My bio is up for AfD per my request, and so is Seth Finkelstein's bio per his request.
Please help us by voting to delete on these two AfDs.
Full Version: Please help me and Seth get our bios deleted
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 10th June 2007, 12:45am) 
My bio is up for AfD per my request, and so is Seth Finkelstein's bio per his request.
Please help us by voting to delete on these two AfDs.
Good luck, you persuaded me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=137152615
QUOTE(Robster @ Sat 9th June 2007, 8:20am)
QUOTE(Reaverdrop in the Allison Stokke AfD @ 4 June 2007 23:43 UTC)
The comments by David.Monniaux on WP:BLP in the previous nomination, to the effect that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry...." etc., should have been the last word on the matter. -
Quote-parking again... might want to keep this one handy the next time Daniel's article comes up for deletion.
That was quick.
I've dropped this quote on both AfDs. Let's see how quickly I get eviscerated for it.
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 9th June 2007, 8:45pm)
My bio is up for AfD per my request, and so is Seth Finkelstein's bio per his request.
Please help us by voting to delete on these two AfDs.
I have to seriously question whether an AfD is the right way for you to approach this issue.
Alan Keyes, who I agree is a nutcake, nonetheless posed an interesting question in the 2000 presidential race: If the income tax rate is 20%, how much of your income does the government control? The answer is not 20%. The state controls 100% since you constantly have to justify to the government why you are entitled to keep the remaining income.
By allowing Wikipedia to use its forum to determine a "consensus" you have granted to Wikipedia the right to define what consensus means. Just from loking at the current vote, I can see already that the article is probably going to remain. This just makes it all the more difficult for you to get it removed in the future.
If I were in your position, I would simply bide my time. Politics and Wikipedia being what they are, it's only a question of time before faces change, cabals collapse, chaos erupts and you could probably find a friendly administrator to quietly take down the article while no one is looking.
None of that made any sense whatsoever!
I advise everyone to be vigilant and watch those keep voters very carefully for another farcical DennyColt or David Spart sockpuppet frenzy, of the sort which railroaded the last Brandt afd.
So far keeps have come from the below; (people with less than 1000 edits in bold)
If anyone cares to spend some time digging into the backstories of these guys to check for anomalies, they are welcome (with the obvious exception of Jeff, no introductions needed).
So far keeps have come from the below; (people with less than 1000 edits in bold)
QUOTE
*John254 - 7748 edits - most edits=31 to "Masturbation"
*Badlydrawnjeff
*Bogdangiusca - 30,025 edits - most edits=122 to "Transnistria"
*Shawn K. Quinn - 70 edits - most edits=4 to "Magnatune" record label
*DESiegel - 13766 edits - most edits=127 to "Contract bridge glossary"
*Jjay - 8077 edits - most edits=50 to "High school subcultures"
*ElbridgeGerry - 155 edits - most edits=4 to "PenAgain" claims he is located on East Capitol Street and works at the United States Capitol.
*SunStar Net - 3331 edits - most edits=9 to "Volkswagen Golf"
*h2g2bob - 4784 edits - most edits=115 to "Recording Industry Association of America" real name: David Batley
*Richfife - 1909 edits - most edits=59 to "Dawn of the Dead (2004 film)". Real name:Rich Fife. "Raised in Tucson, AZ and currently live in the SF Bay area. A computer programmer who's mostly worked in Video Games and streaming video."
*Javit - 1358 edits - most edits=12 to "Second Life". Real name:Cavit Erginsoy (pronounced 'Javit'). Living in: Southampton, UK.
*Oakshade - 3097 edits - most edits=30 to "Barbara Biggs" Voted keep on the Allison Stokke article with the logic "the world decides if something is notable, not Wikipedia editors." Tinkered with the Brandt article a few times. Heavily involved in afd process, usually from an inclusionist stand point. Seems to have no understanding of BLP sourcing issues. Previously blocked for 3rr.
*Mister.Manticore - 5765 edits - most edits=67 to "Classes in World of Warcraft". Another one of these weird afd wonks. Lurks around the deletion pages attempting to influence decisions towards inclusion. Very little productive work otherwise.
*R. S. Shaw - 4687 edits - most edits=68 to "Binary numeral system". Mysteriously added "One more editor in the hive" to his user page. Edits science yet dabbles in the Brandt article in his spare time. Demanded that the Brandt article include birthplace and date etc. Obvious axe to grind.
*Nick mallory - 4236 edits - most edits=162 to "England cricket team"
*R. Baley - 757 edits - most edits=150 to "Michael J. Fox"
*Resolute - 7669 edits - most edits=128 to "Calgary Hitmen"
*Haemo -5594 edits - most edits=69 to "StarCraft II". Real name:Jonathan Graves. "I currently reside in British Columbia, Canada, and am in my fourth (and a half) year of a Double Honors program at the University of Victoria in Mathematics and Economics. I have also been a teaching assistant at the selfsame university, in the Department of Economics, from 2004 to 2007, and have previously taught mathematical economics."
*Fordmadoxfraud - 4156 edits - most edits=30 to "Celebrity sex tape". Full identity details and photo can be found here.
*wwwwolf - 4949 edits - most edits=41 to Ultima VII. Real name:Urpo Lankinen. "In the electronic world, I go by nick WWWWolf or Weyfour WWWWolf. Officially, my job description at the moment includes being a student of Information Processing Sciences at University of Oulu, Finland."
