Talk:Daniel Brandt/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →


Contents

refs

A big list of news article refs on this thread: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=4551&hl= Take your pic, but I recommend using all as refs. Anomo 18:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the ref for the put on the spam blacklist could be a diff of someone adding it on meta:Spam Blacklist I know Raul did it the last time. Anomo 23:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh they the websites run by Daniel Brandt are put on the spam list. So that is why I could not correct the strange and highly unusual external links. Andries 14:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've put in a request on the metawiki so we can remove them from the blacklist. --Our Bold Hero 07:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Adding to that a request on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. Ahh, does anyone remember when Wikipedia was truly free? EdgeOfEpsilon 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Slashdot discussion

Inclusion of a Slashdot discussion violates the requirement for reliable sources. While this is a requirement for any type of article, we must be especially careful in a biography of a living person than for any other type of article. In this instance, the discussion is attributed to a pseudonym that may or may not be Brandt and may or may not represent his position on any subject. Such doubtful material should not be included, regardless of whether it is flattering or otherwise. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. If you read the previous posts of "Everyman" on Slashdot you would see that this user has been posting on there for a long time and has very consistently presented himself as Brandt. You can just as easily call into question anybody that posts on Wikipedia.
  2. The very fact that this was a Slashdot article is of importance. Slashdot, unlike Wikipedia, does not allow every article to be posted. It is far more selective and the inclusion in Slashdot and the reaction by its readers is important enough to be included. Slashdot is not Usenet. Resorting to removing Slashdot commentary due to the BLP (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons) policy by questioning the validity of Slashdot articles is as offensive as Brandt's questioning of Wikipedia's validity. --Drew30319 00:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In reviewing Wikipedia's Slashdot article it is categorized as a "General PC Magazine" along with the other news sources:

APC, BUG Magazine, Byte, c't, Computeractive, Computer Power User, Computer Shopper, Computer Shopper, Computerworld, Computer Weekly, Computing, Digit, IC CHIP, F1 Magazine, MicroMart, Maximum PC, NetGuide, PC Answers, PC Format, PC Magazine, PC Plus, PC Pro, PC User, PC World, Personal Computer World, SmartComputing

Although Slashdot cannot be purchased at the newsstand like PC World, the same can be said of Wikipedia v. Encyclopedia Britannica. It is hypocritical for Wikipedia to treat Slashdot as untrustworthy.

Drew30319 00:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link to the most recent 24 "Everyman" comments on Slashdot. They span back to February 2005. http://slashdot.org/~Everyman/

Drew30319 01:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot can be cited as a source, but comments made on slashdot (or anywhere else, including Wikipedia) can not. --Conti|✉ 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to plagarism finding

The fact that some (not many) of the articles identified by Brandt were not, in fact, plagarized strikes me as the sort of ordinary thing that one mentions in this type of situation. It affects the numbers somewhat and is relevant to understanding the degree of care used, the complexity of the problem and so on. If this were Joe Smith criticizing the Doe Corporation for producing 142 defective widgets, I fully believe that I would include the company's response that a few of them were worn out through hard use, not defective. That some articles were not copyvio is, as previously pointed out, less relevant, since the headline accusation was plagiarism, so I don't mind the exclusion. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. But 'some' is still a bit misleading when we're talking less than 10 out of 142. But I'm not sure what's best to do - it's very hard to keep the right perspective in articles like this and not descend into original research and navel gazing. Haukur 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia administrators responded that this list misidentifed some articles where Wikipedia had been plagiarized, and that they took action on the cases that involved copyright violations." is not relevant for two reasons. First this is an article on Dan and not an article on how great wikipedia is at immediate responses to issues raised in the newspaper so in terms of how much weight or wordage to give wikipedia, less is better than more in general terms. Second, the issue Dan is raising is not that there are exactly 142 articles with plagiarism. the issue is that he claims Wikipedia has made no systematic effort to deal with plagiarism and this is proof-of-concept that such a systematic effort can be done and that jimbo agree it should be done. So a response that only deals with the specific 142 cases is beside the point of his effort. His web page is more clear on all this than the newspaper article, yet the newspaper article is certainly clear enough about his intent to show that responding by saying well we dealt will those 142 cases is just stupid. Let's not be stupid. OK? What is wikipedia doing to systematically root out plagerism? That is the actual response to Dan's current challenge to Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, he caused action, didn't he? That's an impact, which is, I assume, the point of being a critic. How can that not be relevant? He alleged a 1.18% rate of plagarism. That sounds worth mentionng. If Haukur's figure is right, around 5% of his cases were false positives. That sounds worth mentioning, both because it is that large and because it is no larger. I don't see how one can claim NPOV and not mention it. How about?
In November 2006, the Associated Press reported Brandt's claim to have uncovered 142 articles with plagiarized content among the 12,000 Wikipedia articles he chose to search. Wikipedia administrators investigated, and report that a small number were instances where Wikipedia had been plagiarized, but many involved copyright violations. 29 He "called on Wikipedia to conduct a thorough review of all its articles."30
Yet again he's featured in a major mainstream news outlet... he continues to get himself increasingly notable, during his quest to get himself removed from here as a non-notable person. *Dan T.* 03:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a reminder that this talk page is for discussing the article, rather than the person. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As to his intent, well we are part of Wikipedia. Can we get someone to set up a bot to do something similar? Will he make his method available? That is not really a question for this page, but I think it is never amiss to suggest ways to improve Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As it happens, a script being used on the it Wikipedia, copyright.py, was recently uploaded to the Pywikipedia development server. It apparently does the same thing Brandt did, although I suspect his script is a bit more refined. --Gwern (contribs) 06:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the current version has restored the material about public-domain previously removed, only now as a quotation rather than a paraphrase. *shrug* Robert A.West (Talk) 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt

Page should again be reviewed for deletion; keeping possible libelous pages around describing individuals that are still alive is at the very least highly unethical. And definitely not within the scope of Wikipedia.

