The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Brandt's article deleted, undeleted, stubbed, ad infinitum..., The BLP war era continues
thebainer
post Thu 1st March 2007, 2:26pm
Post #41


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 12:06pm
Member No.: 13

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 1st March 2007, 6:10pm) *

Due to the views you're expressing in this post, I think you shouldn't be the one to close it. Frankly, it sounds like you are set on deletion. If you want to do it yourself, you should set a percentage figure in advance for what it would take to delete, and hold to it absolutely. I propose 67%.


The Lauder-Frost debate was just one example. I have also closed AfDs as keep where a purely numerical approach would lead to deletion or no consensus. The point I was illustrating is that I seem to be relatively successful at closing debates based on the merits of the arguments over the pure numbers.

My personal preference would not be to delete the page but to merge relevant content with other articles (the articles on Google Watch, and on the Seigenthaler controversy, and so forth), as I suggest here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Thu 1st March 2007, 3:14pm
Post #42


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



QUOTE(thebainer @ Thu 1st March 2007, 3:26pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 1st March 2007, 6:10pm) *

Due to the views you're expressing in this post, I think you shouldn't be the one to close it. Frankly, it sounds like you are set on deletion. If you want to do it yourself, you should set a percentage figure in advance for what it would take to delete, and hold to it absolutely. I propose 67%.


The Lauder-Frost debate was just one example. I have also closed AfDs as keep where a purely numerical approach would lead to deletion or no consensus. The point I was illustrating is that I seem to be relatively successful at closing debates based on the merits of the arguments over the pure numbers.

My personal preference would not be to delete the page but to merge relevant content with other articles (the articles on Google Watch, and on the Seigenthaler controversy, and so forth), as I suggest here.


I don't believe in closing according to "the merits of the arguments"; I feel that places the power in the hands of the closing admin and not the community. You didn't respond to my proposal to set a percentage, which would make it very simple and uncontroversial--just count up the votes, exclude the socks and new users, and there's an objective result nobody can argue with. Why do you want to control this whole thing: closing the DRV, opening the AfD, and closing the AfD? You're trying to establish a high level of control over the process while openly expressing your own views here, and I don't feel comfortable with that.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnA
post Thu 1st March 2007, 3:33pm
Post #43


Looking over Winston Smith's shoulder
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,171
Joined: Sun 30th Jul 2006, 9:56pm
Member No.: 313



If the Daniel Brandt article has been deleted then why can I still see it?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Thu 1st March 2007, 6:01pm
Post #44


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



QUOTE(JohnA @ Thu 1st March 2007, 3:33pm) *

If the Daniel Brandt article has been deleted then why can I still see it?

Because it's been undeleted to allow yet another debate. mad.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Fri 2nd March 2007, 5:06pm
Post #45


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(guy @ Thu 1st March 2007, 1:01pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Thu 1st March 2007, 3:33pm) *

If the Daniel Brandt article has been deleted then why can I still see it?


Because it's been undeleted to allow yet another debate. mad.gif


The pretext cited by Zocky in the most recent action, namely, WP:Ignore All Rules, makes it clear, once and for all, that Wikipedia simply has no policies about anything.

Jonny cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 2nd March 2007, 5:12pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Fri 2nd March 2007, 6:25pm
Post #46


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 2nd March 2007, 11:06am) *
The pretext cited by Zocky in the most recent action, namely, WP:Ignore All Rules, makes it clear, once and for all, that Wikipedia simply has no policies about anything.

Well, no coherent policies, anyway!

This new attempt at "breaking the logjam" by User:Zocky is interesting - and I won't lie and say it isn't an improvement, though of course I can't speak for Daniel himself. Technically it's similar to what they did for Rachel Marsden, though of course the situation was completely different - in Marsden's case they were helping her hide unpleasant aspects of her private life that she didn't want continuously exposed, whereas in Brandt's case they're trying to extend the already unending agony for everyone concerned, in the hopes that Wikipedia will eventually be destroyed completely by the actions of just one guy whom they couldn't come to terms with over a matter of principle in which they were morally in the wrong, by almost any objective criterion.

Still, it's getting some fairly broad support! So far the most offended person seems to be Mr. Jeff, who appears to be drawn unusually badly today because of the situation, even to the point of suggesting that Zocky be "recalled." Zocky, who is from Slovenia, probably should have removed that category from his user page first, and only then stubbed the Brandt article.

Must think ahead, folks!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Fri 2nd March 2007, 6:54pm
Post #47


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 2nd March 2007, 1:25pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 2nd March 2007, 11:06am) *

The pretext cited by Zocky in the most recent action, namely, WP:Ignore All Rules, makes it clear, once and for all, that Wikipedia simply has no policies about anything.


Well, no coherent policies, anyway!

