his ideas. If you have read something on this discourse page or on the block log that can help me figure this situation out, I'd certainly appreciate you pointing me in the direction. Thanks in advance.DDD DDD 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh for fucks sake! DDD DDD are you just trolling? We don't allow people who harrass others here. He was banned for harrassing. End of story. No one wants to rake this shit up again. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Theresa; please remain civil and try to assume assume good faith in future. This is a contentious issue, and as such should be treated with sensitivity - your comments in this area are not helping to keeping things calm. --Badharlick 15:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You added this two days after I made the above comment? Even after I already spoke further on the matter? Even after it was evident that i was in fact perfectly calm? You intention here is what exactly? Because you sure seem like a kiddie trying to stir up trouble for the fun of it. I am quite calm I assure you. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I was the object of the above language from Theresa, I have to say that I saw it differently than she claims. I didn't see you evidently acting in a perfectly calm manner. And that's why I asked you to chill on the matter. Now I've just read (on Badharlick's user page where this discussion is continuing) you are an administrator and arbitrator and I am wondering if the tone and language you used is appropriate for one in your position.DDD DDD 21:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Still thinking about this... A quick look at my user page would have seen that I am involved in some pretty bland articles. Theresa made those quick comments to what? Encourage an open discussion? Probably not... and the end result may be discouraging other editors from actively participating in contentious issues. Pity.DDD DDD 21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. Theresa. Chill there. I don't think I am the enemy yet. "Oh for fucks sake?... rake this shit up again...?" I recommend you change your tone and vocabulary when communicating with others. Again, we are all just trying to make this corner of the web that much better. That would help improve the level of the discussion here. As I wrote, it appeared that Joshua made libellous statements about Brandt yesterday/today regarding him and Katefan0. Not sure of the time now. And two users now, Danny, and yourself, have erased those comments. I asked for clarifications on Joshua's statement. I have yet to get that clarification. For the record (1), before yesterday, I had never heard of Brandt, nor anyone here, so my interest in this matter seems to be one of fairness. From where I am sitting on the floor in my 6-mat tatami room, things don't look fair - hence, yesterday's title "Fair play?". However, above, I posted other comments and questions regarding wikipedia (and Brandt) which remain unanswered or uncommented on. And for the record (2), I do not know what this means: "DDD DDD are you just trolling?"DDD DDD 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you don't know the story and I am sure that you must find it frustrating to be cut short like this. But I have no intention of explaining it to you because I do know and I do know Brandt and how he operates. You are just going to have to trust me on this. He has not been treated unfairly here. Do you know who Danny is? Please let the matter drop. Brandt is a banned user for good reason. BTW I am sorry I accused you of trolling.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems a bit dodgy to put trust blindly into people I do not know: Brandt and others here. Still, the goal of wikipedia is all knowledge, and that would be things we like and things we don't like, too. Surely, a teacher of science can appreciate that? (By the way, indeed, great tits! and 'Life of Pi' is also one of my favourites. I've read it several times. So, let's discuss away Pi and Martel.) And I'm wondering still about that troll remark - my only understanding of it is older (uglier) adults cruising for younger adults.DDD DDD 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If we had to explain to every person why he was blocked we would have very little time. People ought to research this themselves. See his block log for example. He was given multiple second chances, before being entirely blocked. He kept issuing legal threats (against stated Wikipedia policy) and harassing users. He knowingly forfeited his access through his continued violations of our policies. Broken Segue 15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough BrokenSeque, new people interested in the issue should become informed on their own. However, when my students ask me questions, I try to give them an overview of the situation and go through some new information together for a while, and let them come back to me with new questions. I've began going through Daniel's user contribs. I came across this:

"06:26, 3 November 2005 (edit) Daniel Brandt (Talk | contribs) "(A modest proposal) [...] Procedures need to be put into place at Wikipedia so that live persons cannot be defamed by Wikipedia [...] For articles on live persons, it seems to me that you need to do this: a) attempt to notify the person that an article is in progress if they are less famous than, for example, Jane Fonda or Bill Gates; 2) work with them and negotiate the content if they want to participate; and 3) lock it down against further editing, until or unless the cycle needs to be repeated due to new information."

