Mark Ryan wrote: No. I also disagree with the idea of "marginal" "notability" for Brandt. Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned immediately, but that won't happen. Wikipedia's completely lost its way. -Jeff

No, he shouldn't. I think his comments were right on the money (but I have more hope for Wikipedia). On 2/23/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I don't want to sound like Peter Parkers, but this closing of the DRV was, frankly, wrong. It was closed about 2.5 hours after the review was opened. Yes, yes I know about WP:SNOW, but WP:PROCESS matters too. There were a few valid keep votes near the end. Anyway, FYI, here's the cached link: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:l9nE4AhDCB0J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan… On 2/23/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:

NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote: Speedily closed again, since the article is apparently back on DRV according to the closer. Also it appears that the redirect to [[Google Watch]] that had briefly been created at [[Daniel Brandt]] has been deleted too. Glad we're being spared a lot of trouble by deleting this thing. :)

Frankly, two and a half hours for a DRV is bordering on the ridiculous. Very few people have the opportunity to see it and form opinions in this time; hell, a lot of them won't even be awake. This was a vastly out of process speedy deletion, considering the article had survived so many AfDs. But we could perhaps consider it to be in the spirit of IAR. But you don't then justify an out of process deletion with an out of process speedy endorsement. Discussion is _not_ bad. All this does is cause more and more discussion over the nature of the closure, and less and less on the issue (and thus even _less_ attention goes on the rest of the encyclopaedia). Jimbo commented on the Peppers DRV "As I say, I think it would have been slightly better to let it run for at least 24 hours"; this is going in the opposite direction. Trebor

On 2/23/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: Indeed. Wikis are not suited for fast debate, and we are not in any rush, yet these decisions are still being made in a matter of hours. What is this accomplishing other than confusion and irritation?

If only both sides could see that it's just no longer worth chasing the matter either way - in the end we'll still get the same result - one side fuming and the other side working to ensure the decision remains, and we'll end up with even more of a split ex-community. On 24/02/07, Trebor Rowntree <trebor.rowntree(a)gmail.com> wrote:

This is ridiculous. Daniel Brandt article gets deleted at 9.53pm my time. Gets noticed and put on Deletion Review at 10.54pm. The link to the Deletion Review gets posted in #wikipedia-en-admins at 11.12pm. Then, considering the controversial nature of this article, I draw attention to it on this mailing list at 12.17am. At 1.21am, the first mention of this deletion review goes on AN/I. At 1.26am, after 2 and a half hours of debate, it gets closed as a "snowball" endorse, and attempts to "unclose" it are met with reverts. Below is the history of the numerous AfD debates for this article, which I feel is relevant here (when considering whether to apply a snowball clause): This page was previously nominated for deletion. Consider the prior discussions before re-nominating: Speedy keep, AFD 07 November 2005. Keep, AFD 13 November 2005. Snowball keep, AFD 05 April 2006. Speedy keep, AFD 12 April 2006. Speedy Keep, AFD 13 April 2006. Speedy keep, AFD 5 June 2006. Speedy keep, AFD 10 June 2006. Snowball keep, AFD 19 June 2006. Speedy keep, AFD 13 July 2006. Speedy keep, AFD 12 August 2006. Keep, AFD 28 December 2006. Considering that history, how could it possibly be considered appropriate to close this article's deletion review after only 2.5 hours, when most interested users have not even had notice of the DRV's existence? ~Mark Ryan

On 2/23/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com> wrote: Agreed. This may or may not be a good time to re-evaluate Brandt's notability, but trying to push through an obviously out of process deletion through aggressive posturing is not my idea of how Wikipedia should work. The proposition that this will reduce the time wasted on this issue is self-defeating; all this is going to accomplish is set into a motion another shitstorm around this issue, and hurt the Wikipedia community. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote: Gee, someone's got some thin skin. People don't seem to like the truth. -Jeff

On 2/23/07, Glen S <wikiglen(a)gmail.com> wrote: I am an inclusionist, and I think Brandt's notability is in question... I'm going to stay out of the AFD/DRV. I do encourage everyone to respect the process on this - the process lets everyone who does care about it vent and explain themselves and talk about it. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Jeff Raymond says... NSLE says... Jimbo does... Exactly what Jeff Raymond suggested. Gee wow, Jimbo agrees with the "troll". Perhaps we should now moderate Jimbo for "troll support" or something. Expressing an opinion you do not agree with is not trolling. On 2/23/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 23/02/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> > wrote: > > > > Mark Ryan wrote: > > > > > You don't think we should delete people's biographies upon request, > > > where those people are of very marginal notability? Because apparently > > > it's quite common for us to perform such deletions upon request > > > nowadays, under WP:BLP or something. > > > > No. I also disagree with the idea of "marginal" "notability" for > > Brandt. Yanksox should be blocked for vandalism and deadminned > > immediately, but that won't happen. > > > > Wikipedia's completely lost its way. > > > > -Jeff > > > > _______________________________________________ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >

Jeff Raymond schreef: IMHO, it's perfectly possible to make a good encyclopedia without a Daniel Brandt page. If his page was deleted because of his repeated demands, it would be bad. But we shouldn't just keep the page just because he's annoying us. I may agree with this. It does seem to me to have been a move designed to be controversial, and to disrupt wikipedia to leave a departing message. On the other hand, consensus seems to be that he's right, so... in view of AGF and IAR, ... let's just say this whole affair is simply NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH to be upset about it. It's still a damn fine encyclopedia, with or without [[Daniel Brandt]]. Eugene

On 2/23/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com> wrote: That isn't true. Process is more complex than that. -- geni

What an awful abuse of admin powers. On 2/23/07, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: -- Pilotguy pilotguy.wikipedia(a)gmail.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy http://pilotguy.wordpress.com

PS: For BLP use something like {{deletedbio}} instead of {{deletedpage}}. There is no {{deletedbio}} AFAIK so someone needs to make one. -Stevertigo

Delirium wrote: So, without consensus on the removing (bio's of) marginally notable characters, the speedy delete seems completely unjustifiable. Does anyone have a clue as to what triggered this action at this particular time? -Rich

On Feb 24, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: This gets at another very, very fundamental problem, though - one that is increasingly ripping the project apart at a foundational level. (I am not, it should be noted, speaking here on a community level. I'm talking about the encyclopedia itself.) Our due process is capricious and based on who shows up. This is most obvious on AfD, where articles are serially renominated until they get deleted. The renominations are justified under the slogan "consensus can change," but in practice it's not consensus that changes - few of the people who voted keep the previous few times even show up to weigh in. That's not consensus changing - that's the equivalent of asking daddy if you can have a cookie because mommy said no. -Phil

On 2/24/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: This is part of what I call the "loud minority effect" which is an evil version of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". This is when small numbers of highly opinionated people just happen to yell louder then everybody else. I once suggested a limited "double jeopardy" system for AFD but not too many people liked it. I thought it would keep articles from getting nominated over and over and over again. Notable things don't one day magically stop being notable.

On 2/23/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Good question. A recent DRV of one of the Rachel Marsden articles -- I speedied it in accordance with an ArbCom ruling, which allowed speedy deletion if an admin felt there were BLP issues -- had a majority in favor of keeping it deleted, but an admin undeleted it anyway, then moved it to AfD, arguing that there had to be a consensus in favor of the deletion, not just a majority. The policy seems to imply this is the case with all deletions, not just speedies, which means that DRV has basically become pointless, assuming I've understood it correctly. Sarah

On 2/23/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Before voting to keep, please review the evidence presented at http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=5641&view=findpos… Thank you. Nobs01

George Herbert wrote: Smart move, if not a little too late. Too bad it won't go further backwards to others who have been just as abusive. Somehow, wheel warring is more important? -Jeff

On 2/23/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: I can think of three greater ones in under a second. Putting the goatse in sitenotice for example. After the wheel war was over? In case you forget by the time I acted there had already been an attempt to shut down all discussion. -- geni

On 2/24/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: seconds is too slow. Anonnotice then or somewhere a bit more obscure. nyet that was done before the wheel war. What would AN/I have done? RFC? no I really can't see that helping. ArbCom? I doubt they would be interested in a case purely around article deletetion. -- geni

On Feb 24, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: For which there are far better and more destructive options. (My personal favorite choice is history merging vandalism. Which, to date, nobody has done, and which, to date, I remain surprised that nobody has done.) -Phil

Phil Sandifer wrote: Don't give them ideas! :-) Ec

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&am… 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.

On 2/23/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes Virginia, there is an 800 pound Gorilla and sometimes we need him.

On 2/23/07, Rob Smith <nobs03(a)gmail.com> wrote: Can people (particularly those who are already banned from Wikipedia) who post links to slanderous and defamatory conspiracy-mongering harassment fora be immediately and permanently banned from this list as well? Thanks. Jay.