<WR:Ignore All Required Reading If You Find It Impairs Your Ability To Operate High Voltage Electronic Devices>


``````````````Z.................

<WR:IARRIYFIIYATOHVED>

Must think ahead, folks!


Yeah, I worried about that all through lunch -- the WikiPepto wasn't strong enough, and now I have wait 4 hours before I can take a WikiPepcidAC -- and I had meant to come back and insert the qualifier meaningful, but then you beat me to it. Of course, either of those hedges would be no-brainers in normal human discourse, but then I keep forgetting who we're talking about.

Jonny cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 2nd March 2007, 7:54pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnA
post Fri 2nd March 2007, 9:58pm
Post #48


Looking over Winston Smith's shoulder
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,171
Joined: Sun 30th Jul 2006, 9:56pm
Member No.: 313



I find myself wondering what the point of getting rid of Daniel Brandt from Wikipedia would be. There are at least a thousand scrapes of Wikipedia that never update and will simply carry on serving up the biography that Daniel has tried so hard to get removed.

Will it be a thousand Cease and Desist Letters?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Fri 2nd March 2007, 10:51pm
Post #49


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



You should see what they're pulling now with my bio. I'm getting mad. Look at that discussion page behind the AfD.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Fri 2nd March 2007, 11:01pm
Post #50


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 2nd March 2007, 5:51pm) *

You should see what they're pulling now with my bio. I'm getting mad. Look at that discussion page behind the AfD.


Again, absolutely typical. These people simply do not grasp the very concept of Policy, which refers to a set of rules that you have to apply equally to every case, not ad hoc and post hoc as you damn well please.

Jonny cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 2nd March 2007, 11:44pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 2:05am
Post #51


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



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! 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:

QUOTE
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":

QUOTE
- 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:

QUOTE(User:Isotope23 @ 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
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":
QUOTE(User:Isotope23 @ 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC))
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...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 4:35am
Post #52


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



Somey, that was a brilliant summary. I guess it pays to be a teetotaler. I'm too drunk to write something like that. I start drinking cheap Schlitz Malt when I get too worked up over Wikipedia.

I hate to say this, I really do, but I have to put my faith in users such as thebainer, SlimVirgin and Michael Snow to come up with some trick to torpedo this latest atrocity. All three have indicated strong opposition in various ways. I think -- I pray to God even though I'm an atheist -- that they're up to something.

God help me, I appeal to SlimVirgin to kick some butt on this one. Have I gone to the dogs, or are things so bad that Slim's flesh-eating poodle is the only hope for any of us?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 5:06am
Post #53


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 2nd March 2007, 11:35pm) *

Somey, that was a brilliant summary. I guess it pays to be a teetotaler. I'm too drunk to do something like that. I start drinking cheap Schlitz Malt when I get too worked up over Wikipedia.

I hate to say this, I really do, but I have to put my faith in users such as thebainer, SlimVirgin and Michael Snow to come up with some trick to torpedo this latest atrocity. They all have indicated strong opposition in various ways. I think -- I pray to God even though I'm an atheist -- that they're up to something.

God help me, I appeal to SlimVirgin to kick some butt on this one. Have I gone to the dogs, or are things so bad that Slim's flesh-eating poodle is the only hope for any of us?


Speaking from the higher plane of a mighty toasty cabernet, I think that we focus way too much on getting Wikipedia to do this or that. That ship has sailed, and no amount of screaming about the icebergs is going to wake the captain or crew. The soluble matter is not to be found in the substance of what Wikipedia is. What it is is something that the Usenet, large parts of the Internet, and your daily mailbog from Nigeria is already chock full of, speaking of coffee, but nobody pays much attention to it — except when it's time to update their spam and virus filters so as to automate the dumping of it. The problem is just What Wikipedia Is Not, What Wikipedia Will Never Be, but What Wikipedia Only Pretends To Be, that is, an encyclopedia, and the fact that not enough people have gotten wise to the scam — yet.

But the news is getting out.

When we have induced the Creature from the Blecchhh Lagoon to slither back into the Usenet Scum of Inhuman Witlessness from which it arose, then our problem will be managed as well as we can hope — at least until they dredge up the sequel.

Jonny cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 3rd March 2007, 5:24am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 5:53am
Post #54


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



Shall I interpret this to mean you don't see anything positive developing out of this situation? sad.gif

Thing is, this is the point at which someone who's a real leader, a true visionary, someone with real guts would stand up and say, "this is my website, I'm ultimately responsible for what goes on here, and I'm going to put a stop to this nonsense. This is over, done, end of story." Someone with the power to make it stick, too (sorry, Yanksox, though it was a good try). Of course, that would also mean deleting and salting the article, and possibly forbidding any further mention of Brandt anywhere on Wikipedia.

But Wikipedia doesn't have anyone like that, do they?

That's really what's so utterly tragic about this whole situation. People are going to fight for their privacy until their dying breath, and not just people whose privacy has been compromised like Brandt's has. Anyone who cares about it is going to keep fighting, and that's not going to change. But all Wikipedia has to do is have one of a thousand admins click a delete link, and then just get everyone to STFU about it. But it's that last bit that really does them in - they just can't bring themselves to do that one little thing, because then there'd be a huge cacophony of whining from... who, exactly? Nobody knows. It's just really sad, the way they're allowing all that work, put in by all those well-meaning people, to be marginalized and pissed away like this. Absolutely tragic.