Subject is experiencing distress from the existance of this article. Hence:

Article should at the very least be suspended until the subject's death. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nerusai (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Been done, now 10 times. At least if you try and nominate it do it properly. --Majorly 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If we delete this page as you suggest wikipedia is dead, SqueakBox 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A serious discussion of the notability of this subject would be healthy. For example, what exactly makes Brandt worthy of an article? That he dodged the draft and had his conviction overturned? Do we have articles on all draft dodgers? That he made a web page that opposes Google? I could do that in an afternoon, would that make me notable? That he opposes his Wikipedia article and is critical of Wikipedia's processes? That's self-referential. That he created a listing of administrators and editors at his site? Does trolling behavior make one notable? Brandt's websites rank very low and his involvement in the Seigenthaler affair deserves a mere footnote in the article regarding that subject. I don't see this subject as doing anything notable enough to warrant an article. — Malber (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He meets the first criterion of WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He's a reasonably famous person, nowhere neaar marginal notable unlike thousands of bios here, SqueakBox 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(to Malber) It certainly would. (to SqueakBox) He's famous enough that no photo seems to exist anywhere? --Majorly 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, many famous people have few or no photos. There was the case for example of the East German head of espionage (whose name I forget at the moment) who was known as "the man without a face" since no one had any pictures of him at all. Given Brandt's intense demand for "privacy" it is not surprising that he doesn't have any pictures. JoshuaZ 17:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
My point being articles without images of the subject are generally poorer, in my opinion. --Majorly 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant to whether or not we should have an article on him. JoshuaZ 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
yes your opinion holds water but it is baseless w/o a policy or a guideline supporting it. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying... still, what Malber said sums it up. I was edit conflicted several times, then my connection went. --Majorly 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) As JoshuaZ noted above, the first criterion of inclusion from WP:BIO is: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". In this case notability hence inclusion is a slam dunk no-brainer. The continued drive to AfD this article is simply an effort to disrupt WP by some, with innocent support by others. Crum375 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A pic would be a great idea but if no free images are available we will have to live without a pic, SqueakBox 17:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were planning a trip to San Antonio for a photograph taking session! -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Like Brandt and San Antonio I havent been out of Honduras in years, SqueakBox 18:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've opened discussion about point one at WP:BIO. It's a relatively recent criteria and IMO should be subordinate to the others. Just being written about shouldn't make one notable enough for an article. There were multiple non-trivial published works that talked about Brian Peppers but according to Jimbo we don't need an article about him.

I've been looking over the listed references. While the list is substantial, there are some problems with using it to assert his notability. The San Antonio Express-News article is certainly a decent write up, but it's in a relatively local newspaper and about a self-referential topic. The articles about paranoia about NSA/CIA cookies are about a topic that isn't likely notable enough for its own article. Most of the rest self-published, give trivial mention of Brandt (specifically against point one), or are redundant on the self-referential issue of being anti-Wikipedia. — Malber (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Brandt is frequently boasting in other forums about how much access he has to the mainstream media and how much influence he can wield. For instance, in blog comments regarding the Google ranking of his site he said:
My sandboxing was more severe than usual because of political considerations at Google, and it was released from the sandbox because of further political considerations at Google. I was in a position to make more noise about my rankings, mainly because the evidence of discrimination against me had accumulated to the point where it was overwhelming, and would interest some journalists. Google noticed my position, and acted to preserve its own interests.
If he's powerful and influential enough to be able to get journalists to report on him when he wants it, he's also notable enough to write about even when he doesn't want it. In a society with a free press, you can't get one without the other. *Dan T.* 13:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As an experiment, type '"Daniel Brandt" X' into Google, where X is any major news service (I tried cbsnews, cnn, foxnews, abcnews), and review the results. If someone can find an X with no meaningful results where X is a major online news service, please let us know. Crum375 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You're saying he deserves an article because he boasts he can get media attention (even though the hive-mind page claims "...he doesn't do conferences or give speeches, and he's not on radio or TV.")? Aside from the SA Times (which was a telephone interview) and Salon.com have his claims ever been proven to be true? — Malber (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Mr. Brandt's claims per se are notable. The experiment I suggested has nothing to do with his claims, and everything to do with proof of notability on all the major news media. Crum375 14:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
* Wikipedia critic finds 142 plagiarized passages on website - cbc.ca
* An open source Google - without the ads - The register
* Who owns your Wikipedia bio? - The register
* Tracking down the Wikipedia prankster - ZDNet -- Szvest  Wiki me up ® 18:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that wikipedia editors consistently think he is notable. Therefore to delete the article would be a violation of free speech given the afd procedures are perfectly legal and that the owner of wikipedia prefersn to follow these procedures rather than be dictated to by someone who wants to gag Wikipedia's free speech, not surprisingly as if this article were deleted against the wishes of the wiki community it is likely that a large number of volunteers would cease to work here in sheer disgust. For me the fact that he has appeared on the BBC website (aimed at Brits) does indeed show international notability, while if non libellous articles on individuals were not allowed to be published in the US the country would effectively be a police state, causing a massive loss of international confidence from investors, etc, let alone the protests of those Americans who value freedom of speech. Is Daniel Brandt's privacy worth the colllapse of America - I dont think so, SqueakBox 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that deleting this article would collapse either Wikipedia or America, but I do agree that it should stay. *Dan T.* 20:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Does not meet notability criteria at WP:BIO