*SakotGrimshine - 849 edits - most edits=30 to "Cow tipping" Aimless troll who actually voted delete on previous Brandt afd
*J Milburn - 7352 edits - most edits=Voltaire(musician). Administrator. "In real life, I am an English School pupil, from Ireleth, in Cumbria, England. I am currently 16, and studying for my GCSEs." More details and full name are found here.
*Zahakiel - 1928 edits - most edits="Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church". Real name:David P. Aguilar Jr. A PhD student in Computer Science, studying at the University of South Florida (USF) in Tampa, FL. Member of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. Claims to be an author of published works.
*Latebird - 3458 edits - most edits=Mongolia. Single purpose account editing almost exclusively on Mongolia - comes from nowhere to comment on the Brandt article. Latebird writes "He became famous for pushing other people and organisations into the spotlight against their will." What nonsense is this?
*JamesMLane 11698 edits - most edits=301 to George W. Bush.
*DGG 11940 edits - Most edits=60 to "Open access". Administrator. Real name:David Goodman. Librarian.
*Seraphimblade 12588 edits - Most edits="Fabolous". Administrator. Name: Todd. Originally from Denver, Colorado, currently living near Seattle, Washington. Describes himself as a deletionist "World War II. The Roman Empire. Hell, even Britney Spears. These things are human knowledge in that they are important (or at least notable) to humanity as a whole. " Then votes keep on the Brandt article!
* Itub 2416 edits - most edits=46 to "Water model". Mostly edits science articles. Voted "Snowball Keep" when the votes were in favour of deletion! Despite that mathematical blunder, incredibly, Itub is a Monty Hall Problem enthusiast.
*Seventy Seven Thousand . OBVIOUS SOCKPUPPET. 7 edits. All related to the Brandt article dating back to February. Registered 2 days after DennyColt and a day before David Spart.
*David.Mestel. 4256 edits. Most edits=Arbitration report for wikipedia signpost. Secondary school student living in South-East England.
*Vadder. 216 edits. Most edits to "Fanboy". Describes himself as "a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians".
*WilyD 6237 edits. most edits=152 Scarborough, Ontario. Administrator. Inclusionist troll who argues to keep every piece of crap on the site. An absolute prick and an ignoramus. We certainly haven't heard the last of this guy.
*Badlydrawnjeff
*Bogdangiusca - 30,025 edits - most edits=122 to "Transnistria"
*Shawn K. Quinn - 70 edits - most edits=4 to "Magnatune" record label
*DESiegel - 13766 edits - most edits=127 to "Contract bridge glossary"
*Jjay - 8077 edits - most edits=50 to "High school subcultures"
*ElbridgeGerry - 155 edits - most edits=4 to "PenAgain" claims he is located on East Capitol Street and works at the United States Capitol.
*SunStar Net - 3331 edits - most edits=9 to "Volkswagen Golf"
*h2g2bob - 4784 edits - most edits=115 to "Recording Industry Association of America" real name: David Batley
*Richfife - 1909 edits - most edits=59 to "Dawn of the Dead (2004 film)". Real name:Rich Fife. "Raised in Tucson, AZ and currently live in the SF Bay area. A computer programmer who's mostly worked in Video Games and streaming video."
*Javit - 1358 edits - most edits=12 to "Second Life". Real name:Cavit Erginsoy (pronounced 'Javit'). Living in: Southampton, UK.
*Oakshade - 3097 edits - most edits=30 to "Barbara Biggs" Voted keep on the Allison Stokke article with the logic "the world decides if something is notable, not Wikipedia editors." Tinkered with the Brandt article a few times. Heavily involved in afd process, usually from an inclusionist stand point. Seems to have no understanding of BLP sourcing issues. Previously blocked for 3rr.
*Mister.Manticore - 5765 edits - most edits=67 to "Classes in World of Warcraft". Another one of these weird afd wonks. Lurks around the deletion pages attempting to influence decisions towards inclusion. Very little productive work otherwise.
*R. S. Shaw - 4687 edits - most edits=68 to "Binary numeral system". Mysteriously added "One more editor in the hive" to his user page. Edits science yet dabbles in the Brandt article in his spare time. Demanded that the Brandt article include birthplace and date etc. Obvious axe to grind.
*Nick mallory - 4236 edits - most edits=162 to "England cricket team"
*R. Baley - 757 edits - most edits=150 to "Michael J. Fox"
*Resolute - 7669 edits - most edits=128 to "Calgary Hitmen"
*Haemo -5594 edits - most edits=69 to "StarCraft II". Real name:Jonathan Graves. "I currently reside in British Columbia, Canada, and am in my fourth (and a half) year of a Double Honors program at the University of Victoria in Mathematics and Economics. I have also been a teaching assistant at the selfsame university, in the Department of Economics, from 2004 to 2007, and have previously taught mathematical economics."
*Fordmadoxfraud - 4156 edits - most edits=30 to "Celebrity sex tape". Full identity details and photo can be found here.
*wwwwolf - 4949 edits - most edits=41 to Ultima VII. Real name:Urpo Lankinen. "In the electronic world, I go by nick WWWWolf or Weyfour WWWWolf. Officially, my job description at the moment includes being a student of Information Processing Sciences at University of Oulu, Finland."
*J Milburn - 7352 edits - most edits=Voltaire(musician). Administrator. "In real life, I am an English School pupil, from Ireleth, in Cumbria, England. I am currently 16, and studying for my GCSEs." More details and full name are found here.
*Zahakiel - 1928 edits - most edits="Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church". Real name:David P. Aguilar Jr. A PhD student in Computer Science, studying at the University of South Florida (USF) in Tampa, FL. Member of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. Claims to be an author of published works.
