On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)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