The subject of this article does not meet any of the criteria at WP:BIO. It has been mentioned that he meets point one. Point one states:

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

Two problems with this are the words primary subject and multiple. Of the many footnotes giving citations in this article, only one has Brandt as its primary subject. The other citations make trivial mention of Brandt and would be suitable in articles on their primary subjects. I fail to see Brandt fitting into any of the other criteria at WP:BIO. Is there any policy based reason this article should be kept? — Malber (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO isn't policy. It's a guideline. The Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If he doesn't meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO and is a private person, then the article is in violation of WP:BLP which is policy and is taken very seriously. — Malber (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sources 1 and 11 meet the primary criteria for WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 03:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Oh, and 19 also works. JoshuaZ 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
11 doesn't qualify as a "non-trivial publication." And it's mostly about Name Base, not the subject. 19 is Salon.com and while less trivial than Counter Punch it's more about google-watch than about Brandt. There are no personal details in either of the articles. If there isn't more than one non-trivial published work that Brandt is the subject of, then there aren't multiple. Saying Brandt is the subject of 11 and 19 is grasping at straws. — Malber (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Question. If only sources 1, 11, and 19 are the only sources that meet the primary criteria for WP:BIO, why are we using the other sources as information for the article? Shouldn't each of the sources we use meet the criteria for WP:BIO on their own? If they don't, can they really be considered notable enough to be used as sources? For example, "John Doe publishes an article about himself in a local newspaper, which doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Later, several major news outlets publish articles about him, making him notable. However, the article he published about himself is used to source information in the Wikipedia article that wasn't in the articles by the major outlets. Is his personal article noteworthy enough to include?" What I'm trying to ask is, "If a source isn't noteworthy enough to merit its subject as notable on its own, is it noteworthy enough to be included as a source of information after the subject has already been identified as notable?" Ibm2431 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If such an article has received national mainstream coverage it clearly meets wikipedia notability standards, SqueakBox 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned editors communicating to Wikipedia concerning bios on them

Daniel Brandt is a banned editor; wishes to add comments to this page; yet it reverted; and he askes about WP:BLP. Banned editors may communicate to Wikipedia editors concerning their bios in many way. First, you'll note, Dan, that you communicated with me through your edit of this page even though it was deleted as it is still in the history. Second WP:BLP allows for the use of mail, email, and registering complaints at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It also suggests contacting any specific admin from the list of admins at Wikipedia:List of administrators. You also have forums outside wikipedia that you use to communicate your concerns. All in all, I'd say the additional ability to have your comments not deleted on this specific page is not entirely necessary for purposes of WP:BLP. WAS 4.250 23:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, banned users may not post any comments, until after a year of their banning, when they may appeal to ArbCom. This applies to talk pages as well, and such edits will be removed. --Majorly 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In other words, the admin who unilaterally imposed the ban, probably with a five-word comment, is not required to justify his action. And the person banned, who may be the subject of a biography, is not allowed to appeal, until one year later? Can you provide a policy citation for this? 12.74.209.179 00:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Under Wikipedia:Banning policy. The admin who imposes the ban will do so on behalf of everyone else. --Majorly 00:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In my own opinion, clearly not agreeing with some of the admins involved, the banning policy ought not to be so strictly enforced when it comes to making non-disruptive comments in the talk page of one's own bio. I disagree with what Brandt says, but, as the old saying goes, I defend (well, maybe not quite to the death) his right to say it. *Dan T.* 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Brandt has been a repeatedly disruptive user. He has multiple other avenues if he wants something changed here, most obviously WP:OTRS. There is no reason to let him edit this talk page. JoshuaZ 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into a fight over strawmen, everyone. Posting can be done by anyone. Deleted content can be viewed in history by anyone. Real issues about WP:BLP can be brought up and dealt with in many venues listed above. Don't turn this into a troll feast. Please. WAS 4.250 01:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

