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 « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Brandt's article deleted, undeleted, stubbed, ad infinitum..., The BLP war era continues
a view from the hive
post Sun 4th March 2007, 4:23am
Post #61


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat 30th Dec 2006, 12:42am
From: Milky Way Galaxy
Member No.: 768

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 28th February 2007, 11:19pm) *

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

you should set a percentage figure in advance for what it would take to delete, and hold to it absolutely. I propose 67%.

Okay, but I get 200 votes because I'm the subject of the article and I'm the one who has to live with it.


But look at some of the "debate"

KEEP - Out of spite/karma. --Tom 00:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Per SlimVirgin! --Kevin Murray 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin made a rather compelling argument for deletion

How can you argue with such compelling and (in the case of the first one) "revenge" statements. Revenge is such a productive way to operate!
(disclaimer: that was sarcasm)

This post has been edited by a view from the hive: Sun 4th March 2007, 4:23am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cobalt
post Sun 4th March 2007, 5:33am
Post #62


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun 8th Oct 2006, 4:00pm
Member No.: 461



QUOTE(a view from the hive @ Sat 3rd March 2007, 11:23pm) *

Keep Per SlimVirgin! --Kevin Murray 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


I read that and laughed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Sun 4th March 2007, 5:45am
Post #63


Postmaster
*******

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



This AfD was frontloaded with mysterious sockpuppets and full of "he's so notable" propaganda. I'm hoping the unprofessional manner in which it was launched will make people belch. If the "Deletes" start increasing it could get interesting, because it doesn't look like anyone will have the guts to close this one early. But I'm probably overestimating the intelligence of the average drive-by AfD enthusiast.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cobalt
post Sun 4th March 2007, 6:03am
Post #64


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun 8th Oct 2006, 4:00pm
Member No.: 461



QUOTE

Keep. He's gotten enough press, both related and unrelated to Wikipedia, that he meats WP:BIO. —Dark•Shikari[T] 05:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


My thoughts against this theory are, would you hear/read about him without going out of your way to find any info?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sun 4th March 2007, 6:24am
Post #65


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, 11:45pm) *
This AfD was frontloaded with mysterious sockpuppets and full of "he's so notable" propaganda.

It's kind of ridiculous, actually!

For example, one of the most dishonest and deceitful (and therefore damaging) people in this whole circus has been someone going by the name of User:DennyColt, who went far, far out of his way to re-post a bunch of mostly-bogus article links on the recent premature AfD. Here's a guy who shows up on January 28th, just a month ago, and immediately goes on a tear, making several dozen rapid-fire edits within the first hour, including this complicated use of the PROD tag, and also creating a new article about comic book artist Tim_Kirk - and by his third day he's already using a script called "Twinklefluff" to revert people! Could he possibly be a sock puppet, perhaps of someone who got banned for, say, link-spamming, or maybe WP:VAIN? Naaaahhh!

His rationale for wanting the Brandt article kept is the same as the others, of course - "Denny" writes biographical articles about obscure comic book writers and artists, and HEAVEN FORBID anyone would ever want to set a precedent that might allow deletion of those. See, those biographies make nice baubles for collectors' websites, where people are trying to sell old comic books and such - "See, this guy's famous! You can read about him on Wikipedia! You should buy these exceedingly rare and sought-after comic books right now, before the prices go waaaay up!" That's how lots of people make their extra money, selling stuff for inflated prices on the internet, along with Social Security... I guess you can hardly blame them, though. Everyone needs extra money, right? Who cares if others have to suffer, eh?

World's biggest spam engine, indeed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anonymouse
post Mon 5th March 2007, 1:27am
Post #66


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 10:50pm
Member No.: 963



Someone's offering a bounty for FA status on it here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Mon 5th March 2007, 2:03am
Post #67


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(Anonymouse @ Sun 4th March 2007, 7:27pm) *
Someone's offering a bounty for FA status on it here.

Wow, just five bucks to help Wikipedia continue destroying itself from the inside out? Sounds like a real bargain!