From the way I see it, he is saying that wikipedia articles, and those articles scraped by other sites (wnswers.com, for example) come high on search engines when that name/key word is used. There have been cases where live persons have been maliciously maligned (Norway's PM, John Seigenthaler Sr. and Nancy Zimpher are well-known examples where they were called a pedophile, communist assassin and a prostitute). Because wikipedia is so well-known and to protect live persons, due care must be taken to ensure that they are not defamed. In light of the troubles that have arisen regarding other live persons, I do NOT see Brandt's proposal as being completely unreasonable.DDD DDD 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We have made policies to give greater scrutiny to biographies of living persons to prevent harmful false information. However, Brandt has gone further and demanded absolute veto power over having an article at all about a person who doesn't want it, even if there's nothing remotely defamatory in it, simply due to the hypothetical possibility that something harmful might get added later. This is completely unreasonable. *Dan T.* 13:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

An internet troll is someone who deleberately stirs up trouble for the fun of it. Like I said I'm sorry I accused you of trolling. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Brandt's been indef blocked since April. Indef blocks aren't supposed to be permanent. I believe it's time to review his block or take it to arbitration. Blocking the subject of an article from editing his own article is against the principle and policy of WP:BLP which happens to be cited at the top of this page. (Full Disclosure: I'm a member of Brandt's Hive Mind list.) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have indef blocks that have stood for far longer than that.Geni 14:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Brandt's attempt to out various Wikipedia editors is completely unacceptable. If he takes down his hivemind page it will then be considered. Otherwise, this is a foundation matter and the only person who should have any say in the matter is Jimbo. JoshuaZ 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying then, is that basically the higher ups are having a tantrum because the big bad man said bad things about them on his big bad website? Come on, grow up, wikipedia is supposed to be above all that, and if it isn't currently then we should work to make it that way. This a "foundation matter, move along please, nothing to see here", but Wikipedia is not supposed to be "them and us", yet that division is constantly being made whenever a contentious issue like this one rears it's ugly head. Granted, Brandt may be in the wrong somewhere down the line, but that should be inconsequential - so should the fact that other people don't like him or that he may've done disagreeable things in the past. "Because you blasphemed the name of the holy wikipedia" is not a valid reason to ban someone, nor is it a valid reason to spite them by refusing to delete a rubbish contentless boring article about them (an action which just further fans the flames I might add), nor is it a valid reason to sideline, marginalise, oppress, and squelch people who wish to resolve the issue. Nobody has to admit guilt, this whole thing could be ended quietly if people were prepared to just negotiate on friendly terms. --Badharlick 16:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the "higher ups" If Brandt were trying to out new users or you or anyone else it would be just the same. Attempting to circumvent Wikipedia' privacy policy is unacceptable. This isn't that complicated. JoshuaZ 16:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

People are, however, discouraged from editing articles about themselves by WP:AUTO. *Dan T.* 14:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or..." from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons DDD DDD 15:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned." from Wikipedia:Autobiography *Dan T.* 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there is a conflict between these two well-intentioned rules. Which is more important? I just saw on the Jimbo Wales article that Mr. Wales has edited his own page. While, I imagine he regrets doing it, clearly a precedent was set. Or am I reading too much into this? I forgot to sign. DDD DDD 12:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

DDD DDD, you can email Daniel Brandt about the issue and ask him for his input. The fact that he put up a site advocating privacy, while simultaneously disclosing private information about wikipedians makes him somewhat of an enemy around here.

Generally when you insult or attack a group of people it isn't out of line for the attacked people to not give the person any more chances to hurt them. Brandt isn't the only person who has tried to delete their own biography on wikipedia, in fact, a former foundation member put her own article up for deletion. Brandt wrote a proposal of sorts, seeking to redefine the WP:BLP policy. It didn't catch on. He was a sore loser about it. He blanked his article a few times, made legal threats[2][3], and he was treated like any other troublemaker on wikipedia by getting blocked and banned.

