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.