*Latebird - 3458 edits - most edits=Mongolia. Single purpose account editing almost exclusively on Mongolia - comes from nowhere to comment on the Brandt article. Latebird writes "He became famous for pushing other people and organisations into the spotlight against their will." What nonsense is this?
*JamesMLane 11698 edits - most edits=301 to George W. Bush.
*DGG 11940 edits - Most edits=60 to "Open access". Administrator. Real name:David Goodman. Librarian.
*Seraphimblade 12588 edits - Most edits="Fabolous". Administrator. Name: Todd. Originally from Denver, Colorado, currently living near Seattle, Washington. Describes himself as a deletionist "World War II. The Roman Empire. Hell, even Britney Spears. These things are human knowledge in that they are important (or at least notable) to humanity as a whole. " Then votes keep on the Brandt article!
* Itub 2416 edits - most edits=46 to "Water model". Mostly edits science articles. Voted "Snowball Keep" when the votes were in favour of deletion! Despite that mathematical blunder, incredibly, Itub is a Monty Hall Problem enthusiast.
*Seventy Seven Thousand . OBVIOUS SOCKPUPPET. 7 edits. All related to the Brandt article dating back to February. Registered 2 days after DennyColt and a day before David Spart.
*David.Mestel. 4256 edits. Most edits=Arbitration report for wikipedia signpost. Secondary school student living in South-East England.
*Vadder. 216 edits. Most edits to "Fanboy". Describes himself as "a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians".
*WilyD 6237 edits. most edits=152 Scarborough, Ontario. Administrator. Inclusionist troll who argues to keep every piece of crap on the site. An absolute prick and an ignoramus. We certainly haven't heard the last of this guy.
If anyone cares to spend some time digging into the backstories of these guys to check for anomalies, they are welcome (with the obvious exception of Jeff, no introductions needed).
I've always found Jjay to be sensible and reasonable.
ElbridgeGerry, who has made very few edits elsewhere, seems to be fulfilling the Colt/Spart role of persistent footstamping to ensure the article remains. Watch his contributions very closely. Something is amiss here. 
Oh, and respect is due to Squeakbox for voting delete. Publicly changing one's mind based on reconsideration of an issue is a highly admirable quality. Good for you Squeaky.
Oh, and respect is due to Squeakbox for voting delete. Publicly changing one's mind based on reconsideration of an issue is a highly admirable quality. Good for you Squeaky.
Okay, just because it didn't make sense doesn't mean this stuff shouldn't be addressed point-by-point, if only for the record.
Like he has a choice? You seem to be confused as to who's in control here.
Isn't that precisely why he's called a "nutcake"? Again, this is not the correct definition of "control." The state simply takes 20 percent, the idea that they "let you keep 80 percent" is just rhetoric to win votes, based on the so-called "tax-relief" issue. It has very little to do with reality, unless you're just someone who's obsessed with complaining about taxes.
Again, he has no choice in the matter. In essence, what's happening here is that a bunch of anonymous cybergoons are playing around with a man's reputation and livelihood simply because it amuses them in some sick way or other.
He's granted them no such thing! He's just trying to get them to stop persecuting him, ferchrissake!
It makes it more likely that he'll have to sue them, if that's what you mean. And every unsuccessful AfD just gives his case that much more validity, and provides yet more opportunity for the Keep Brandt Brigade to show how malicious they are, and have been all along.
How long? Years? Decades? Does he have to die first?
Would you take that bet if the article were about you? And you do remember what happened to the last admin that tried that, do you not?
QUOTE(JTM @ Sat 9th June 2007, 10:28pm)
I have to seriously question whether an AfD is the right way for you to approach this issue.
Like he has a choice? You seem to be confused as to who's in control here.
QUOTE
Alan Keyes, who I agree is a nutcake, nonetheless posed an interesting question in the 2000 presidential race: If the income tax rate is 20%, how much of your income does the government control? The answer is not 20%. The state controls 100% since you constantly have to justify to the government why you are entitled to keep the remaining income.
Isn't that precisely why he's called a "nutcake"? Again, this is not the correct definition of "control." The state simply takes 20 percent, the idea that they "let you keep 80 percent" is just rhetoric to win votes, based on the so-called "tax-relief" issue. It has very little to do with reality, unless you're just someone who's obsessed with complaining about taxes.
QUOTE
By allowing Wikipedia to use its forum to determine a "consensus"...
Again, he has no choice in the matter. In essence, what's happening here is that a bunch of anonymous cybergoons are playing around with a man's reputation and livelihood simply because it amuses them in some sick way or other.
QUOTE
...you have granted to Wikipedia the right to define what consensus means.
He's granted them no such thing! He's just trying to get them to stop persecuting him, ferchrissake!
QUOTE
Just from loking at the current vote, I can see already that the article is probably going to remain. This just makes it all the more difficult for you to get it removed in the future.
It makes it more likely that he'll have to sue them, if that's what you mean. And every unsuccessful AfD just gives his case that much more validity, and provides yet more opportunity for the Keep Brandt Brigade to show how malicious they are, and have been all along.
QUOTE
If I were in your position, I would simply bide my time.
How long? Years? Decades? Does he have to die first?
QUOTE
Politics and Wikipedia being what they are, it's only a question of time before faces change, cabals collapse, chaos erupts and you could probably find a friendly administrator to quietly take down the article while no one is looking.
Would you take that bet if the article were about you? And you do remember what happened to the last admin that tried that, do you not?
JTM may be simply expressing a lack of faith in the WP "community" and "consensus" being the correct means of getting any relief. Perhaps litigation or Board of Trustee intervention would be a better choice. Despite this, however, if Seth and DB request our assistance in a specific process I think we should do everything in our means to accommodate that request.
