[WikiEN-l] [[Daniel Brandt]] is gone again

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On 6/14/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, his painful experience is partly his fault, but a lot of what's
> happened is down to people digging their heels in and shouting keep
> only because he wants it to be deleted, which is where the
> childishness kicks in. What you're coming close to saying is we should
> keep his article out of malice. He's been unpleasant, so we can't be
> expected to behave decently?

I absolutely don't think we should keep it out of spite. I think that
real life considerations should factor in, that marginally notable
people who don't want bios should be allowed for them to be taken
down. I don't think this applies here though. The problems he has had
with wikipedia are entirely due to himself. This is not an innocent
victim that we happened to pick on, this is a man who has led an
organised crusade to harass and hurt wikipedians. It's not our fault
that this has happened, it is his (this is not John Seigenthaler, for
instance. In that case, we did a grave wrong to him and we should feel
ashamed about it. Not so now.) He's the bad guy here.

As for whether we should keep or delete this article, I don't really
have an opinion. I would lean towards deletion, but I'm not too fussed
if it stays. I'm just saying that considerations about his "feelings"
shouldn't be applied as a criterion. He has forfeited that privilege.

--Oskar