[WikiEN-l] [Redacted] complaining Was: Admins who do not have email this user enabled (list inside)

[Charlotte Webb]

On 9/17/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well, I am quite banned, and I haven't been
> in good standing since 3 June 2007, so what
> have I got to lose?

Actually, you're not. If you were, I would be too. My situation was no
more complex then yours, only more highly publicized, but equally
pointless in the end (the arbcom case, that is. I like to re-read it
every now and then, maybe you should too).

> Let's see, his article lasted nearly two years
> before being blanked and redirected, despite
> his strong objections throughout most of that
> time period.  14 AfDs from November 2005 to
> June 2007 - 14 AfDs in 20 months.

Most of which resulted in an overwhelming keep. The first one is quite
interesting in retrospect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt

Notice not only the usernames, those of people whom, paying attention
to only the recent events surrounding the article, you would least
expect, one would least expect to see opining "keep" on any article
titled "Daniel Brandt" for Christ's sake, Daniel Fucking Brandt...

Also, look at the timestamps, then notice that half of the sources —
those used in newer, more comprehensive (but less definitive?)
revisions of the article — were not even published yet at the time of
that discussion.

So what do you do in a situation like this? Revert back to a version
that was unanimously kept?

> It is well known that I strongly disapprove of
> many of his actions.

Which, incidentally, are no longer documented.

> However, Wikipaedia has caused him great
> pain...

We write from our sources. "Great pain"? Try childbirth (or try to
keep your clothes on).

—C.W.


-- 
—C.W.