[WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Part of the problem with the bio is that it has been unstable -- 2446
> edits by 718 unique editors, including 271 IP addresses, which is a
> lot for a borderline notable page. That is the core of Brandt's
> objection, namely that there are too many anonymous editors involved
> in writing it, so that he has to keep on checking it, and he feels
> this is a burden. The flaw in his position is that Brandt himself
> caused this situation by stirring up people's interest. If he would
> stop doing that once the page was protected, the issue would die down,
> and he'd be left with a brief, factual entry that would do him no harm
> at all.
>
> Sarah


Reverting to that version would remove any mention of Wikipedia criticism.
So no, I don't think that's acceptable. As for anon editors: that's what
semi-protection is for. Yes, he would get a lot less attention if he stopped
asking for it in the first place.