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 10th June 2007, 7:30am)
ElbridgeGerry, who has made very few edits elsewhere, seems to be fulfilling the Colt/Spart role of persistent footstamping to ensure the article remains. Watch his contributions very closely. Something is amiss here.
"ElbridgeGerry" seems to be one of those accounts that "hangs out" rather than contributes - i.e., I believe he/she is much more of a chatroom participant than an editor. Probably a sock puppet of someone, though... If WP were a real encyclopedia, he'd be the rough equivalent of Milton from Office Space.
Obviously, people like this have one goal in mind: Adminship. It's despicable, and the rest of them are so blinkered to their own reality, they don't even realize it's going on.
QUOTE
Oh, and respect is due to Squeakbox for voting delete. Publicly changing one's mind based on reconsideration of an issue is a highly admirable quality. Good for you Squeaky.
Agreed. We may have to rethink our own Squeaky policy after this one is over...
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 10th June 2007, 10:45am)
JTM may be simply expressing a lack of faith in the WP "community" and "consensus" being the correct means of getting any relief.
Perhaps, but "correct" once again implies that there's a choice involved here on his part. I could see "an effective means," of course... Hopefully that's what you meant...
QUOTE
Perhaps litigation or Board of Trustee intervention would be a better choice.
Litigation is probably his only "choice," which doesn't make it much of a choice! The Bored of Trustees isn't going to lift a finger. That's one of the problems with having those people "elected" from the "community" - if they don't adequately reflect the privacy-invading, cyberstalking values of the Keep Brandt Brigade, they'll simply be voted out and replaced with people who do.
Then again, the WP'ers could always surprise us this time, and take a real, positive step towards having Wikipedia join the ranks of respectable, civilization-friendly information-distribution entities... You just never know.
Nemeses MONGO, Sidaway and Slim have weighed in, showing insight and wisdom not evident elsewhere, to vote delete. In fact SlimVirgin's testimony is the wisest and most articulate on the page. When the users of this board are in agreement with the likes of SV, MONGO and co, then surely it is time to burn that miserable article to the ground and dance on the ashes. No amount of ridiculous DennyColt figures - or idiots who edit masturbating cow tipper articles - should be allowed to de-rail this noble process.
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 10th June 2007, 12:15pm)
Nemeses MONGO, Sidaway, and Slim have weighed in, showing insight and wisdom not evident elsewhere, to vote delete. In fact SlimVirgin's testimony is the wisest and most articulate on the page. When the users of this board are in agreement with the likes of SV, MONGO and co, then surely it is time to burn that miserable article to the ground and dance on the ashes. No amount of ridiculous DennyColt figures — or idiots who edit masturbating cow tipper articles — should be allowed to de-rail this noble process.
I'm confused —
Is that (masturbating cow) tipper
or masturbating (cow tipper) ???
Jonny
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 10th June 2007, 9:45am)
Perhaps litigation or Board of Trustee intervention would be a better choice.
The Board of Trustees won't touch this. I asked for information on when and how to appeal to the Board on May 24. Cary Bass at the Wikimedia office issued a ticket number the next day (Ticket #2007052410020751) and replied that he was unable to address the issue of deletion of my biography, and "given the timing of your email with the holiday weekend, will not likely have anything before next week." There is a copy of my letter to Mr. Bass on my Talk page.
"Next week" came and went, with no response to this issue.
Meanwhile, Board chair Florence Devouard (aka Anthere) reported on June 4 that there was a face-to-face Board meeting in the Netherlands on June 1, 2, and 3. "Board members present for the three days were Kat Walsh, Florence Devouard, Erik Moeller, Jan-Bart De Vreede and Jimmy Wales. Oscar Van Dillen joined us saturday morning. Other guests were also present, including Carolyn Doran, our COO."
I presume that if the Board was at all inclined to take up my case, they would have discussed this at that time, and I would have heard from Mr. Bass on Ticket #2007052410020751 by now.
Ms. Devouard further reported that "We spent a large part of our time discussing what we perceive are the two most critical issues to solve very urgently, hiring a new ED [executive director] and a new legal person. A large place was given to a list of legal tasks, the future fundraiser and the audit (the fiscal year just ended last week)."
The Board is obviously rudderless, and with three Board slots up for election this month, they're not in a position to do anything at all for me.
The current AfD appears to be my only hope.
The intrangent idiots are winning. A lawsuit is the only recourse left.
QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 10th June 2007, 4:55pm)
The intrangent idiots are winning. A lawsuit is the only recourse left.
Not so.
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 10th June 2007, 9:15am)
and Slim have weighed in, showing insight and wisdom not evident elsewhere, to vote delete. In fact SlimVirgin's
Crum voted to delete, too.
It, in fact, appears that just about everybody who's active in the great "BADSITES debate", on both sides, is voting "delete". Interesting.
Seth's article is definitely getting the axe. Brandt's significantly higher profile than Seth(I did a quick search for "Daniel Brandt" on ProQuest and got 197 hits, about half of which were our Brandt) and he's spent two years deliberately antagonizing Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I'm going to guess Brandt's article will also go away.
QUOTE(Chris Croy @ Sun 10th June 2007, 2:05pm)
Seth's article is definitely getting the axe. Brandt's significantly higher profile than Seth(I did a quick search for "Daniel Brandt" on ProQuest and got 197 hits, about half of which were our Brandt) and he's spent two years deliberately antagonizing Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I'm going to guess Brandt's article will also go away.