External links

Is there a reason why some of the external links are web addresses rather than actual hyperlinks? I would correct them but because of the controversy over this article I thought I would ask first. Hut 8.5 16:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be because they are blacklisted. --Majorly 16:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right - they're on the spam blacklist. Thanks. Hut 8.5 16:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This seems to me like a misuse of the spam blacklist, which is intended to suppress completely irrelevant links like to "herbal Viagra" ads. *Dan T.* 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Daniel Brandt is quite net savy and chose to redirect one or more of the links he controlls for at least a while as a too clever move in his ongoing conflict with wikipedia. Certain Wikipedians have choosen this as a counter move. I have no opinion about whether this counter move should stay or not. WAS 4.250 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It isn't misuse as such. If he chooses to make abusive websites that redirect links to elsewhere on his servers then that's the best way to deal with it. Even though they don't anymore, they never should have done. --Majorly 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Majorly, please try to avoid advancing your point of view in discussions pages. Advancing factual claims is one matter, arguing point of view in discussion pages is a defacto attempt to influence an article to reflect your point of view. No credible published source says Brandt's Web site is abusive. Your claim that his Web site is abusive is libelous. This isn't a legal threat -- it is simply a correct analysis of your action toward him. Further, your posting of a "welcome" message on my user page within moments of my editing this page, which you are involved with as an advocacy editor attempting to libel Brandt, appears to me to be a form of systematic harrassment -- Wikistalking -- a way of telling me that you and your allies control this article and that you are watching me. I suggest you find some other articles to edit, or maybe spend a few days doing something else, until you can approach this topic without bias and with a level head. Marakopa 18:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussion pages are for discussion, and may include points of view. So long as they aren't on the article page. And by the way, "if he chooses to make abusive websites that redirect links to elsewhere on his servers" is a lift from one of the archive pages. What the heck is wrong with my good faith welcoming you? Systematic harrassment? Wikistalking? You'll notice from my contributions that I regularly welcome users, and "new" ones such as yourself. I am not watching you. I watch this article which you made some edits on. I suggest you find some other articles to edit, and stop making such ridiculous claims. --Majorly (Talk) 18:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
"What the heck is wrong with my good faith welcoming you?" What is wrong is that you are demanding that I make a presumption about your moral qualities -- I have no opinion on the relative good or evil of your faith. I already explained my objection to the context of your so-called "welcome" -- which serves me no useful purpose except an opportunity to get crosswise with you if I refuse to buy into your demand that I exhonerate your motives. By refusing to acknowledge my explanation, you dehumanize me and you insult my effort to make available to you an account of my reasoning.
"And by the way, "if he chooses to make abusive websites that redirect links to elsewhere on his servers" is a lift from one of the archive pages. " Archived libel is libel all the same. Are you claiming that since you cut and pasted the text instead of composing original opinion, it is somehow less libelous? Discussion pages are for discussion of your point of view in your opinion. In my opinion they are for discussion of factual content and for exposing prejudicial views that need to be expunged from articles, not for advancing personal prejudices toward a person who dares to question the almighty, all-knowing Wikipedians.
I demand that you apologize to me for ridiculing my claims. Ridicule is a personal attack. I demand the opportunity to participate in this discussion without being the victim of personal attacks, without being required to acknowledge social rituals that do not pertain to the direct content of an article I am editing and without my well-reasoned contributions being ridiculed. Marakopa 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe you have a problem with somebody welcoming you. Most users are welcomed. I welcomed you. Get over it.
"you are demanding that I make a presumption about your moral qualities" No, I'm not.
"your demand that I exhonerate your motives" What demand? What motives?
No I am not claiming the opinion was less "libelous"
Disussion pages are for discussing the article, and so inevitably will contain opinions.
I will not apologise. Your claims were false; I did not appreciate you claiming my welcoming was harrassment, indeed it was the complete opposite. Please take this to my talk page if you wish to reply, as this seem to be nothing to do with the article. --Majorly (Talk) 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I will conduct my discussion of article content where I feel it is appropriate. I have no interest in discussing anything with Majorly except as is relevant to this article, which is where I intend to post my discussion. Majorly will be well advised to stop attempting to dictate my behavior. Attempting to dictate my course of action in small matters such as where to post relevant comments foreshadows an attempt to dictate my course of action in editing articles. I believe Majorly is using his administrative stature to imply authority he otherwise lacks. I believe it won't be long until Majorly recruits fellow admins to join his attack on a user who obviously is not otherwise inclined to be pushed around by a false notion of community concensus.
I considered Majorly's welcome to be pointed. Majorly does not systematically greet all newly registered names -- in this case he has only "greeted" (called attention to himself) a newly registered account that is editing an article Majorly is attempting to control. We keep track of who is greeted by whom and when. Majorly has no standing to order me to "get over it." My views are my views and Majorly has no qualification to order me to hold any contrary view. I did not view Majorly's welcome to be "good" in faith or in anything else, and I challenge Majorlies -- and the Wikimedia Foundation's -- demand that I presume good merits for their "faith." The purpose of an encylclopedia is not to dictate presumptions about the faith of its editors. I recongize Majorly's so-called greeting as an effort to establish social context -- Majorly did not greet all new users today, but only those few of us who he advises we edit Wikipedia at his pleasure. We'll see how much Majorly and his ilk "assume good faith" on my part before they decide to use their software tools to do what they lack the interpersonal skills to accomplish. Marakopa 19:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
OK Marakopa believe what you like. Frankly, I don't really care. --Majorly (Talk) 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't really care. --Majorly (Talk) I can stipulate that appears to be true. It was evident to me in your first response. Marakopa 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak for Majorly obviously. But I strongly suspect the reason s/he invited you is because s/he noticed you were a new user who had not yet been welcomed. I have occasionally welcomed new users, but only when I happend to notice them e.g. from comments they've made. I don't get why you're so defensive and really if you don't like the welcome, either ignore it or delete it (altho if you delete it, expect to be welcomed again Nil Einne 10:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Source needed

I made an edit removing "following a lengthy and sometimes uncivil battle between him and various editors and administrators on the article and talk pages there", as the statement had no source. I was reverted via something similar to popups with no explanation. Well, I'll open the discussion myself then.

