Brandt's article deleted, undeleted, stubbed, ad infinitum..., The BLP war era continues Options

[Alex]

So it's gone now. Deleted by Yanksox, speedily endorsed by our friend Gaillimh. Three cheers all round? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Somey]

Yes, this is typical, even classic, Wikipedia. Evil always wins, because evil is what gets rewarded there, I'm afraid... It's the quickest way to the top!

Having said that, I realize that at least two of our own members here at WR are actively arguing and voting in favor of this very evil. That's unfortunate, of course, but it would be wrong of me to treat them any differently here simply because they appear to be evil. Unfortunately, I'm also a highly moral kinda guy, so I can't just do nothing... Tellyawhat, from now on, instead of referring to them here as "Mr. So-and-So," I'll instead refer to them as "Evil So-and-So," with the boldface included (assuming I remember to do it). Sorry about that in advance, but hopefully they'll get the message one of these days! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This latest bit of horse-shit started with User:Zocky, an administrator from Slovenia who just couldn't wait to resolve the whole crazy "Brandt issue" - or, more accurately, felt that all the attention focused on the Brandt article was drawing too much attention away from User:Zocky. Heaven forbid!

Zocky, who normally writes about Slovenia, and Balkan history and affairs in general, and who also started the article on the Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand, proposed that the Brandt article be "stubified" and merged with some related articles, not unlike Mr. Bain's suggestion earlier in this thread. However, this apparently meant changing the article about Wikipedia Watch back into an actual article instead of a redirect. User:SlimVirgin certainly wasn't having any of that! Oh well, that's another name for the Slimmy Shit List... Sorry, Zocky! Don't let the door hit you in the - oh, never mind.

Still, let's take a look at Zocky's reasoning here. He includes, in his section on the "case for keeping" the article, this bit:

Deleting information about his public actions because of his pestering would send the wrong message and set a bad precedent. Giving in to bullying would also hurt our collective pride.

Now, obviously this is a completely partisan statement, using connotative terms like "pestering" and "bullying," both of which are as ridiculous now as they have been in the past. However, if Wikipedia is susceptible to being dominated by the culture of moral relativism, why not the culture of victimization, too? Makes perfect sense!

Still, for a top ten website that's mentioned in the media almost constantly to claim that one obscure guy is "bullying" them, and for them to worry about their "collective pride" being hurt, well... that's just silly, isn't it?

Zocky goes on to cite four "facts" which he claims are "crucial":

- he is notable
- we will not give in to bullying
- we can't write a proper article about him
- there is no good single place to redirect

These facts preclude keeping, deleting and redirecting. The only possible solution left is disambiguate. Since this obviously can't be literally disambiguated, I decided to split, merge, stub and protect.

It's a good example of "Wikipedian Logic," which really should have its own article too, at this point... I'll have to write that for Uncyclopedia, though, since they'll just delete it on Wikipedia. I don't think my ego could take that. Also, I don't have an account...

Anyhoo, the real issue isn't what was on Zocky's list of four crucial facts, it's what wasn't on the list:

- Any notion of "notability" is outweighed in moral terms by the fact that WP is publicly editable
- WP (and a handful of users in particular) has bullied Brandt and others since Day One
- WP does not need an article about Brandt or, for that matter, anyone else
- Brandt has successfully harmed WP overall and continues to do so, disrupting the project
- The lack of a "single place to redirect" has never stopped WP from deleting articles in the past

Still, as I mentioned earlier, Zocky's proposal was an improvement, despite the incompleteness of its rationale.

Unfortunately, it still wasn't good enough for newly-minted admin User:Isotope23, whose only original article for WP was about a 1950's-era folk song called "Plastic_Jesus." (Roughly 80 percent of his edits appear to be AfD votes.) As everyone could see, Zocky's proposal had one tragic and fatal flaw: It failed to account for Isotope23's passionately caring sense of humanitarianism! Tellingly, in his RfA, which passed 83/0/0 (I guess they like people who vote in lots of AfD's!), he wrote:

When I've acted boldly and been wrong I've apologized and worked with other editors to get it right.

Hmmm. He must'a been drunk!

Earlier today, Isotope23 left a note for Mr. Bain which, while very politely worded, essentially said "OMFG PWNED":

I know your DRV close notes indicated this would go through AfD in a week, but the article was turning into a battleground of speedy deletion nominations, [[WP:IAR]] stub/protect actions and other related editing that was, at least in my fairly outside opinion, a deteriorating situation. That said, I've gone ahead and nominated it for AfD as a procedural action with a request that the AfD be allowed to go the full 5 days with no [[WP:SNOW]] or other early closures. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers!

I guess seniority and administrative experience doesn't count for much these days, eh, Stephen? Sorry to see that happening. (And y'know, it's funny how Yanksox is still the only admin who's been indefinitely desysopped for "wheel-warring," isn't it?) Anyway, cheers!

So, the AfD proceeded with no advance announcement, no special anti-abuse rules, and no attempted assurances of fairness whatsoever. In fact, the associated talk page, containing a list of the article's references, was nothing more than spam to obtain more "keep" votes. This ensured that the people who normally monitor AfD would vote first, and vote "keep" - giving the impression of a "snowball effect" - in other words, an obvious and blatant attempt to demoralize and silence the opposition, standard tactics used by those lacking moral or even logical justification for their actions.

Situations like this remind me (as if I needed reminding) of why I'm here, and indeed, why most of us are here. Evil must always be fought, and ultimately it must be crushed. And frankly, no amount of bashing is sufficient for people like this.

Whew! That was a long one...