It all depends on the decision rule they use. Choices are:
- Burden of showing consensus on "Delete" the purported usual rule;
- Burden of showing consensus on "Keep" which has been discussed in BLP reform but I do not believe it has been accepted as policy, or;
- Lawless whim, the de facto decision rule of all WP "discussions."
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 10th June 2007, 4:25pm)
QUOTE(Chris Croy @ Sun 10th June 2007, 2:05pm)
Seth's article is definitely getting the axe. Brandt's significantly higher profile than Seth(I did a quick search for "Daniel Brandt" on ProQuest and got 197 hits, about half of which were our Brandt) and he's spent two years deliberately antagonizing Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I'm going to guess Brandt's article will also go away.
It all depends on the decision rule they use. Choices are:
- Burden of showing consensus on "Delete" the purported usual rule;
- Burden of showing consensus on "Keep" which has been discussed in BLP reform but I do not believe it has been accepted as policy, or;
- Lawless whim, the de facto decision rule of all WP "discussions".
Maybe they should have a pre-vote to decide which decision rule to use ...
The Mind Toggles ...
Jonny
I expect, given the current keep/delete trend, that it will go down. This assumes that Durova can maintain control and is the closing admin. There's a good chance she can, because if you look at the "deletes" as opposed to the "keeps," the high-level admins are on the "delete" side of the debate. I'm hopeful that another DennyColt sabotage is no longer likely to happen. Moreover, some of the nervously vocal "keeps" are obvious newbies, and not very convincing.
Durova has already cited this new BLP modification. My guess is that if "delete" gets around 50 percent or better, this AfD will close as a "delete." That's because I'm hopeful that Durova intends to invoke this new BLP clause and set a precedent.
Durova has already cited this new BLP modification. My guess is that if "delete" gets around 50 percent or better, this AfD will close as a "delete." That's because I'm hopeful that Durova intends to invoke this new BLP clause and set a precedent.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 10th June 2007, 7:35pm)
It, in fact, appears that just about everybody who's active in the great "BADSITES debate", on both sides, is voting "delete". Interesting.
I find it interesting too, is there anything to read into that or is it a coincidence?
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 10th June 2007, 11:31am)
QUOTE
If I were in your position, I would simply bide my time.
How long? Years? Decades? Does he have to die first?
QUOTE
Politics and Wikipedia being what they are, it's only a question of time before faces change, cabals collapse, chaos erupts and you could probably find a friendly administrator to quietly take down the article while no one is looking.
Would you take that bet if the article were about you? And you do remember what happened to the last admin that tried that, do you not?
I believe that the article could be deleted out of process prior to the end of the year. Things are deteriorating rather quickly at Wikipedia and there will be some point where the rules get thrown out and Daniel will have an opportunity to take advantage of it.
And as for the article about me, well. . . it's there, sharing space with Eli the Bearded.
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Sun 10th June 2007, 2:59pm)
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 10th June 2007, 7:35pm)
It, in fact, appears that just about everybody who's active in the great "BADSITES debate", on both sides, is voting "delete". Interesting.
I find it interesting too, is there anything to read into that or is it a coincidence?
I think it might be something like this:
- Pro-WR Badsites -are sympathetic to DB cause and are honestly voting their loyalties and views,and;
- Pro-Cabal Badsites- know that the whole discussion has become contrary to their interests and influence on WP. They hope to satisfy DB and that by doing so they will dissipate WR as an effective critique of their power.
I think that we can alll understand the fear & trembling &cetera of the Persona Who Wears the Mask of SlimVirgin, to wit, that she is quickly approaching the thrash-hold of notoriety by even the most conservative of real world standards. There4 she and her SlimVassals may hope against hope to 4stall the handwrithing on the wall by changing BLP Policy in a way that will protect the Cabal 4ever-&-ever-hence-4ward. Daniel Brandt may be lucky enough to get a sop off that tossage — maybe not. Of course, the ability to declare any organized body of critics — and what does that have to do with present company, you ask? — a BADSITE, is perfectly consistent with their overall program to keep on covering their hineys as best they can.
Jonny
Jonny
But when the two cliques I distrust... the Slim/MONGO group over on WP, and the whole gang here on WR... are on the same side on something, that starts inclining me, contrary ol' cuss as I am, to want to take the *other* side, and vote "Keep"...
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 10th June 2007, 3:23pm)
But when the two cliques I distrust... the Slim/MONGO group over on WP, and the whole gang here on WR... are on the same side on something, that starts inclining me, contrary ol' cuss as I am, to want to take the *other* side, and vote "Keep"...
Badlydrawnjeff voted to keep. But he always does votes to keep to my knowledge.
Just a question -- why should we care whether Wikipedia has an article on Brandt, or any living person? I'm not saying we should or shouldn't care, I'm just asking for the argument in support of Brandt which I never seem to hear made. Doesn't Wikipedia have a right to freedom of speech? If its statements are blatantly false or libelous, then why doesn't Brandt simply file a lawsuit? Surely, everyone does have a right to talk about another... maybe I'm not understanding something here.
They certainly aren't going to just up and delete the article because you ask nicely; at some point, I think he is either going to have to sue, or just accept it.
They certainly aren't going to just up and delete the article because you ask nicely; at some point, I think he is either going to have to sue, or just accept it.
If it is deleted, what's to stop another case of AFD to DRV and back to AFD all over again?
That seems to be a way to force articles to stay on WP, always coming up with a new consensus until the Pro-Keep people can get a Keep consensus.
