> I'm still not happy with my redirected bio

Daniel Brandt

I'm making an effort to get Wikipedia to clean up some objectionable residue related to me. This is on the BLP incidents page:

QUOTE

Public Information Research / Daniel Brandt

I object to the article on Public Information Research. It is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to avoid accountability for the defamatory and privacy-invading statements that were once in the article on Daniel Brandt.

1. Brandt is mentioned 14 times in the PIR article, which is still a "stub."

2. The Daniel_Brandt article was redirected to the PIR article after 14 AfDs, causing the PIR article to rank first in a search for "daniel brandt" without the quotation marks, on Google, Yahoo, and Live. This redirect must be deleted.

3. The PIR article is incompetent. The Wikipedia-Watch section is self-referential and should not exist. The Yahoo-Watch section shouldn't exist because that site is essentially parked, and has been that way for three years. An important site, cia-on-campus.org, has existed for almost seven years, and is missing from the article entirely. The section on NameBase in the article is so incompetent that it may as well not even be in the article, despite the fact that NameBase has existed for 20 years.

4. A section that was inserted by Chip Berlet in the original Brandt article, has been resurrected in the PIR article. This is now in the first paragraph of the PIR article, in a slightly milder form, having been inserted recently by an apparent sockpuppet of Berlet. Chip Berlet has been at war with Brandt since 1991.

5. Brandt attempted to comment on the talk page in August and again in November, in an effort to improve the PIR article. His comments were deleted.

6. Despite prior efforts to get User:Daniel_Brandt and User_talk:Daniel_Brandt deleted entirely, these pages still exist. There are defamatory statements on User_talk:Daniel_Brandt.

I will attempt to file this as an ArbCom case if the situation hasn't improved within 30 days, because it involves the behavior of various editors and administrators over a period of more than two years, who have been acting in bad faith in an effort to diss me. --Daniel Brandt 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

: User and usertalk pages deleted and salted by me - there's no reason for them to exist, and legitimate reason for the request. --Doc glasgow 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

:: Thank you, that helps a little bit. Now the paragraph on this page should be deleted. Not only is it obsolete, but it contains a false statement. I never "provided assurances to the Community he would no longer violate policy or attempt to have his bio removed from Wikipedia." Since that statement is false, and it also implies that my word is unreliable, it is libelous. This page is indexed by all the search engines. --Daniel Brandt 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

::: All personal allegations removed, without prejudice. --Doc glasgow 00:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm recording it here in case it all disappears into the memory hole.

GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 1st December 2007, 8:10pm)

I'm making an effort to get Wikipedia to clean up some objectionable residue related to me. This is on the BLP incidents page:

QUOTE

Public Information Research / Daniel Brandt

I object to the article on Public Information Research. It is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to avoid accountability for the defamatory and privacy-invading statements that were once in the article on Daniel Brandt.

1. Brandt is mentioned 14 times in the PIR article, which is still a "stub."

2. The Daniel_Brandt article was redirected to the PIR article after 14 AfDs, causing the PIR article to rank first in a search for "daniel brandt" without the quotation marks, on Google, Yahoo, and Live. This redirect must be deleted.

3. The PIR article is incompetent. The Wikipedia-Watch section is self-referential and should not exist. The Yahoo-Watch section shouldn't exist because that site is essentially parked, and has been that way for three years. An important site, cia-on-campus.org, has existed for almost seven years, and is missing from the article entirely. The section on NameBase in the article is so incompetent that it may as well not even be in the article, despite the fact that NameBase has existed for 20 years.

4. A section that was inserted by Chip Berlet in the original Brandt article, has been resurrected in the PIR article. This is now in the first paragraph of the PIR article, in a slightly milder form, having been inserted recently by an apparent sockpuppet of Berlet. Chip Berlet has been at war with Brandt since 1991.

5. Brandt attempted to comment on the talk page in August and again in November, in an effort to improve the PIR article. His comments were deleted.

6. Despite prior efforts to get User:Daniel_Brandt and User_talk:Daniel_Brandt deleted entirely, these pages still exist. There are defamatory statements on User_talk:Daniel_Brandt.

