[WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider

[Slim Virgin]

On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> If Brandt wants to sincerely work with us to achieve that -- fixing
> any remaining flaws in his biography, and working with us to identify
> strategies to keep it, and other similar articles, sane -- then he
> should say so. He should stop his obsessive-compulsive crusade against
> Wikipedia, including his ridiculous attempts to unmask individual
> users, and recognize that he is dealing with a group of people who
> mean him no harm. He could have worked with this group of people a
> long time ago. But apparently having some enemy to rail against is
> more satisfying.

Would it be an accceptable compromise to revert the article to the
version Brandt declared himself happy with in October 2005,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=25614242
update it a little, add some citations, then protect it for a longish
period until feelings have died down? If Brandt reciprocates by
refraining from commenting elsewhere on Wikpedia issues, the
excitement over his bio will diminish and most reasonable people will
be too bored to start the issue up again when it's unprotected.

Part of the problem with the bio is that it has been unstable -- 2446
edits by 718 unique editors, including 271 IP addresses, which is a
lot for a borderline notable page. That is the core of Brandt's
objection, namely that there are too many anonymous editors involved
in writing it, so that he has to keep on checking it, and he feels
this is a burden. The flaw in his position is that Brandt himself
caused this situation by stirring up people's interest. If he would
stop doing that once the page was protected, the issue would die down,
and he'd be left with a brief, factual entry that would do him no harm
at all.

Sarah