"Someone" appears to be User:Abeg92, who seems to have given up the idea of editing for content a couple of months ago, in favor of simply reverting people.

These people just don't know when to stop, do they?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Yanksox
post Tue 6th March 2007, 12:22am
Post #68


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri 23rd Feb 2007, 4:08pm
Member No.: 1,014

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Mon 5th March 2007, 1:27am) *

Someone's offering a bounty for FA status on it here.


I'm just stunned. This is a classic case of group think.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anonymouse
post Tue 6th March 2007, 1:12am
Post #69


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 10:50pm
Member No.: 963



QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 4th March 2007, 9:03pm) *

QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Sun 4th March 2007, 7:27pm) *
Someone's offering a bounty for FA status on it here.

Wow, just five bucks to help Wikipedia continue destroying itself from the inside out? Sounds like a real bargain!

"Someone" appears to be User:Abeg92, who seems to have given up the idea of editing for content a couple of months ago, in favor of simply reverting people.

These people just don't know when to stop, do they?


Someone's gotta do the dirty work smile.gif .
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anonymouse
post Tue 6th March 2007, 1:23am
Post #70


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 10:50pm
Member No.: 963



QUOTE(Yanksox @ Mon 5th March 2007, 7:22pm) *

QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Mon 5th March 2007, 1:27am) *

Someone's offering a bounty for FA status on it here.


I'm just stunned. This is a classic case of group think.


FULL DISCLOSURE: I AM INDEED abeg92. ph34r.gif

I posted the bounty because I believe that his criticisms of Wikipedia are intellectually dishonest. There are legitimate grounds for disagreement with WP. Mr. Brandt's website contains none.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Tue 6th March 2007, 1:55am
Post #71


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(Anonymouse @ Mon 5th March 2007, 7:23pm) *
FULL DISCLOSURE: I AM INDEED abeg92. ph34r.gif
Really? Wow, this is too much drama for one evening... smile.gif

QUOTE
I posted the bounty because I believe that his criticisms of Wikipedia are intellectually dishonest. There are legitimate grounds for disagreement with WP. Mr. Brandt's website contains none.

That makes no sense, though. What does intellectual dishonesty have to do with anything? Are you saying he really does want a biographical article on WP about him that anyone can vandalize to their heart's content?

Or, rather, it simply reinforces my earlier, uh, implication, which is that you and various other WP'ers are doing this primarily, if not only, for revenge.

Oh well, it's just five bucks...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anonymouse
post Tue 6th March 2007, 12:04pm
Post #72


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 10:50pm
Member No.: 963



QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 5th March 2007, 8:55pm) *

QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Mon 5th March 2007, 7:23pm) *
FULL DISCLOSURE: I AM INDEED abeg92. ph34r.gif
Really? Wow, this is too much drama for one evening... smile.gif

QUOTE
I posted the bounty because I believe that his criticisms of Wikipedia are intellectually dishonest. There are legitimate grounds for disagreement with WP. Mr. Brandt's website contains none.

That makes no sense, though. What does intellectual dishonesty have to do with anything? Are you saying he really does want a biographical article on WP about him that anyone can vandalize to their heart's content?

Or, rather, it simply reinforces my earlier, uh, implication, which is that you and various other WP'ers are doing this primarily, if not only, for revenge.

Oh well, it's just five bucks...



I voted keep for one reason and posted the bounty for another.

I voted keep because of the ungodly huge list of sources on the talk page of the AfD debate, which, in my opinion, established not only verifiability but notability, (which, by the way is not a policy).

I posted the bounty for an unrelated reason; I believe Brandt's arguments are dishonest. People post them for random/personal reasons; take a look at [[WP:BOUNTY]].

