On 6/14/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
We need to get rid of that article. We've subjected Brandt to hundreds of thousands of words of debate, 14 AfDs, I don't know how many DRVs -- wall-to-wall bickering and childishness for 18 sorry months. We've allowed his article to be edited by any anonymous teenager who turns up with a grudge, and the decision to keep the wretched thing has been made 13 times by people who normally edit Star Trek. We've made complete fools of ourselves as a project.
First off all, would you please stay away from characterizing people who disagree with you in such an offensive way? It's rude and it lowers the tone of the debate. I realise WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF doesn't apply directly to the mailing list, but they are generally prettu good policies to follow in general.
No matter the merits of the article, the process he's been put through is totally unacceptable by any standard. We've shown we can't be trusted with a Brandt bio, and we should delete it for that reason alone, no matter how notable any of us thinks he is.
This is a good point, but aren't you rewriting history a bit? I mean, why is it that Brandt is such a controversial subject on wikipedia? Is it our fault, did we start harassing a completely innocent man just because we're such bastards?
Of course not! Brandt has made it his life mission to destroy wikipedia, in any way he can. He puts up admins names, addresses and pictures and he loves to screw with them. Wikipedia needs good critics, that makes us better, but he is the worst of the worst. Whatever painful experience he has gone through due to wikipedia is entirely his fault. There may be reasons for his article to be deleted, but "We're being so mean to him!" is not one of them, not in this case.
--Oskar