The creator of the Daniel Brandt article stated he/she did not believe Brandt to be a "credible source"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&...
This was after two contentious Arbitration cases over an article that Brandt was used as a reputable critic. When Brandt reacted to the inclusions that he and his organization were somehow aligned or associated with a particularly reprehensible organization, Mr. Brandt perhaps justifiably reacted with indignance. Soon thereafter, Mr. Brandt as a source of criticism was nolonger deemed reputable for an article in which two prior Arbitration case he had been adjudicated as a valid and reputable critic.. The problems is, and remains, the source of the criticism against Brandt does not meet WP policies for inclusion.
Now, in examining this problem, we see both Brandt and his critic feel dredging up old disputes from 16 years ago is unfair. Nevertheless, the source of Brandt's criticism simply has more friends in WP sympathetic to his cause than Brandt does. So others not knowing the dispute get caught in the crossfire. It appears now there is enough consensus among editors more familiar with the locus of the dispute to just let it go, and let Mr. Brandt have his privacy. Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and this has been allowed to go on long enough.