Perhaps in contentious AFDs/DRVs, more than one admin weighing in would be preferable? I mean, how can one admin investigate all the "votes" (technically discussions, but I tend to say votes anyway) and come to close to a true consensus? DennyColts and Daniel Sparts are able to game the system this way.
Should we have hope in this or wait until the 15th nomination to "AGF" in the Community?
I will say that I'm glad a good many others (Cabal included) are pushing for deletion. I tried to go for delete the last go round but I felt bullied and gave up. I feel that I've been exonerated now as I too have voted delete.
That seems to be a way to force articles to stay on WP, always coming up with a new consensus until the Pro-Keep people can get a Keep consensus.
Perhaps in contentious AFDs/DRVs, more than one admin weighing in would be preferable? I mean, how can one admin investigate all the "votes" (technically discussions, but I tend to say votes anyway) and come to close to a true consensus? DennyColts and Daniel Sparts are able to game the system this way.
Should we have hope in this or wait until the 15th nomination to "AGF" in the Community?
I will say that I'm glad a good many others (Cabal included) are pushing for deletion. I tried to go for delete the last go round but I felt bullied and gave up. I feel that I've been exonerated now as I too have voted delete.
QUOTE(Lir @ Sun 10th June 2007, 5:09pm)
Just a question -- why should we care whether Wikipedia has an article on Brandt, or any living person? I'm not saying we should or shouldn't care, I'm just asking for the argument in support of Brandt which I never seem to hear made. Doesn't Wikipedia have a right to freedom of speech? If its statements are blatantly false or libelous, then why doesn't Brandt simply file a lawsuit? Surely, everyone does have a right to talk about another... maybe I'm not understanding something here.
They certainly aren't going to just up and delete the article because you ask nicely; at some point, I think he is either going to have to sue, or just accept it.
I think a critique of WP is developing that because of a weak Board of Trustees, under-staffing, a dysfunctional "community, and an increasingly absent "god-king" WP has become irresponsible on a number of levels. Irresponsible to honest editors who want no part of a "soiciopathic media" community. Irresponsible in an academic sense to a wider community utilizing it a dependable source of information. Irresponsible to minors and others vulnerable people exposed to the "sociopathic media" community. And also irresponsible to thousands of BLP victims, who do not warrant the intrusion of "encyclopedic" coverage, especially when it can be "edited by anyone" without examination of motive or malice.
It is not a question of free speech. Nobody at WR would tolerate state intrusion into legitimate speech. It is a question of responsibility and self restraint which WP does not seem capable of achieving.
QUOTE(Lir @ Mon 11th June 2007, 12:09am)
Just a question -- why should we care whether Wikipedia has an article on Brandt, or any living person? I'm not saying we should or shouldn't care, I'm just asking for the argument in support of Brandt which I never seem to hear made. Doesn't Wikipedia have a right to freedom of speech? If its statements are blatantly false or libelous, then why doesn't Brandt simply file a lawsuit? Surely, everyone does have a right to talk about another... maybe I'm not understanding something here.
They certainly aren't going to just up and delete the article because you ask nicely; at some point, I think he is either going to have to sue, or just accept it.
For anyone to tolerate such a public article about themselves by an organization that has been proven to publish mistruths and malicious personal attacks - but is also the first entry on google in most cases - they should be in a position to take the rough with the smooth. I imagine that knowing there is such a volatile, changeable article about oneself is an unpleasant concern. However, people like Hulk Hogan or Scooter Libby are expected to tolerate critiques, satire and even public attacks on occasion. It comes with the territory, and there are numerous other biographies for people to check alternative histories for counterpoints.
People like Brandt and Seth are not in that position. Those who have given a few quotes to newspapers are borderline notability, the wikipedia article is about the only thing browsers are likely to read about the subject as there are no other biographies easily available. Hence the weight of the WP article is far greater, and the damage to the subject is far higher if abused. Lets not forget that these borderline cases generally haven't reaped the benefits of what notability they have gained, financially nor in social status. And they also lack the legal clout to question serious discrepancies.
In other words, such articles are unfair. They victimize people who don't have the status to fight back on an equal playing field. Brandt has fought back in an aggressive manner, but a lot of it looks like the desperation of a cornered animal. The whole episode has been ugly to watch, and sympathy for Brandt & Seth should have been a reflex emotion. Not a 2 year slog of conversion and tedious policy discussions.
QUOTE(Lir @ Mon 11th June 2007, 12:09am)
Just a question — why should we care whether Wikipedia has an article on Brandt, or any living person?
As I have suggested many times, the real issue here is Truth In Labeling.
If Wikipedia were a real encyclopedia, as many of us once dreamed it could be, I'm guessing that most of us here would be in there steadfastly defending it's duty to serve the public's right to know.
Many Wikipediots no doubt believe that Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia, or at least a respectable newspaper, and so they are steadfastly defending their right to do whatever they damn well please.
Ay, there's the rub — because the very same Wikipediots steadfastly defend their right to ignore what every other publisher has to do in order to qualify their publication in the public's mind as a real encyclopedia, a respectable newspaper, or whatever.
Hell, they can't even work up the collective nerve to call it a publication ..
Jonny
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 10th June 2007, 11:52pm)
Hence the weight of the WP article is far greater, and the damage to the subject is far higher if abused. Lets not forget that these borderline cases generally haven't reaped the benefits of what notability they have gained, financially nor in social status. And they also lack the legal clout to question serious discrepancies.
I suppose I agree with that; its frustrating how Google puts all Wikipedia articles so high in search results, and its certainly frustrating that Wikipedia masquerades as more authoritative than it is -- but aside from a moral argument that its just not very nice of Wikipedia to be so incompetent while discussing real live people, Im not sure what legal grounds there are to get Brandt's article removed.