If you look at his talkpage, you'll see that he's frusterated that he isn't getting more attention on wikipedia for being disruptive. He complains that there are no vandal templates specifically concerning him. So to some degree, he does want attention. Brandt is welcome to email the foundation concerning the deletion/cleanup of his biography, but he is not welcome to directly edit or discuss it, because he has lost that privilage. Wikipedia has the right to revoke this privilage. He is notable enough to have his own article, but he has proven that he is not co-operative enough to help edit it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, this is not the place to discuss or argue the issues. This talk page is for discussion of the content on Daniel Brandt, not the rationale behind his block or whether this article should be deleted (if you want to start that discussion please use WP:AFD, although I don't recommend it). Please take this discussion to the pump, IRC or an offsite forum. No further dicussion should continue here. Broken Segue 00:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who began this new discussion last week and frankly I am surprised at how much interest it has drawn. I'm still new around here, in a way, and this is the first time I have seen such dialogue back and forth on wikipedia. Just so I am clear, Broken, you wrote "[...] please use WP:AFD, although I don't recommend it". You do not recommend that route because it is also not the appropriate place for this discussion? Or because the result is a foregone conclusion? Or...? Thanks in advance.DDD DDD 21:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the right forum, but the issue is a forgone conclusion. Broken Segue

Just saw this "forgone conclusion" and well, all I can is Whoa, at least we are keeping an open mind about thing. I forgot to sign, again. DDD DDD 12:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Segue, please don't throw this "not a forum" stuff at us, we know. An editor wanted some answers concerning the article's topic, and we explained. Many discussion pages of articles have questions about the topic, not specific to the article's content. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be true that some talk pages have content irrelevant to the article, but that doesn't make it right. This debate is going nowhere and is just angering everyone and creating more tension, which is why it should not be permitted here. I will say no more. Broken Segue 04:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Notablitily, bias and then the Criticism section