They keep talking about a "slippery slope." Well, y'know, at some point they have to realize that they're not at the top of that slope and trying to keep from sliding down. They have to realize they're at the bottom of the slope, and they'll never get back up that slope as long as they keep peeing all over it.

That analogy kinda sucked, didn't it? I'm going to have to work on that one.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 7:04am
Post #55


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Look, for you all know, there's wackos on Usenet saying all sorts of rotten stuff about you. Who knows? Who cares? For a brief time, Google had a button that would search Usenet, but I can't find it anymore if it's still there. Most of the so-called "culture" of this cult came from Usenet -- so much so that Larry Sanger thought it was a big innovation to use real names, when all the academic discussion lists that I've known or heard about never thought to operate any other way. The more light we shine on this slimy critter, the sooner it will jump back into its flaming pit. Who cares if it takes The One Ring with it?

Jonny cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alkivar
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 9:28am
Post #56


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 3:12am
Member No.: 211

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



For whatever its worth Mr. Brandt...

When this whole debate over your article started I was of the "screw him, lets keep it" camp. I dunno how or why... but I guess at some point the bulb over my head lit up.

this is a shameful disgrace, and I'm sorry.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 1:23pm
Post #57


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



QUOTE(Alkivar @ Sat 3rd March 2007, 3:28am) *

For whatever its worth Mr. Brandt...

When this whole debate over your article started I was of the "screw him, lets keep it" camp. I dunno how or why... but I guess at some point the bulb over my head lit up.

this is a shameful disgrace, and I'm sorry.

It's worth a lot; thank you.

I just discovered that SlimVirgin is resurrecting her efforts to get a new policy in place for marginal notables who don't want an article. She worked on this a bit starting at the end of December, but after a few weeks decided it wasn't taking off. This time, thanks to the situation with Essjay, as well as the debacle with AfD, there may be additional interest. Eloquence has made a comment, and I think that there's even a chance that Jimbo might be receptive this time around. It's becoming clearer, I hope, that Wikipedia's best bet for the future (and an option that is easy to implement) is to become much more considerate of the wishes of people with biographies. This doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to let them edit the article in ways that are unencyclopedic, but it means that the person should have veto power over whether there's an bio on him at all.

Another option would be to block all search engines and as many scrapers as you can catch from all of Wikipedia's pages. Now that would also be very honorable, but it's not about to happen given the current state of the web, and the importance of Google for driving traffice to Wikipedia.

It's one or the other: veto power for subjects of bios, or keep the bots out. One is easy and the other will never happen.

The ironic thing is that Jimbo could bless this veto-power policy and save Wikipedia with a few well-chosen words. You might get a few whiners, but it would all be over in a day or two, and the policy would be in place.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 6:36pm
Post #58


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 3rd March 2007, 7:23am) *
I just discovered that SlimVirgin is resurrecting her efforts to get a new policy in place for marginal notables who don't want an article....

Unfortunately, and as one might expect, the usual suspects in the Selfish Whiners Brigade is all over that.

Here's where someone named User:Kendrick7 asks "who all these people are" - referring to the small handful of people who object to their WP biography articles - and hyper-officious megatroll User:JoshuaZ responds by giving details about everyone except Rachel Marsden! laugh.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=112267419

I guess ol' Josh didn't want to get instantly permabanned like the last guy who spoke up about Rachel, did he? Too bad - I would've liked to have seen that...

QUOTE
The ironic thing is that Jimbo could bless this veto-power policy and save Wikipedia with a few well-chosen words. You might get a few whiners, but it would all be over in a day or two, and the policy would be in place.

At this point, I think Jimbo probably wants the community to just go away - they've become a huge inconvenience for him, in terms of legal exposure, resistance to banner ads, staff time... Real harmony among the WP'ers, the kind that can only be obtained by imposing these kinds of humane policies that should have been there since Day One, would just lead to more user retention.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 7:24pm
Post #59


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 3rd March 2007, 8:23am) *

I just discovered that SlimVirgin is resurrecting her efforts to get a new policy in place for marginal notables who don't want an article.


I would not trust these people for a second. They have the amazing ability to lie with both forks of their tongue. And that's not even counting the behind-the-scenes orchestrated sock-puppet shows.

Jonny cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 3rd March 2007, 7:28pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Sun 4th March 2007, 12:25am
Post #60


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



The only way Mr. Brandt's article will be deleted, at least in this current debate, is if he's found to be non-notable. As others here have said, as soon as someone provides enough evidence to prove notability, we're back again with the same old arguments.

I really wish I could vote Delete per ethical concerns, but that won't fly at DRV or in Wikipedia in general. As the venerable Doc glasgow said once "Consensus be damned!" and I'm beginning to agree. Mr. Brandt might be lucky enough to get his article stubbed after this debate, but even then, the article is there and the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round ad infintium.

Only a deus ex machina from Jimbo or the WikiMedia Foundation can end this debate. Preferably with an Opt-Out Policy that will be of benefit to all other living people with articles such as Mr. Brandt.

I don't have faith that the Wikipedia Community, at this time, will go for an Opt-Out Policy. Shame!

This post has been edited by The Joy: Sun 4th March 2007, 6:31am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th 1 18, 7:47am