I'm afraid he is a notable figure. We should not have some kind of
hatchet job on him, but someone who has engaged in all the public
activity he has is certain deserving of a Wikipedia article. Of
course, he is not a terrorist in the sense Timothy McVeigh was; he is
just a critic. He makes a point now and then, but from the
perspective of users whose privacy is at risk he is more of a
destructive vandal. His point about anonymous people wielding power
has some traction, but I notice that folks who edit under their own
name receive more or less the same treatment as people who use
pseudonyms.
Fred
On Jun 12, 2006, at 11:45 PM, mboverload wrote:
Just a note: Just browsed through the shit-swamp that
is Wikipedia
Review
and Daniel Brandt has just found another thing to complain about: Us
equating his threats with terrorist demands. Oh yeah, and he's not
even
happy that you guys are considering deleting his article. He's not
happy at
all. He's moaning that you didn't debate the "ethics" of having an
article
on him and are just doing it to get rid of him. Sad.