Having gone through a lot of the histories related to this article I remain completely unconvinced that this person is notable. He may be someone actively engaged in politics or civics, like citizens perhaps should, but that hardly makes him notable. I saw one person claim that since he sought out the media to comment on issues that that makes him notable. Hardly. People comment (say, shout, scream, write...) about the world around them but that does not make them notable. Jody Williams is a notable person. She is notable for one prize she won, not for her commendable activism. (Interesting the page of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate is smaller than Brandt's.) Shirin Ebadi is another notable person, notable for the prize she won. If her activism was so notable, why did the article about her not begin until the day it was announced she won the Nobel. The same goes for Wangari Maathai. Her article was started the day she won the Nobel. But clearly, she WAS notabele long before she won the prize. (The latter two examples are perhaps, unfortunately, one the western/developed world bias of the wiki. We live here, so we write about things related to here and not about things related to there.) Now, I am not saying one has to win the Nobel Prize to be notable. But here were three people, critical of society, who surely sought out the media to have their points of view addressed... but ultimately, it's the big prize that makes them notable to us. What is Brandt's big prize that makes him notable? His hive-mind page? Frankly, I just don't see it. 'But' since we are stuck with this article (Broken Seque pointed out that it is a foregone conclusion that any attempt to delete this article will fail) (unless we stop our emotions from clouding our judgement and come to our senses and delete this article), why not bring it up to feature status! Or at the very least, improve it. Now, I am very curious about the quote in the article from J. Wales: "I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all, based on my interactions with him ... He considers the very existence of a Wikipedia article about him to be a privacy violation, despite being a public person. I find it hard to take him very seriously at all. He misrepresents everything about our procedures, claiming that we have a 'secret police' and so on." Brandt is among other things an activist and a critic. One of the things he happens to be critical of is wikipedia. Is it appropriate then to have a quote from J. Wales in the article? In WP:Bios critics' section, it says: "insist on reliable third-party published sources". I don't see anything 3rd party about a quote from J. Wales. The Farhad Manjoo quote seems more 3rd party but not the J.Wales. Or, if Wales' quote is acceptable here, would a quote from Brandt critical of Wales be acceptable in the Wales' article? Long-winded (apologies), with many questions and comments. Thoughts, comments, suggestions... as always, appreciated.DDD DDD 11:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Brandt is, at best, semi-notable and a semi-public person. This is evident by the many cited sources in the footnotes. Inclusion has very little to do with hive-mind (though I believe this and his legal threats on wiki help keep him indef blocked). Please review the many AfDs to see why this article was kept. There are many good arguments for inclusion. The Wales quote has a verifiable citation from a reliable source. See the footnote. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[A]t best, semi-notable. Semi-notable? Is that even a word? Grasping? If we were to include articles on all semi-notable at best people and things, surely wiki would implode. I have re-read (again) the article for deletion comments. There was nothing there. It's basically a dozen or so people saying Notable. Keep. (Notable. Peep. Peep. Peep. Peep. - yes, those are Ps not Ks.) Without giving thoughtful comments on why. In fact, some comments are plain absurd, noting that this AfD is funny, he's funny, he wasn't notable until he began the campaign to delete the article, etc. One comment: "We've done this AfD about one zillion times already. Do try and keep up. -- GWO" One zillion? Is that an correct assesssment? Can I quote GWO on that? And then "[...] Ain't gonna happen. -- Irixman (t) (m) 15:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)" Are these academic discussions? In my class, they'd get an F. Now, regarding the Wales comment. It's not 3rd party when it's a quote by Wales. If it was a quote found in the editorial pages of a major US newspaper, that's 3rd party, for example. But a quote by Wales on a guy that is critical of Wales? That fails all academic standards. By the way, on this talk page somewhere, Brandt has written that the quote is wrong, that he and Wales had never had any 'interactions' before Wales made that comment. So, what's up? Also, the article notes that Brandt has found illegal cookies on government websites, on more than one occasion. Surely, we all can appreciate less government spying on us. So, the Wales quote "I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all [...] I find it hard to take him very seriously at all.." seems, at the very least. ahm, what's the word, inaccurate, or inappropriate.DDD DDD 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to re-nominate it for deletion. I would suggest keeping your comments concise lest your points be ignored. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: I do believe that any further nominations for deletion after the seven previous ones would be viewed as disruptive. There is a clear consensus from a wide range of editors (read: not just administrators) that this article should be kept. Brandt being a semi-public person is of his own making due to his activist activities and his consent to be quoted by newspaper reporters. His participation in the Seigenthaler affair alone makes him notable enough for inclusion. If anything, the AfDs have served to improve the article rather than keep it. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is plain wrong. Activism, seeking out news outlets, and consenting to have your name quoted by the media does make one notable. The previous AfDs are with very little rational debate which is a shame really. DDD DDD 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the fact that the New York Times considered him sufficiently notable to write about on multiple occasions would be reason to consider him notable here also, where our bar for inclusion is generally lower than most of the mainstream media. *Dan T.* 22:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: The Wales quote is not 3rd party, it doesn't matter where it came from. It's Wales commenting on his critic. Inappropriate. Not acceptable academically. Furthermore, it's also inappropriate and unacceptable to have a quote by Wales on ANY page because it surely stifles a fair and honest discussion.DDD DDD 22:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we quote critics of a person? I would be fine with quoting Kerry on Bush's page (in an appropriate context) or quoting Brandt on Jimbo's page (if Brandt has said anything interesting about Jimbo). The article does not imply or state that Brandt's quote is "the truth". Clearly his quote is his POV and we are just showing all the POVs in order to be NPOV. We have no "3rd party" rule (whatever you think it means) so it's a moot point. Your comment "it's also inappropriate and unacceptable to have a quote by Wales on ANY page" is so off base that I will not entertain it. In any event, this debate will change nothing and should end now. Broken Segue 23:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone had suggested to me previously that if I really want to hear Brandt's comments on this page that I should contact him. Well, I did just that this past week. In the email to me, Brandt wrote that the Wales quote is unreliable - the quote comes from December 1 but it wasn't until May 2 that the two had an IRC chat. Brandt wrote to me that Wales must have mistaken him for someone else. Again, it comes down to he said/he said. But since this is the bio of a living person, for the sake of accuracy, the quote should be removed. This is not supposed to be a gossip mill. And since we are all here to help that little African girl save those hundreds of thousands of people, we should put our energies elsewhere. Get rid of this and move on.DDD DDD 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following your line of argument. Are you trying to suggest that Wales was lying about having interacted with Brandt or that the quote itself is a fabrication of some sort? CameoAppearance 12:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what he's suggesting and it's nonsense. Can you reference the fact that Wales is mistaken from any reliable source (i.e. not Brandt)? Yeah, I didn't think so. The quote is what Wales thinks about Brandt. His opinion/rebuttal is relevant to the article. All we are doing is saying that the quote itself is what was said and is what he believes. That's a fact. Oh yeah, and the quote does not even mention whether or not they had a conversation (so that's a moot point). Why not object to the other quotes? I am sure Brandt believes those to be incorrect also. Broken Segue 14:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The article just says that the contents of that quote are what Wales said, in a published article; this fact is verifiable from the publication in question. It is not asserted here that Wales was or was not factually accurate in what he said; that's a separate matter. *Dan T.* 12:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that DDD DDD has removed the quote on more than one occasion despite consesus. Can people please keep an eye out to make sure it stays in place. I have restored it for now --65.95.16.205 21:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo letter

