[WikiEN-l] Delete Daniel Brandt

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On 6/11/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The thing is it's not just a matter of principle. We do this because
> > if we give in more and more people will do exactly the same thing.
> > And, as I've said, Daniel Brandt is a fanatic, he won't ever stop,
> > even if he wins this battle. We have to be utalitarian here, we have
> > to take the route where we get the least amount of trouble. We do that
> > by not giving in.
> >
> Being utilitarian is notoriously difficult, because how many of the
> foreseeable consequences do you factor in? If you want to be
> rigorously consequentialist, factor in the serious physical assault
> (or worse) of an admin, or an admin's kids.

I see your point, I really do. However, you are being as just as
hypothetical as I am, since there has been (so far, knock wood) no
serious physical assaults on an admin or (the horror!) their kids. And
even assuming that we do remove the article and Daniel Brandt climbes
back into the lair he came from, there is nothing that says that it
wouldn't happen in the future. Infact I'd say that it would become
more likely that something like what you describe happends in the
future, because if we give in to Brandt, people will see it works, and
they will emulate him, I guarantee it.

> We have already deleted or blanked pages that the subjects haven't
> wanted, so tell me: what is so different about Daniel Brandt that we
> absolutely refuse to do it for him, despite the chaos it has caused?
> (And if you say it's in part because of the chaos it has caused, that
> confirms that we're simply digging our heels in, which is
> understandable but irrational.)
>
> Sarah

I haven't been party too any other decision about removing an article
based on the users wishes, and so I can't comment on any other case
(unless you are talking about WP:OFFICE, which is another thing
altogether). Theoretically I suppose that if an article on a person is
barely notable (ie. an AFD could go either way), we can allow some
leeway. However, when it comes to people who clearly should be in the
encyclopedia (and Daniel Brandt should, as proven by a number of AFDs
and even admitted to by Phil himself) we should absolutly not give in
to them.

Thought experiment: Imagine if Brad Pitt started piling on hate on
wikipedia. I mean, he trashes it in interviews, he targets specific
admins, he generally behaves much like Daniel Brandt. He says he will
stop if we delete his article. This is 1000x more destructive to
wikipedia and it's users than anything Daniel Brandt could muster.
Should we delete it? I think all of us agrees that we shouldn't. It
would be insane for a modern encyclopedia not to have an article on
Brad Pitt.

I realise this is kind of a silly example but you get my point. Also,
you mention that Daniel Brandt might be "special", and that the reason
we don't nuke it is because we are irrationally stubborn (forgive me
for putting words in your mouth, I assume that was what you meant?)
Well, you're right about one thing, this is a special case. We can't
ever delete [[Daniel Brandt]] because he says so because it would mean
enourmous trouble for the encyclopedia, much more so than almost any
other article. It's something we simply CANNOT do.

In summary, this is my argument. There are two ways to go here:

1)We delete the article.
2)We keep the article.

Pros of 1)
* Daniel Brandt might stop being an ass.

Cons of 1)
* In all likelyhood, this won't even slow Brandt down.
* Other people see that what Brandt is doing is working, and they will
emulate him. Many more "Hive mind" sites will spring up, and offsite
harrasment will in the long term probably increase, thus putting our
admins in even more peril.

Pros of 2)
* People will not start to emulate Daniel Brandt
* We don't compromise our principles.
* We have a more complete encyclopedia (atmittedly a pretty bad
argument, but still)

Cons of 2)
* Daniel Brandt will certainly continue.

In summary, 1 brings only Very, Very Bad Things, and nothing good. 2
doesn't bring anything bad either, but atleast it doesn't cause as
much harm.

--Oskar