Thank you.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Truth Man
post Tue 6th March 2007, 12:51pm
Post #73


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon 14th Aug 2006, 11:40am
Member No.: 336



QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Tue 6th March 2007, 7:04am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 5th March 2007, 8:55pm) *

QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Mon 5th March 2007, 7:23pm) *
FULL DISCLOSURE: I AM INDEED abeg92. ph34r.gif
Really? Wow, this is too much drama for one evening... smile.gif

QUOTE
I posted the bounty because I believe that his criticisms of Wikipedia are intellectually dishonest. There are legitimate grounds for disagreement with WP. Mr. Brandt's website contains none.

That makes no sense, though. What does intellectual dishonesty have to do with anything? Are you saying he really does want a biographical article on WP about him that anyone can vandalize to their heart's content?

Or, rather, it simply reinforces my earlier, uh, implication, which is that you and various other WP'ers are doing this primarily, if not only, for revenge.

Oh well, it's just five bucks...



I voted keep for one reason and posted the bounty for another.

I voted keep because of the ungodly huge list of sources on the talk page of the AfD debate, which, in my opinion, established not only verifiability but notability, (which, by the way is not a policy).

I posted the bounty for an unrelated reason; I believe Brandt's arguments are dishonest. People post them for random/personal reasons; take a look at [[WP:BOUNTY]].

Thank you.


Good lord, man, stop drinking the kool aid. Wikipedia is not the almight source for everything, It is not an actual encyclopedia that is required for the existance of human knowledge. You need to realize that it is a geek run encyclopedia by people that are too arrogant to downplay the importance to their own ego.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Tue 6th March 2007, 3:59pm
Post #74


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(Anonymouse @ Tue 6th March 2007, 6:04am) *
I voted keep because of the ungodly huge list of sources on the talk page of the AfD debate, which, in my opinion, established not only verifiability but notability, (which, by the way is not a policy).

Well then, the usual counter-argument: Who cares about one man's supposed "notability" when the fate of the world's largest online compendium of human knowledge is at stake? (Putting aside the risk to our entire modern conception of personal privacy, just for the moment?)

QUOTE
I posted the bounty for an unrelated reason; I believe Brandt's arguments are dishonest.

Okay, but what arguments are dishonest? And how are they dishonest?

Are you saying that Wikipedia doesn't show up on the first page of most Google searches? Or that Wikipedia isn't "scraped" by hundreds of other websites as a cheap means of obtaining advertising revenue? Are you saying that most admins there aren't anonymous? Or that people don't use blog postings as reference sources in BLP articles?

Or are you just saying his version of the events that led WP to the current impasse are inaccurate in some way?

Do what you want, of course, but it isn't enough to say "his arguments are dishonest," at least without something to back it up.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Sun 11th March 2007, 9:25pm
Post #75