I will attempt to file this as an ArbCom case if the situation hasn't improved within 30 days, because it involves the behavior of various editors and administrators over a period of more than two years, who have been acting in bad faith in an effort to diss me. --Daniel Brandt 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

: User and usertalk pages deleted and salted by me - there's no reason for them to exist, and legitimate reason for the request. --Doc glasgow 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

:: Thank you, that helps a little bit. Now the paragraph on this page should be deleted. Not only is it obsolete, but it contains a false statement. I never "provided assurances to the Community he would no longer violate policy or attempt to have his bio removed from Wikipedia." Since that statement is false, and it also implies that my word is unreliable, it is libelous. This page is indexed by all the search engines. --Daniel Brandt 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

::: All personal allegations removed, without prejudice. --Doc glasgow 00:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm recording it here in case it all disappears into the memory hole.

Your got a point Daniel. "Public Interest Research" is mentioned seven times, including article title, information box and references. "PIR" is mentioned twice. So 14 references to "Brandt" raises concern about what the article is really about.

nobs

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 1st December 2007, 6:10pm)

I'm making an effort to get Wikipedia to clean up some objectionable residue related to me. This is on the BLP incidents page:

QUOTE

Public Information Research / Daniel Brandt

I object to the article on Public Information Research. It is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to avoid accountability for the defamatory and privacy-invading statements that were once in the article on Daniel Brandt....

2. The Daniel_Brandt article was redirected to the PIR article after 14 AfDs, causing the PIR article to rank first in a search for "daniel brandt" without the quotation marks, on Google, Yahoo, and Live. This redirect must be deleted....

4. A section that was inserted by Chip Berlet in the original Brandt article, has been resurrected in the PIR article. This is now in the first paragraph of the PIR article, in a slightly milder form, having been inserted recently by an apparent sockpuppet of Berlet. Chip Berlet has been at war with Brandt since 1991.

5. Brandt attempted to comment on the talk page in August and again in November, in an effort to improve the PIR article. His comments were deleted.

6. Despite prior efforts to get User:Daniel_Brandt and User_talk:Daniel_Brandt deleted entirely, these pages still exist. There are defamatory statements on User_talk:Daniel_Brandt.

I will attempt to file this as an ArbCom case if the situation hasn't improved within 30 days, because it involves the behavior of various editors and administrators over a period of more than two years, who have been acting in bad faith in an effort to diss me. --Daniel Brandt 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm recording it here in case it all disappears into the memory hole.

Here Here. The Brandt bio was recreated on October 28, 2005 for the purpose of impugning the credibility of a critic of Mr. Chip Berlet. User:Nobs01 was found to have conducted a breaching experiment days later on November 12, 2005 to call attention to it -- a gross violation of Wikipedia citation policies, abuses of process in Wikipedia dispute resolution policies, and assume good faith which was policy at the time. On December 1, 2005, Jimbo chose sides in the dispute and told a reputable, mainstream publication, "I don't regard him [Brandt] as a valid source about anything at all," thus completing the efforts to impugn Mr. Brandt's credibility as a NPOV critic of Mr. Berlet. Not four days later the same Mr. Wales told a CNN television audience, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns," yet the self-cited, self-published, questionable personal attacks on another user remained in the Brandt-related entries for one and half years.

My ban is up Dec. 17 of this year. It appears at this point Wikipedia is the speaker of libelous content about myself now. My anti-9/11 Truther credentials are impeccable. Wikipedia, the Trustees, or whoever is in charge has a simple choice at this point: admit ArbCom is fallible and pass a Finding of Fact in my case, or let's revisit everyones credibility in this these cases, from the God-King on down. It is my firm belief the Katefan, Brandt & Essjay controversies all could have been avoided, if there was simple fairness and adherence to Wikipedia's own Dispute Resolution policies in the Nobs01 and others acting in concert case.

If Wikipedia is serious about taking on the 9/11 Truthers, as the plan appears to be over the next year, let's get action on my case. If not, let them flush what's left of thier credibility down the toilet one more time. I ain't playing around.