On 6/14/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We need to get rid of that article. We've
subjected Brandt to hundreds
of thousands of words of debate, 14 AfDs, I don't know how many DRVs
-- wall-to-wall bickering and childishness for 18 sorry months. We've
allowed his article to be edited by any anonymous teenager who turns
up with a grudge, and the decision to keep the wretched thing has been
made 13 times by people who normally edit Star Trek. We've made
complete fools of ourselves as a project.
First off all, would you please stay away from characterizing people
who disagree with you in such an offensive way? It's rude and it
lowers the tone of the debate. I realise WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF doesn't
apply directly to the mailing list, but they are generally prettu good
policies to follow in general.
No matter the merits of the article, the process
he's been put through
is totally unacceptable by any standard. We've shown we can't be
trusted with a Brandt bio, and we should delete it for that reason
alone, no matter how notable any of us thinks he is.
This is a good point, but aren't you rewriting history a bit? I mean,
why is it that Brandt is such a controversial subject on wikipedia? Is
it our fault, did we start harassing a completely innocent man just
because we're such bastards?
Of course not! Brandt has made it his life mission to destroy
wikipedia, in any way he can. He puts up admins names, addresses and
pictures and he loves to screw with them. Wikipedia needs good
critics, that makes us better, but he is the worst of the worst.
Whatever painful experience he has gone through due to wikipedia is
entirely his fault. There may be reasons for his article to be
deleted, but "We're being so mean to him!" is not one of them, not in
this case.
--Oskar