Honestly though -- is anything in Brandt's article incorrect? I've seen a lot of inaccuracies in a lot of articles, but does Brandt object specifically to the current version, or does he just not want to spend the rest of his life checking to see whether Wikipedia has turned the article into biased bs?
QUOTE(Lir @ Sun 10th June 2007, 8:39pm)
I suppose I agree with that; its frustrating how Google puts all Wikipedia articles so high in search results, and its certainly frustrating that Wikipedia masquerades as more authoritative than it is — but aside from a moral argument that its just not very nice of Wikipedia to be so incompetent while discussing real live people, I'm not sure what legal grounds there are to get Brandt's article removed.
The same legal grounds that prevent cigarette makers from advertising the health benefits of smoking — as they actually used to do late into the last millennium. The catch in this case is what it usually is — the legal remedies are likely to lag far behind public information about fact-based research. Notice that factual information in the hands of the producers/publishers in question does the public no good, since there is bound to be a concerted effort to deny and dissemble the facts. The public will have to find folks who carry on independent investigations, even in the face of being constantly obstructed by the folks who are closest to the data.
Jonny
This might turn out to be fun and educational.
Hey, Mr. Earnest Wikipedian, please link to your evidence! (Oh, that's right, I forgot. The evidence is a BADSITE.)
QUOTE
It appears that Daniel Brandt is canvassing votes to delete this article. The closing admin will need to take into account possible interventions by SPAs, sock- and meatpuppets. There is of course also that possibility for "keep" votes, though I know of no evidence of any such canvassing on that side of the argument. -- ChrisO 01:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Mr. Earnest Wikipedian, please link to your evidence! (Oh, that's right, I forgot. The evidence is a BADSITE.)
Notice. For this performance the role of DennyColt will be played by Admin ChrisO, who has just pegged the AFD page with a link to a non-policy ess(j)ay on SPASmodic voters. And no, I'm not fooled by the fact that he voted to delete. See this 3-edit diff.
Same Ole Same Ole Wikipedia ...
Jonny
Same Ole Same Ole Wikipedia ...
Jonny
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 10th June 2007, 7:57pm)
This might turn out to be fun and educational.
QUOTE
It appears that Daniel Brandt is canvassing votes to delete this article. The closing admin will need to take into account possible interventions by SPAs, sock- and meatpuppets. There is of course also that possibility for "keep" votes, though I know of no evidence of any such canvassing on that side of the argument. -- ChrisO 01:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Mr. Earnest Wikipedian, please link to your evidence! (Oh, that's right, I forgot. The evidence is a BADSITE.)
Oh Boy. It's Kukla, Fran and Joseph McCarthy time. A sock puppet show and witch hunt in an ever popular double feature.
I'm thinking this afd needs more templates. how about spoiler tags? 
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 10th June 2007, 10:10pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 10th June 2007, 7:57pm)
This might turn out to be fun and educational.
QUOTE
It appears that Daniel Brandt is canvassing votes to delete this article. The closing admin will need to take into account possible interventions by SPAs, sock- and meatpuppets. There is of course also that possibility for "keep" votes, though I know of no evidence of any such canvassing on that side of the argument. -- ChrisO 01:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Mr. Earnest Wikipedian, please link to your evidence! (Oh, that's right, I forgot. The evidence is a BADSITE.)
Oh Boy. It's Kukla, Fran, and Joseph McCarthy time. A sock puppet show and witch hunt in an ever popular double feature.
Canvassing? Oh really? Can you prove that he's closer than 50 yards to the polling place?
Of course, the only difference between Brandt's plea for support and theirs is that he puts it out in the open instead of in some smoke-filled IRC. That kind of above-the-boardness evidently irritates the hell out of them.
Jonny
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 10th June 2007, 5:23pm)
But when the two cliques I distrust... the Slim/MONGO group over on WP, and the whole gang here on WR... are on the same side on something, that starts inclining me, contrary ol' cuss as I am, to want to take the *other* side, and vote "Keep"...
Yeah, why is that?
As far as these two sides are concerned, this is a simple propaganda war. Each side wants to take and hold the moral high ground, and I'd say that's currently held by us, due to our having removed identifying info about Katefan0 and "Musical Linguist" (sheez, that's a lame-ass username) from our site, and having offered to do the same for SlimVirgin, only to be threatened with lawyers and then ignored.
By deleting the Brandt article, and hopefully the articles about Finkelstein and people like William Bradford as well, WP hopes to distract the hoi polloi (i.e., non-code WP users) from the fact that they're publishing about 150,000 unauthorized biographies of various living people, the majority of whom probably wouldn't have a prayer of making it into Britannica, while we're still carrying so-called "outings" of exactly two people, one of whom is refusing to negotiate, and the other of whom is so obviously who we say he is that any claim to the contrary is uproariously laughable.
So personally, I see no inherent contradiction here. It is my hope that Wikipedia will delete these articles, and that once their users see that these deletions result in less criticism of them and fewer so-called "attacks," Wikipedia will start to become "fun" again, at least for some people. And maybe then they'll realize that they should have had an opt-out policy all along, and adopt one.
Who knows, maybe I'll even help them out if they do that... They can always use good proofreaders, right?
smoke-filled IRC?
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Mon 11th June 2007, 12:44am)
smoke-filled IRC?
On the off-chance that you're not kidding, it's a reference to the cigar-smoke-filled backrooms of an old time political caucus, for example, taking place out of sight, out of mind, off the main floor of an old time political convention.
Sorry to be so succinct ...
