Slim Virgin wrote:
On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@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.
Coming from you as one of the offended people this is certainly a positive suggestion. This could at least be done until stable versions are implemented, which we are constantly reassured are just around the corner.
Commenting on Wikipedia elsewhere should not be the problem; this is after all a very high profile website. Restricting his personal comments about individual Wikipedians would be more desirable.
Ec