[WikiEN-l] Brandt, bios, and other thoughts

[Kirill Lokshin]

Posted on behalf of Musical Linguist, at her request:

I very strongly support the deletion of Brandt's biography. I have
absolutely no love for him, and considered the administrator that he
drove away last May to be perhaps the very nicest administrator we
ever had. But I have always supported deleting articles that were
causing distress to the subjects, and that were not on topics so
notable that we'd look silly, as an encylopaedia, if we didn't have
them. In that, I concur with Grace Note, who has made a similar point.
We should delete the article regardless of our feelings about Brandt,
simply because it's the decent thing to do. It's not as if he's
someone we *have* to have an article about — like President Bush or
Tony Blair.

I accept that Jimbo has the right to make decisions even if we don't
like them. But I think in this case, he has completely failed to give
due regard to the feelings of people whose privacy has been severely
violated by Brandt, and who have suffered real life consequences as a
result.

The community has not agreed to delete Brandt's biography, and the
community has not agreed to unblock him. So why is Jimbo invoking his
privileges to unblock rather than to delete? Brandt doesn't want to
edit Wikipedia if his biography is gone; he just wants to have the
biography deleted.

The argument for deleting it is that it's the decent thing to do, and
it might stop the stalking. An argument against deleting it is that
he's notable enough to *permit* inclusion. He is not notable enough to
*require* inclusion. We would not lose credibility as an encylopaedia
if the article were gone. Another argument against deleting it is that
some people will complain that process wasn't followed.

There is no argument for unblocking him that would not apply equally
or more to deleting his biography. He wants it deleted; it might stop
the stalking. So are the arguments *against* deleting more compelling
than the arguments against unblocking? An argument against unblocking
is that he has shown absolutely no remorse for the harm he has caused,
and that the unblocking shows a colossal lack of respect for his
victims. It's nothing short of creepy for people who have watched him
posting their supposed photos, his speculation about their identity,
where they live, where they work, who their work superiors are, how
he's contacting their supposed ex-boyfriends, etc. to edit Wikipedia
alongside him, both being considered as Wikipedians in good standing.
It's inconsiderate and insensitive to expect them to. And it's
outrageous that Brandt was unblocked without even a courtesty
notification to his main victims. I don't have a reputation for being
touchy, but I would feel profoundly disrespected if someone who knew
about my case unblocked my stalker, and if the first I heard of it was
when Tony Sidaway posted about it on the Commnuity Noticeboard. People
are arguing that Brandt hasn't done anything bad on Wikipedia since he
was unblocked, so there has been no disadvantage. There is a *huge*
disadvantage in allowing a situation where so much ill will is
generated, where victims feel undermined, where the feelings of
excellent contributors who have worked tirelessly to improve the
encyclopaedia are set aside like that, and where their stalker is not
even told that his off-wiki harassment of them must cease.

Now, one could argue that there would be a justification for
reluctantly permitting a situation in which Brandt's victims feel
undermined, in the hope of bringing an end to the harassment they have
suffered, if there is no other option that would achieve that end, and
that would not cause so much ill feeling. But the article could have
been deleted without the same amount of ill feeling, and with the same
result — perhaps with a better result, since it's what Brandt actually
*wants*.

Jimbo put as one of his reasons for unblocking that it had been "more
than a year" since he was blocked. It is indeed more than a year since
he was blocked, but it is *not* more than a year since he has been
engaged in posting private information about our editors to public
websites. It's more than a year since *my* stalker was blocked, but
the phoncalls to my workplace, the threats to my family, the e-mails
about parts of my body, the maps of my city with my workbuilding
highlighted, the words "now that we have you surrounded, we start
slowly tightening the ring" are all much more recent. And Brandt was
still posting stuff about one of our administrator's supposed identity
at another website within hours of being unblocked.

But for those who sincerely think Brandt is too notable for deletion
of the article to be an option, I have my last point. I would have
said all along, and I'm sure I *have* said, "Keep him banned; he can
e-mail his concerns about the article to the Foundation." And I would
have assumed that I was being fair. Brandt claims in his open letter
(now on Talk:Daniel Brandt) that he has been sending e-mails and faxes
for eighteen months, that he sent a fax to Jimbo, a fax to Brad, and a
fax to Danny, and that he did not receive a reply to any. Is it true
that he was informing the Foundation of his concerns with his
biography, and that his messages were ignored? If so, and if deleting
his biography was not an option, why was unblocking him considered,
rather than having someone from the Foundation respond to his
communications, and help him to have inaccuracies removed from his
biography?

Ann

Musical Linguist 18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin&curid=2045205&diff=124426435&oldid=124426334)