[WikiEN-l] Brandt says he might sue even if his bio is taken down!

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

On 4/24/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 24/04/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:25 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> >
> > > P.S. Did that Barbara Bauer lawsuit ever actually get to court or
> > > was that
> > > another empty threat?
> >
> > I'm not sure. But the article got deleted because an admin decided
> > that "I'm unconvinced by the arguments that the sources are reliable"
> > is equivalent to "there is not a consensus that the sources are
> > reliable," and the usual fun at DRV failed to overturn it.
>
> Not strictly accurate. The admin in question decided that "I'm
> unconvinced by the arguments that the sources are reliable" is
> equivalent to "there **is** a consensus that the sources **are not**
> reliable". By the current rules, no consensus would result in status
> quo, i.e. a keep.


Since when does one admin's personal opinion constitute concensus?
Of course, people who don't know a thing about literature can make a
consensus, but I prefer one by people who know what they are talking about.
I could jump into a deletion debate on metaphysics, but I'd do preciously
little to reach concensus. I'm simply not informed about metaphysics
conventions and the like.

The sources in question were deemed not reliable even though they were
written by established writers and even though they were on the website of a
well-known writer's organization because they happened to talk about Bauer's
negative actions and happened to be published in blog form. A whole bunch of
comments said the source was unreliable, but failed to give any explanation
as to why they believed it to be the case.

Mgm