Postmaster
*******

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



For the record, less than an hour ago I added this comment to the current AfD on my article:
QUOTE
Comment: My opinion doesn't count because I've been banned for almost a year, but I nevertheless have an opinion. There are issues which no one has addressed in this farce of an AfD. First, about one-third of my biography is self-referential for Wikipedia. It's the equivalent of the World Book Encyclopedia having an entry on someone associated with Encyclopedia Britannica simply because that someone criticized World Book. No, it's worse than that. It's as if World Book started a negative article on someone who worked at Britannica, and then when that someone criticized the World Book for doing so, the article in World Book got longer and longer, mainly by referring to these criticisms. Either the self-referential material should be deleted, or Wikipedia should stop calling itself an encyclopedia. Second, there is no information on my education, or my three years in graduate school, primarily because such information in not easily found unless the subject of the article consents to the article. Third, there is no information on my employment history for the same reason. Fourth, the information about President Carter's draft amnesty was deleted, but the draft-card burning information was kept, an act that is prejudicial. Fifth, the year of birth was deleted, primarily because no one could figure out whether it was 1947 or 1948. Sixth, no one at Wikipedia has found a photo of me anywhere on the web. Seventh, the Google Watch stuff is about as notable as someone starting a blog on some topic. The only reason it has more than its fair share of citations on the web is because it was the first anti-Google website, and when it started no one could believe that anyone could be anti-Google. Eighth, the NameBase material is biased. It's not a "quirky" index. Ask Oliver North how quirky it is. NameBase led a reporter to the person who put up Oliver North's security gate, which resulted in North's only conviction (for accepting an illegal gratuity). This was covered in the Washington Post. Picking out a quotation that uses the word "quirky" to describe NameBase suggests bias. (The same source also says it was started in the 1960s, which would have been difficult since I would have needed a mainframe and IBM punch cards to start it that early.) Ninth, the cookie stuff at CIA and NSA is trivial. One fax to each agency and the problem was solved. It played in the press because no one understands cookies, which in turn gave the press an opportunity to hype it. The bottom line is that Wikipedia should not pretend that it is competent to write biographies of living persons without the subject's consent and cooperation. Without that cooperation, the article at best ends up as a loose collection of facts, most of which would be irrelevant in a balanced biography. At worst, it ends up as malicious libel that uses verifiability and notability as convenient cover. The motives of those who voted KEEP are clearly suspicious, based on their own justifications. It was front-loaded with a prejudicial list of citations, which is improper. Posters for candidates are supposed to stay a certain distance away from the voting booths -- why doesn't this apply to Wikipedia? Most of those voting KEEP have no familiarity with me or the article, which makes them drive-by voters who only seek to amuse themselves. This is also improper. This entire AfD is a disgrace for all of Wikipedia. -Daniel Brandt

Six minutes later, JoshuaZ deleted my comment and marked it as a "minor" revert.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex
post Sun 11th March 2007, 9:31pm
Post #76


Back from the dead
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined: Wed 24th Jan 2007, 4:39pm
Member No.: 867

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 11th March 2007, 9:25pm) *

Six minutes later, JoshuaZ deleted my comment and marked it as a "minor" revert.

That's actually admin rollback he used, which is intended for quick reversion of vandalism and such. I think your comment got moved to the talk page.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Yanksox
post Sun 11th March 2007, 9:57pm
Post #77


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri 23rd Feb 2007, 4:08pm
Member No.: 1,014

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 11th March 2007, 9:31pm) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 11th March 2007, 9:25pm) *

Six minutes later, JoshuaZ deleted my comment and marked it as a "minor" revert.

That's actually admin rollback he used, which is intended for quick reversion of vandalism and such. I think your comment got moved to the talk page.


JoshuaZ essentially admitted to not actually reading this comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=114376555
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sun 11th March 2007, 10:32pm
Post #78


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(Yale senior Josh Zelinsky @ 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC))
No. His personal opinion is irrelevant, the AfD is not a soapbox for him any more than the article talk page is. Under the unlikely event that he said anything useful (the comment about the Washington Post may turn up a decent source) one can look in the history.

Brandt's personal opinion is most definitely not irrelevant, although Josh "JoshuaZ" Zelinsky's opinion certainly should be. Of course, since he's basically turned the whole process into his own personal self-promotion platform, the whole thing is essentially irrelevant, not to mention a complete travesty.

And let's not make any mistake about this: Zelinsky is about to graduate from Yale, and I'm sure he'd just loooove to get a nice job with a Web 2.0 company, either as a hatchet-man (he seems good at that) or as a "cyber-enforcer" - the guy who takes over any discussion or rule-making effort to ensure that any opposing or dissenting opinions are quashed by intense browbeating, intimidation, or outright stalking, if we're to use the Wikipedian definition of the term (i.e., the really, really broad one).

What gets me is this: Yale's a good school, so why would he set his sights so low? Why not aspire to be something that's actually useful to society, like a sanitation worker, or maybe a truck driver? Maybe he could move furniture or do landscaping work? Or maybe something more culture-oriented, like being a ticket-taker at the local multiplex? Why go for something that's so, you know, totally shitty?