This language - "battle", "sometimes uncivil" - has no source in the article, so I removed it. Can anyone find a source outside of Wikipedia describing the conflict as a "lengthy and uncivil battle"? Not the exact words, but something to the effect that the conflict between Brandt and the admins here was uncivil, or was even conducted at all in the manner described here. If not, it should stay as it is - blocked "indefinitely" blah blah etc. Milto LOL pia 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We shouldnt self reference and talking about wikipedia policy in the article of Brandt is unnecessary and againt our no self referencing where possible policy, SqueakBox 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox needs to do a better job of erasing the embarrassing (to Wikipedia) fact that Brandt is banned from Wikipedia. Do a Google search for "Daniel Brandt" without the quotes, and the first hit is the bio, but the link right under that says right in the snippet that "this user is banned from editing Wikipedia." That hit comes from the User_talk page, which has the template on it, and it's protected. Better luck next time, SqueakBox. 68.91.89.78 22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Google can say what they like, they arent an encyclopedia whereas wikipedia is and so its important to avoid self referencing. I am always happy to see the truth out in the open, please dont imply otherwise. I also dont believe wikipedia has anything to be embarrassed about in its relation to Mr Brandt. If he wants get unbanned and have influence at wikipedia I am sure he knows how to go about doing so, SqueakBox 23:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on whether we should do it, but we can use Wikipedia as a source about Wikipedia, of course. See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references#Writing about Wikipedia itself. --Conti|✉ 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, I really don't want to get too involved here; but the point of the policies is to create the best possible Wikipedia articles we can consistent with legal issues (example: laws on the right to privacy of nonpublic persons), our stand on freedom (mostly represented by our insistence on GFDL), common human decency (see WP:BLP), and our means of article creation (the wiki way - maximum edit-ability). Using policies and guidelines to promote these is proper; being strict about some values and ignoring others is called gaming the system and is improper. All good things are a matter of proper balance. WAS 4.250 04:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo or accurate drawing of Daniel Brandt

Is it possible to find a photo or accurate drawing of Daniel Brandt? I don't meant something to pass GDFL, but at least something we can link to and see what he looks like. I would like to know. I have been web searching a lot and never found one. Anomo 09:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Apparently no such picture exists of him, as he likes to keep his privacy. You'll struggle to find one. --Majorly (Talk) 12:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And even if you do it would have to be usable according to our copyright rules. The article is anyway just fine without one, SqueakBox 16:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

More to the point - please don't even look - the guy wants to be left alone and is for the most part a nonpublic person (yeah, I know he has a strange way of showing it). Have a heart. Please. (This is for you - you know who you are - I was once told by a very dear person to me - "The most unloveable need love the most.") - WAS 4.250 21:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with WAS; Mr Brandt has no right to delete this article but putting a pic of him in would be trolling IMO, SqueakBox 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note I suggested just linking to a picture, not putting it in the article. Anomo 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, a link would be just as bad. Per BLP, I don't see any justification for a photo in this article Nil Einne 10:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this should be deleted?

On the Wikipedia Review, Daniel Brandt says that he plans on suing the Wikimedia Foundation if this article isn't deleted (see here) because he considers is a violation of privacy and a defamation of character. Maybe it should just be deleted to save trouble, though it's been kept so many times before, that I'm not going to nominate it myself as of yet. I'd like to hear feedback as to why it's important to keep it.--Azer Red Si? 21:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Been discussed to death so many times already. Even if it was nominated for AfD the consensus is only likely to be "keep". He's made himself even more notable by requesting its deletion so many times. --Majorly (Talk) 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Much better keep the article and, asuming the Wikimedia foundation dont delete it, let the case happen. It would be extremely interesting ansd potentially generate so much publicity that would make Mr Brandt so notable he'd even get his picture in the press and the article would become ever less deletable (on notability grounds). It would potentially bring privacy issues and the internet to a head, so we absolutely shouldn't delete based on what you say, SqueakBox 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if the case were to go ahead, he would become even more notable, so would basically make things worse for himself. --Majorly (Talk) 22:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Has there ever been a case in the history of the planet, where a jury decided that a person who asserts his right to privacy in a court of law as a last resort, thereby becomes sufficiently notable as a consequence of that assertion, that he forfeits his right to privacy? 68.89.136.86 22:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Daniel Brandt's legal claims of invasion of privacy and defamation against Wikipedia and its editors can be compared against Wikipedia and its editor's claims against Brandt for those same exact charges and compared against repeated press releases by Brandt. A court might decide his behavior is not consistent with someone trying to avoid publicity but in fact appears to be a lawsuit specifically designed to create additional publicity for his various and sundry for-profit and ideologically motivated efforts thus losing his lawsuit and subjecting himself to successful lawsuits against him by persons that have tried to edit Wikipedia anonymously but have been deprived of being anonymous by Brandt. WAS 4.250 03:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
A libelous statement. All of Brandt's sites are nonprofit and tax-exempt, and he has never carried a single advertisement on any of them. 66.142.91.225 03:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
He advertises himself. WAS 4.250 07:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That just means he is a lefty, it doesnt mean he isnt politically motivated, SqueakBox 05:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Brandt has made himself a public figure, and therefore is notable and couldn't be exempted from Wikipedia. My personal opinion is that he does no good to his own credibility by taking photos of various editors and admins, and placing them on his website with information about them. Realistically, he's an attention seeker. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 04:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's rather easy for me to say, since it's not my own money being put at risk by it (unless Brandt expands his litigation to encompass editors / writers of Wikipedia in addition to the Wikimedia Foundation itself), but I too wouldn't mind seeing this lawsuit that Brandt has been threatening all this time actually go forward; it would make a very interesting test case for a lot of legal / philosophical issues regarding sites like Wikipedia. (And, as others have also noted, the case and its attendant publicity and news coverage would indeed make Brandt even more notable than he is already, thus making it harder to argue for the deletion of his article, as ironic as this may be.) *Dan T.* 16:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware that he has taken any photos of editors, unlikely if as he claims he never leaves Texas, these photos were mostly on the net, what he has done is put names to anonymous editors, and he is unquestionably an attention seeker and a reactionary who would stop the whole free access to information that represents wikipedia and the modern internet. He is bedfellow of the internet censors in Iran, China, etc, SqueakBox 19:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia-Watch" section

