On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
Reverting to that version would remove any mention of Wikipedia criticism.
So no, I don't think that's acceptable. As for anon editors: that's what
semi-protection is for. Yes, he would get a lot less attention if he stopped
asking for it in the first place.