Unlike most of the people in the Keep Brandt Brigade, Josh has been around for a while, and he should know that this isn't going to end well for Wikipedia. The others are mostly n00bs and occasional users who haven't had to deal with the controversy in any sort of meaningful way - obviously they don't care about the suffering of others, but that's hardly surprising - making other people suffer is, after all, what Wikipedia is all about. Many of them are probably just worried that deleting the Brandt article will set a dangerous precedent for them, whereby their own preferred libel and slander targets might actually have a way to stop them. Heaven forbid something like that might happen!

But Josh... The only reason I can see for him to keep this going is if there's something in it for him personally, like maybe a book deal or a job or something. Nothing else makes any sense whatsoever.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Sun 11th March 2007, 10:38pm
Post #79


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 @ Sun 11th March 2007, 4:25pm) *

For the record, less than an hour ago I added this comment to the current AfD on my article:
QUOTE

Comment: My opinion doesn't count because I've been banned for almost a year, but I nevertheless have an opinion. There are issues which no one has addressed in this farce of an AfD. First, about one-third of my biography is self-referential for Wikipedia. It's the equivalent of the World Book Encyclopedia having an entry on someone associated with Encyclopedia Britannica simply because that someone criticized World Book. No, it's worse than that. It's as if World Book started a negative article on someone who worked at Britannica, and then when that someone criticized the World Book for doing so, the article in World Book got longer and longer, mainly by referring to these criticisms. Either the self-referential material should be deleted, or Wikipedia should stop calling itself an encyclopedia. Second, there is no information on my education, or my three years in graduate school, primarily because such information in not easily found unless the subject of the article consents to the article. Third, there is no information on my employment history for the same reason. Fourth, the information about President Carter's draft amnesty was deleted, but the draft-card burning information was kept, an act that is prejudicial. Fifth, the year of birth was deleted, primarily because no one could figure out whether it was 1947 or 1948. Sixth, no one at Wikipedia has found a photo of me anywhere on the web. Seventh, the Google Watch stuff is about as notable as someone starting a blog on some topic. The only reason it has more than its fair share of citations on the web is because it was the first anti-Google website, and when it started no one could believe that anyone could be anti-Google. Eighth, the NameBase material is biased. It's not a "quirky" index. Ask Oliver North how quirky it is. NameBase led a reporter to the person who put up Oliver North's security gate, which resulted in North's only conviction (for accepting an illegal gratuity). This was covered in the Washington Post. Picking out a quotation that uses the word "quirky" to describe NameBase suggests bias. (The same source also says it was started in the 1960s, which would have been difficult since I would have needed a mainframe and IBM punch cards to start it that early.) Ninth, the cookie stuff at CIA and NSA is trivial. One fax to each agency and the problem was solved. It played in the press because no one understands cookies, which in turn gave the press an opportunity to hype it. The bottom line is that Wikipedia should not pretend that it is competent to write biographies of living persons without the subject's consent and cooperation. Without that cooperation, the article at best ends up as a loose collection of facts, most of which would be irrelevant in a balanced biography. At worst, it ends up as malicious libel that uses verifiability and notability as convenient cover. The motives of those who voted KEEP are clearly suspicious, based on their own justifications. It was front-loaded with a prejudicial list of citations, which is improper. Posters for candidates are supposed to stay a certain distance away from the voting booths -- why doesn't this apply to Wikipedia? Most of those voting KEEP have no familiarity with me or the article, which makes them drive-by voters who only seek to amuse themselves. This is also improper. This entire AfD is a disgrace for all of Wikipedia. -Daniel Brandt


Six minutes later, JoshuaZ deleted my comment and marked it as a "minor" revert.


Daniel,

Your analogies involving Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book are almost apt but not quite accurate. This is because they start from the premiss that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is the proton pseudos in this whole vat of boiling ointment.

A better analogy is as follows. A cigarette maker wants to advertise their product as having health-giving properties, so they paste a doctored picture of a xophtic model on the package, omitting to get the permission of the model to use the image, much less modify the pose to their purpose. That's a little more like it. Unauthorized representation for the purpose of beefing up a questionable product.

Jonny cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V « < 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, 11:42am