Cannot be sourced in any way shape or form, it's WP:OR, therefore I removed it -- Just another editor 22:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well parts of it were sourced. --Majorly (Talk) 22:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Which bits are OR. Please explain yourself in much greater detail, SqueakBox 22:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You see those little numbers? Those are references. The section you deleted was referenced. Please don't remove it again. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see:
  • ref 21 - website launch date, that's fine
  • wikipedia-watch.org/findchat.html - Wikipedia-Watch: The Wikipedia Hive Mind Chat Room] - no way, it's a direct link to an original sourcing document. It's not an external third party ref, therefore it's OR
  • Public Information Research. wikipedia-watch.org - Wikipedia Watch, Retrieved on April 2006 - again, a link to Brandt's own site. OR

The only portion of the whole section which was sourced from an third party source and not OR was the plgarism section which was kept. -- Just another editor 22:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A claim that there was something posted on an Internet site with a link to that site showing that the thing that was claimed is actually there is not an improper source. Your arguing is a lot like Alice in Wonderland, and you're doing nothing but grasping at straws. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We have no problem sourcing from Brandt owned websites. We do that in thousands of articles, SqueakBox 22:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A false statement. Dozens, maybe. Brandt's sites are all on the spam blacklist, so that number is not likely to increase. 66.142.91.225 03:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. We source thousands of articles from their own site, eg AOL, Google etc, SqueakBox 03:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Dtobias that brandt's sites shouldnt be on the spam blacklist because they are not spam, but even on the blacklist they can still be considered sourceable, SqueakBox 06:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
See WP:RS - the refs used in that fashion are like a press release. -- Just another editor 22:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hardly. And don't do it again. Whose sockpuppet are you, anyway? And why are you switching back and forth between this account and the anon which I just blocked? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Tried doing some cleanup work on this section but it was lost due to a wiki server burp. If I have time later, I'll repost the work --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 19:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The editors who are disputing this section should take care to be clear that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. This means it aggregates what others have said about events. It does not report events. So if a website has been set up, the website itself is not a source for its being set up. This would be similar to an editor writing that a bomb had exploded in his high street. It may well have done, but our source for it would not be the editor's report, but the report in the news. If the news chooses not to report it, the bomb did not happen for us. Squeakbox, you are simply wrong. You are seeking to make Wikipedia a secondary source and that is something we should strive to avoid. And "it happens over there" is never a justification for its happening here. Grace Note 05:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said before we do this in thousands of articles, eg ref 1 from AOL. And if you wish to change policy good luuck but this is not the place, SqueakBox 15:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, this is not correct. When a website has been set up, we can use the website as a source for that, we can use the website as a source to write about the website. That's why we can use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia (see Wikipedia#References). We can not use Wikipedia as a source for an exploding bomb tho, because that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. --Conti|✉ 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That is my understanding too and wikipedia is a good example, SqueakBox 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


There is no information about the man here at all, just about his activism. This article would be better named Activism of Daniel Brandt (actually I would suggest that this would be better than having an article on Daniel Brandt himself). Not even as much as the pure basics such as - a birth date, photo, marital status, children, etc. Needless to say it is by far not comprehensive. Fatally flawed in the aim to get featured or meet the GA criteria - this is a man trying to keep his privacy so this information is unlikely to become available.

Other (more minor)things:

  • The lead section does not summarise the article, as required per WP:LEAD
  • The section on criticism Wikipedia is not too well presented and not entirely balanced & neutral
    1. The statement about Wikipedia's spam list gives the wrong idea, and isn't entirely relavent
    2. No third party views present, just squabbles between Brandt and Wales.
    3. Last paragraph makes the reader think that most of what Brandt found were PD sources - as a (former) admin who's delt with some of these myself I personally know that only a part of them were PD sources, most were actual violations. Also Brandt has claimed that even the PD sources are plagiarism (though not illegal, they did not give any attribution and were exhibited as if they were the contributor's own work)
    4. Mentions "Wikipedia's editors and administrators" without much background on anonymity and that "administrators" are just the same as editors with regards to that - which is quite relavent to Brandt's side of things.
    5. Barely any reference to Brandt's concern of the existence of this article (though this is a bit of self-reference, but excluding this excludes his POV - and he is meant to be the subject of the article)
  • Not stable - a lot of AfD nominations, most in good faith. Strong opposition to this article's existence in the first place (so how can this exhibit one of our better works that people should look up to?) And of course a lot of edit wars with the subject of the article.
  • A lot of the links on the in-line citations use broken syntax (should really be using {{cite-web}}). And these URLs are not linked at all.
  • The screenshot should be tagged {{web-screenshot}} and have a fair use rationale.
  • While not abysmal, the prose style dies in a few places and turns into more of a bullet point style of writing. Needs a copyedit.