Why has the letter Jimbo wrote in response been chopped in the entry? The full text should be included. TruthCrusader 11:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What would Jimbo do? *Dan T.* 13:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

An actual real answer would be more helpful. TruthCrusader 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That would clog the article. Someone just included relevent parts of Jimbo's response. Perhaps a link to the original would do? Of course, that would probably just set off his head-mounted tinfoil Wikipediameter that our secret police were on the move again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How would it clog the article when the missing text would only add a few more lines to the paragraph? And by whose judgement has it been determined that what was left out is NOT relevant? TruthCrusader 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who did it. You could go through the article history and find out, I'm sure they could answer your question or provide the full text.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What does he look like?

Is it possible to get a pic of the man? I looked and looked and nowhere can I find his picture. Anomo 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. He's not notable. 68.89.128.11 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica has a good description. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Malber, ED removed all the funny stuff you and several other people added in the article because there's lots of Brandt fanboy over there. Yet still all it did have was stuff about his hygene and clothing, not say his hair, his build (thin, fat, muscular), eye color, race, etc. Anomo 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and now (at last check) they're calling him a pedophile. I wonder how long before ED gets shut down by the same law that made rotten.com remove it's best content. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Odd formatting

Someone went through and apparently NY Times-ified the article to always say "Mr. Brandt". This is very weird and atypical for an article. Should that be reverted? -- Gwern (contribs) 23:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He made some good edits too, so I hesitate to revert, but the Mr.'s have to go. Someone (and by someone I mean someone who's not me) should go through and remove his bad edits while keeping the good ones.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It took me a long time to do so I don't want it to be reverted (the wiki linking stuff took longer than the Mr stuff). Why is it bad to say "Mr. Brandt." I thought it's disrespectful to call someone just by their last name. Can someone find some sort of officiality on that? Perhaps the full name "Daniel Brandt" is better? (note: I just changed Mr. to Daniel.) Anomo 05:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also I have had this feeling like there's some copy editing the article needs fixing and I couldn't put my finger on it and then I spotted something. The wikifying of the dates, especially the years. Normally this is done once and not again and it's the first instance. But in this article, the first instance is not wikified and the ones in the years in the references are wikified to excess. Does this look like something that should be fixed or no? I don't want to actually change any of the content of the article, because that's been hammered out over a year at least of work. Anomo 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't use titles like that per the Manual of Style (I guess this counts as one). I also removed your uses of his first name, they were awkward and contrary to manual of style guidelines for subsequent uses of names. Your other edits seemed an improvement, tho.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this article should come down

Some of us are at risk. A woman was awarded $11 million by a Florida jury against an out-of-state blogger. See this.

This article doesn't have anything that isn't true. Just things Brandt doesn't want others to know.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And it's true, in principle we are at risk. This is why carefully following WP:BLP is so crucial. But driving a car is also risky, yet with safe driving habits we do it every day. In both cases there is a risk and a benefit, and a rational person does his/her best to mitigate the risk. Crum375 16:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if every word is true, if a reasonable person finds certain details objectionable, it is actionable in Florida where Wikimedia's servers are located. It's called "invasion of privacy."216.60.71.219 (talk • contribs)

Yes, and this is why we have WP:BLP, which, as Crum points out, it very important to follow. This means we need to take care that our articles contain only verifiable facts, remain neutral, and use only reliable, third-party sources; it doesn't mean we should remove articles or salient material because some Internet bully threatens us.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Today's deletions

Anonymous user 69.254.86.177 deleted some material today, and then went on a blitz reverting my additions to various articles (see contribs). ~~I assume~~ Perhaps this is Brandt (refactor) Unfortunately the spam filter is keeping me from reverting him, because of some link included, I'd suppose. Can anyone else fix this?--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Conti|✉ 01:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Gracias.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That IP traces to Tennessee. Brandt is in San Antonio. It wasn't Brandt, (refactor) You should be more careful with your insinuations. It gives Brandt more ammunition.216.60.71.219 (talk • contribs)

Fair enough, it might not have been Brandt et al., (refactor). I ammended by comment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(refactor)... --Gwern (contribs) 14:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/n/Talk%7EDaniel_Brandt_Archive_6_9a3f.html"

Category: Talk archives