Jonny
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 10th June 2007, 1:51pm)
Durova has already cited this new BLP modification. My guess is that if "delete" gets around 50 percent or better, this AfD will close as a "delete." That's because I'm hopeful that Durova intends to invoke this new BLP clause and set a precedent.
DRV War and RFAR.
This one is sort of amusing:
Personally, I object to the insinuation that User:JamesMLane bears Brandt no ill will, when the opposite is clearly the case, as demonstrated in the comment above. Keeping the article is not only an exercise in spite, it's an exercise in hypocrisy as well, something User:JamesMLane really should know. How can this bald-faced assertion that his wishes are "entitled to zero weight" not be evidence of spite and ill-will? Is he... smoking something? And how dare User:JamesMLane make some sort of unilateral determination for the rest of the planet that "readers" would want to know more about Brandt, or that this somehow makes keeping the article a good thing? How does he know the people "wanting to know more" aren't going to use that information to substantially harm Brandt, or even Wikipedia, in some unforeseen way? How do we know User:JamesMLane doesn't want to substantially harm him?
It strikes me that User:JamesMLane is a very spiteful and thoroughly dislikable person indeed.
QUOTE(User:JamesMLane @ 22:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC))
Keep. I object to the insinuation by some editors that keeping the article is an exercise in spite. I bear Brandt no ill will. I consider him notable based on widespread media coverage. Given his objective notability, his wishes are entitled to zero weight -- we shouldn't keep the article to retaliate against him nor should we delete it in deference to his request. The issue is whether a significant number of readers would encounter his name and want to know more about him. Clearly they might, so it should stay.
Personally, I object to the insinuation that User:JamesMLane bears Brandt no ill will, when the opposite is clearly the case, as demonstrated in the comment above. Keeping the article is not only an exercise in spite, it's an exercise in hypocrisy as well, something User:JamesMLane really should know. How can this bald-faced assertion that his wishes are "entitled to zero weight" not be evidence of spite and ill-will? Is he... smoking something? And how dare User:JamesMLane make some sort of unilateral determination for the rest of the planet that "readers" would want to know more about Brandt, or that this somehow makes keeping the article a good thing? How does he know the people "wanting to know more" aren't going to use that information to substantially harm Brandt, or even Wikipedia, in some unforeseen way? How do we know User:JamesMLane doesn't want to substantially harm him?
It strikes me that User:JamesMLane is a very spiteful and thoroughly dislikable person indeed.
I don't know that anyone is going to be able to sort out the discussion there. But let me approach it from this angle:
Suppose the bio could be effectively restricted to documenting your activities as a privacy advocate/researcher? (That's pretty close to its current state, BTW.) On a strict notability basis there is some argument for keeping it. Would you still want it deleted?
And a second question from there: do you think it could be so controlled?
Suppose the bio could be effectively restricted to documenting your activities as a privacy advocate/researcher? (That's pretty close to its current state, BTW.) On a strict notability basis there is some argument for keeping it. Would you still want it deleted?
And a second question from there: do you think it could be so controlled?
QUOTE(papaya @ Mon 11th June 2007, 8:06am)
Suppose the bio could be effectively restricted to documenting your activities as a privacy advocate/researcher? (That's pretty close to its current state, BTW.)
Perhaps I shouldn't speak on his behalf, but that's actually part of the problem. Brandt covered it most recently in this post, among other earlier ones... The issue is that the article is chronologically biased towards events occurring during the last 10-15 years of the "information age." It doesn't cover any of his earlier career as an educator at all, and that sort of thing is true for practically anyone who's over the age of 40 who doesn't have a full biography posted elsewhere on the web.
It makes it look like Brandt just popped up out of nowhere, at age 50-something, and suddenly started doing all these computer-related things. The bio therefore becomes an article about a meme. If Wikipedia can't find sources on a person's entire life, then how can they write a proper biography?
But if he were to make details of his earlier career public, they'd just put that in the article too, and it would be even more difficult to get rid of it because the chronological bias argument would go away. It's not the sort of thing a private person would want to do anyway.
Catch-22.
****SOCKPUPPET ALERT****
User:Seventy Seven Thousand has just voted keep. All 6 of this guy's edits relate to Brandt dating back to February. Sleuths, put your violins away, and get to work.
User:Seventy Seven Thousand, an obvious sleeper sockpuppet of somebody, first edited on 1st of February. Remember that DennyColt began his career on the 28th of January, and David Spart on the 2nd of February. Coincidence?
User:Seventy Seven Thousand has just voted keep. All 6 of this guy's edits relate to Brandt dating back to February. Sleuths, put your violins away, and get to work.
User:Seventy Seven Thousand, an obvious sleeper sockpuppet of somebody, first edited on 1st of February. Remember that DennyColt began his career on the 28th of January, and David Spart on the 2nd of February. Coincidence?
QUOTE(Kato @ Mon 11th June 2007, 9:36am)
Sleuths, put your violins away, and get to work.
Not to seem disagreeable, but what sort of sleuthing is required for something like this? This is a totally obvious case of SPA sock puppetry, and to count this vote would only be inviting more cries of "travesty," and justifiably so.
Still, thanks for checking it out, K! I've been super-busy the last few days, or I'd be more diligent about it myself.
Looks like User:ChrisO voted to delete too, so I guess someone else gets to play Denny this time...?
QUOTE(papaya @ Mon 11th June 2007, 2:06pm)
Suppose the bio could be effectively restricted to documenting your activities as a privacy advocate/researcher?
Again not to speak for Daniel, but one of his gripes is that he's not a privacy advocate.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.