--KonstableSock 05:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question: if an A-class article's GA nomination fails, should it be downgraded to B-class? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, they probably have different criteria for each individual project.--KonstableSock 03:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

Does anyone have a good source for Daniel's exact date of birth, or even the month? I have worked it out to be between December 22, 1947 to January 22, 1948, from the various sources on the article, and one that isn't there - a list of passengers from a ship that he was on at 11 months old, and his place of birth is also listed. I think it's bad to have "cerca" when we know for sure. Blutacker 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, already notable at 11 months old. Are you sure the boat didn't sink? Maybe that's why he's notable. Why don't you just ask the premier of China for a copy of his birth certificate? Oh wait, that was before the revolution. Better ask the prime minister of Taiwan. Or ask them both. Just don't tell either one that you asked the other. 216.60.70.68 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately putting your work in is prohibited as it is original research, WP:NOR. Doubtless when he attends court to testify against wikipedia we'll ghet it then, along with some pictures of him, SqueakBox 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe. That IP is probably him, it's in San Antonio. --Majorly (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I didnt bother to check as I couldn't believe it wasn't him (and he may well edit outside San Antonio by using a proxy computer at times anyway), SqueakBox 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care if we say "circa" or give a range, but we should not do both, as one well-meaning editor did. We should not conduct original research to come up with a precise date. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Catch 22 Notability

Catch 22: If this article did not exist, then Daniel Brandt would not be notable enough to merit having his own article. In other words, if I were to pick someone at random and start a libellous article about them, the chances are they might start an anti-wikipedia site or even attempt to sue wikimedia, and as a result be notable enough to merit an article that needn't have existed in the first place. Then out of spite and stubbornness, admins would speedy keep any vfd, exacerbating a problem that was started by a single troll. Wikipedia has created Daniel Brandt's notability, and his notability is unique to wikipedia. He's not notable anywhere else or for anything else (not really, no more than people who get the odd mention in a newspaper for something).

We don't even have a photograph of Daniel Brandt because none were ever published, I mean for christs sake this guy barely registers on the radar. Yet we seem to be keeping his article out of childish spite. Surely we're more grown up than that, and surely wikipedia wasn't founded with strong principles just so that they could be put by the wayside whenever someone irritates us. I see wikipedians talking about an impending court case as if it were a wonderful opportunity to discover the birthdate of the article's subject. This is just rediculous, do some of you not have anything better to do?

Ask yourself this, and be brutally honest: if Daniel Brandt hadn't pissed you off so much, would you really still want to keep this article?

Answers on a postcard to: ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please. This has been gone over many times before. There are reasons other than an "anti-wikipedia site". --Gwern (contribs) 04:29 26 January 2007 (GMT)
Having debated it in the past is no reason to stop debating it. I take your point, yes there are other subjects in the article (such as google watch and his early activism) but to be honest I still don't think that's good enough. Are we to devote an article to every person who opposed a war and a search engine? Even those who don't even have a single published photograph? ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If they meet WP:BIO with multiple, 3rd party, non-trivial sources about them... yes. Whether or not there are published photographs of the subject is irrelevant.--Isotope23 18:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Then if that's the case we've set the bar too low. Inclusion into wikipedia shouldn't require as little as a few 3rd party sources. By those standards, anyone who has been made it into a few newspapers could end up with a biography. I mean just look at this article, there's NOTHING there - you couldn't beef it up even if you found out what the mans' daily breakfast consisted of and went into details about the various complex proteins involved therein. I hesitate to take this issue beyond the scope of this talk page of this article but I fear I might have to.

As for photographs being irrelevant, I strongly disagree. Surely having at least one published photograph is a good sign that someone is notable enough to have a biography (even if it's quite short)? Not only that, but I would assume that the label "public person" would fit a whole lot better if the public actually knew what he looked like! I understand that not wanting the role of public person does not disqualify one from such a designation, but I would've thought you'd have to actually meet the criteria of public person first! Either way, this clearly isn't an issue that can be resolved here.

I must say this is the first case of a "fish slipping the net" that I've come across where wikipedians seem unwilling to fix the problem, and even argue that it doesn't need to be fixed. This troubles me. Normally we'd come down on an article like this like a ton of bricks, deleting it in a frenzy of policy spewing and warning people to be more selective next time. But instead, we're clinging on to reasons to keep it. The reason why this concerns me so much is that it represents a potentially fatal flaw in wikipedia; that the people who enforce the rules do so selectively, or exploit the vague nature of some policies in order to further their beliefs and grudges. Perhaps it's about time we just use common sense without arguing the toss, preferably before we get sued. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Daniel Brandt
Not Daniel Brandt
How in the world does having a published photograph of an individual = notable enough for a biography? Heck, I've had a photograph of myself published in a fairly major publication with my name. I've even been in a television commercial. I'm in no way notable by Wikipedia biographical criteria though; I guarantee 10 times as many people know who Brandt is compared to those who would recognize me... and I'm probably being generous to myself on that number. Just because someone is camera-shy doesn't make make them any less notable...--Isotope23 18:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we dont have a photo or even an accurate picture of Jesus et al but we include them, SqueakBox 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but my mother isn't a virgin, and I didn't rise from the dead. 68.92.158.3 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I think it is at the very least debatable whether Jesus's mother was a virgin and he was raised from the dead either, SqueakBox 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Not the point. The real point is that other notable people, even from modern times, have few or no pictures of them available. This includes people as different from each other as the evangelical Protestant tractwriter Jack Chick and the novelist Thomas Pynchon. Even the pin-up model Bettie Page, whose notability was generated by photographs, has no published pictures of her from after she stopped modeling.--Cúchullain t/c 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Great example with Jack Chick... I don't think there is one published photo of the man and I can only recall 1 published interview with him (the Jimmy Akin one), though he himself is clearly notable.--Isotope23 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes much better examples. I just didnt know of any myself. Really this is a case of balancing the public need to know against the wishes of an individual to be private and while I sympathise with Brandt's plight I think we need to put the public good first, SqueakBox 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And that's exactly why I identify Wikipedia editors on wikipedia-watch.org 68.92.158.3 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I await the day you actually have real info on me. --Majorly (o rly?) 00:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I find it hilarious that you post their information up there as if they're abortion doctors. You're not a private citizen, you are notable enough for this article, and the people you identify on your website do not deserve to be identified as you do. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
They must be identified; the public needs to know who they are. They claim to be qualified as encyclopedia editors, but I've never heard of an encyclopedia that attacks its subjects. This entire biography is an abortion. 68.91.254.108 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
You've contributed to society in a public matter, these people have contributed to society in a private manner. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the public won't know who I am. It's amusing that the info is incorrect. --Majorly (o rly?) 23:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality edit

