Brandt, Dab page used for attacking Daniel Brandt Options

[The Joy]

There is/was a major edit war on the disambiguation page Brandt (T-H-L-K-D) being waged by Kotniski, John Nevard, and others to include Daniel Brandt on the list. Alison, SirFozzie, Lar, Squeakbox, and a few others are arguing for reason and BLP concerns, but no one seems to be listening.

This quote pretty much sums up Wikipedia's BLP problem:

Explain how putting someone's name on a dab page hurts him. It's common sense not to treat people unreasonably, but we can't pander to everyone's whim - we're here to provide information, after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=251312564

[The Wales Hunter]

Absolute madness. Build an encyclopedia or attack people? Easy answer, surely?

[Rhindle]

It should be pretty simple. First, a Disambiguation page should be only mention links to articles. Second, is there a previous bio of Brandt? If not it's original research. If there is no precedented bio of a subject, it is OR, therefore no Bio. At least that's my understanding of wikiworld.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

It should be pretty simple. First, a Disambiguation page should be only mention links to articles. Second, is there a previous bio of Brandt? If not it's original research. If there is no precedented bio of a subject, it is OR, therefore no Bio. At least that's my understanding of wikiworld.

To say there is a prior bio is an understatement.

[Rhindle]

It should be pretty simple. First, a Disambiguation page should be only mention links to articles. Second, is there a previous bio of Brandt? If not it's original research. If there is no precedented bio of a subject, it is OR, therefore no Bio. At least that's my understanding of wikiworld.

To say there is a prior bio is an understatement.

To clarify (in case I need to), I meant a bio that has already been published somewhere else before it's put on wikipedia.

[MrM]

An autobio, in fact, though in modern times Brandt has done his best to suppress it.

[GlassBeadGame]

Once touch by a wiki you can never live in peace. This is why Brandt is foolish to "negotiate" with various actors within "the community."


Coming Soon: Disabmiguation page on Siegenthaler that describes and points to a non-existing article on "alternative theories of RFK assassination."

[The Joy]

I guess we'll need to keep an eye on Daniel (disambiguation) (T-H-L-K-D) too for all eternity.

Eventually, those Wikipedians knowing the history of Daniel Brandt will fade away and the newer younger Wikipedians will take over as the new "consensus" and push through a bio. It's a hopeless revenge cycle!

I wonder if there are psychotic Wikipedians that might actually kill or hurt someone just so they or their victim will be notable enough for Wikipedia? I fear that day will come.

[Rootology]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, what happens when Brandt does eventually critical mass and he does become "notable"?

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22...m=1&nav_num=100
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_us...=od&btnG=Search

He's still in the news even now.

[Somey]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, what happens when Brandt does eventually critical mass and he does become "notable"?

By whose definition?

If you're asking what will happen when they post the article again, basically a lot of people will say "told ya so," along with "typical" and "there they go again." The real argument was never actually about "notability" anyway - they only used that as a way of keeping the goal-posts in motion.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22...m=1&nav_num=100
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_us...=od&btnG=Search

He's still in the news even now.

Ehh, that's not quite what I'm seeing...? That just looks like the same stuff as before - being anti-Google these days isn't particularly fame-conferring, though it might have been a few years ago. There are only two entries since the plagiarism study in late 2006, and one of them is basically a blog post.

[Doc glasgow]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, what happens when Brandt does eventually critical mass and he does become "notable"?

By whose definition?

If you're asking what will happen when they post the article again, basically a lot of people will say "told ya so," along with "typical" and "there they go again." The real argument was never actually about "notability" anyway - they only used that as a way of keeping the goal-posts in motion.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22...m=1&nav_num=100
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_us...=od&btnG=Search

He's still in the news even now.

Ehh, that's not quite what I'm seeing...? That just looks like the same stuff as before - being anti-Google these days isn't particularly fame-conferring, though it might have been a few years ago. There are only two entries since the plagiarism study in late 2006, and one of them is basically a blog post.

Wow, according to that, he's been making headlines since 1915......

[EricBarbour]

LOVE IT.
The more of this shit they pull, the crazier they look.

Wonder who Kotniski is. Gives the impression of a total prat.
Why is he messing with the Manual of Style?
He was already blocked a couple days ago, and is apparently angling for other blocks....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kotniski

And up pops Joshua. "Who no woman will ever love".....

I'm getting a headache from this.

[dtobias]

I guess we'll need to keep an eye on Daniel (disambiguation) (T-H-L-K-D) too for all eternity.

Hey, I'm not on that... no fair!

I wonder if there are psychotic Wikipedians that might actually kill or hurt someone just so they or their victim will be notable enough for Wikipedia? I fear that day will come.

Hey, killing somebody might be the most effective way to make BLP no longer apply to them!

----------------
Now playing: Ray Parker Jr - Jamie
via FoxyTunes

[Fritz]

Coming Soon: Disabmiguation page on Siegenthaler that describes and points to a non-existing article on "alternative theories of RFK assassination."

Oh dear, I've been planning that article in my userspace after shifting the material almost completely out of the main article...

As to the whole Brandt thing - completely pointless efforts to have his name included. No article = no need to disambiguate. And there's no need for an article on Daniel at all.