I have edited the section on Jimbo and Brandt's supposed "interaction" to read " As of yet there is no evidence to prove that such "interactions" ever took place, and Brandt maintains that "Wales never tried to help Brandt at all, and he and Brandt have never had a conversation."[1]". I'm unsure as to whether or not "Jimbo Wales has yet to produce any evidence that he and Brandt ever talked" would sound better. Either way it's more neutral now, and that's hopefully how it will stay until the whole article is eventually deleted. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 16:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots

Is license valid? They contain graphical elements from copyrighted Mac OS X sofware. 212.244.179.242 11:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright laws are very complex, but the principles are simple. Freedom of speech and no ownership of information versus a specific government granted right to profit from creative efforts. There is no problem legally with our use of this image. I don't like the image for reasons of taste. Others may wikilawyer about the wikipedia rules on Fair Use images. But there is no legal issue. WAS 4.250 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd remove intetface elements anyway, leaving only the site content. A.J. 12:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia section

I'm about 2 reverts away from protecting this article from editing because of the constant flipping back and forth between having this section and not having it, so I suggest starting an actual discussion about the merits of having/not having this section here and forming a consensus before continuing this slow moving edit war...--Isotope23 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting mention of namebase.org's being blacklisted

I initially asked User:Tregoweth, on his/her page:

Care to explain why you deleted the most useful information of the fact of namebase.org being blacklisted by the WMF? Whiskey Pete 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To which he/she responded (on my page):

The edit didn't identify what "WMF's Spam blocklist" was, or why that was noteworthy. — tregoweth (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To which I respond:

Of course, this is incorrect: the hyperlink explained exactly what it was; and that the WMF has blacklisted a non-commercial site of such obvious encyclopedic significance is of course eminently notable. Whiskey Pete 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't understand why it's blacklisted either. It's non-comercial, not spam, and potentially useful. I think all Daniel Brandt's sites are. It's probably only there due the fact its founder, who I believe is the subject of this article, has been banned here himself. Just a guess though. --Majorly (o rly?) 02:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why it's blacklisted either, but the real question is, why is this important to the article? We don't need to document every little detail in the Wikipedia/Brandt dispute. I disagree that the blacklisting is very notable.--Cúchullain t/c 03:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be an important external link I suppose. --Majorly (o rly?) 03:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, we certainly don't need to index every infinitesimal aspect of the Brandt-Wales dispute. However, I submit it (the mention of blacklisting) is a worthy observation because the namebase site itself deals with very controversial subject matter (which is in itself "censored" in a way – particularly as regards to the open naming of U.S. intelligence community sources &ndash by mainstream U.S. media sources, if not psychologically blacklisted from our collective memory), and because the B-W dispute raises questions as to just whether its "blacklisting" was really for the technical reasons given, or not. (Again, I don't presume that the WMF people are misrepresenting the issue -- but it does take a bit of http hacking to verify this.) The general rule of thumb is, "censorship by the WMF is always, prima facie, notable." Whiskey Pete 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since some people don't seem to know the full deal, Brandt set his sites to redirect incoming traffic with wikipedia in the refer header (in other words when you clicked a link from a wikipedia article and no where else) to wikipedia review. This was deemed to be a problem because wikipedia review hosts personal information belonging to wikipedia users. He doesn't have the redirects anymore, but he's still on the blacklist because the fear is that he'd just start the redirecting up again given the opportunity. IMO, this should either be explained fully in the article or mentions of the blacklist ought to be removed. Ehheh 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia review is a criticism site; it's Brandt's own sites (hivemind) that have personal information. I think it should be explained fully, and not removed, if there's a reliable source for it. -- Majorly (o rly?) 02:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hivemind has a lot, but Wikipedia review has some as well, and IIRC at the time all this happened the ratio of personal information to criticism threads was quite a bit higher than it is now. Ehheh 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification; I've incorporated as much into the blacklisting info blurb. It does seem useful to have the blacklisting explained somewhere. Whiskey Pete 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

None of his blacklisted sites redirect traffic from wikipedia. Someone offered that excuse on the spam blacklist talk page (since archived). It's easy enough to verify this: edit this article, make the links active, then preview it. It won't change the page (as long as you don't save), and the header will report the referrer as Wikipedia. Keeping the sites on the blacklist, just in case he might do something in the future is ridiculous. If people have a problem with his content (i.e. about editors), take it up with him. Wikipedia shouldn't continue to be censored because some editors disagree with the content on his sites. Nathanm mn 06:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but this isn't the place to discuss that. As to mentioning the blacklist in this article, I disagree that it is important enough to include. Where is it written that "censorship by the WMF is always, prima facie, notable?" And why would that be? This is a self reference serving to further over-document the Brandt-Wikipedia dispute.--Cúchullain t/c 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The correct date for deleting the redirects is not "as of early 2007." It should read "as of mid-June, 2006." I know because I installed the redirects in April, 2006, and I took them out in June, 2006. Here's a citation: wikipedia-watch.org/raul654.html 68.91.89.40 18:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/n/Talk%7EDaniel_Brandt_Archive_7_3b37.html"