Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 5 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Weighted Companion Cube (talk | contribs) at 12:11, 28 March 2008 (→Section Break 4). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:11, 28 March 2008 by Weighted Companion Cube (talk | contribs) (→Section Break 4)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Daniel Brandt redirect

Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
This DRV is for the Daniel Brandt Redirect to Public Information Research, and not about a biography
Previous DRVs;

Ok, so this is a somewhat complicated situation, so I'm going to try to focus on the issues most directly relevant to this DRV. As of the last Daniel Brandt AfD, found here a decision was made to add most of the relevant material to Public Information Research. That result was confirmed here. Subsquently, Doc Glasgow attempted an out-of-process deletion of Daniel Brandt, then a redirect. This was overturned at DRV here and here. The consensus at that DRV was that this should go to RfD and that Brandt's primary reason for wanting to redirect deleted, namely that it bumped up google rankings of Public Information Research, was not justifiable as a deletion reason under BLP. Despite this, WJBScribe deleted it yet again. See the log here. Discussion at Talk:Daniel Brandt and at WJB's talk page have failed to result in him being willing to overturn this deletion. To be clear, here is the essential situation: DRV has already said that the exact same action as that made by WJB was not justifiable by policy and was against the prevailing consensus and he then went ahead and did it again.

A number of claims have been made to justify this, but none are essentially new. The only mildly new argument is that Brandt is once again attempting to out admins and blackmail them into getting what he wants. However, the last time this occurred the community response was to not negotiate with him and reconfirm his banning. Furthermore, the deletion of this redirect will not stop Brandt; people said he might stop when we removed the Vietnam section of his life. He didn't stop then. People said he might stop after the complex merge even though he said he wouldn't. And guess what, he didn't stop. Brandt is not going to be happy as long as there is any mention of his name on Misplaced Pages. We shouldn't kid ourselves. And even if this weren't Brandt, we shouldn't countenance out of process deletions that are simply repeating actions that DRV already overruled. If someone wishes to take this to RfD they are of course welcome to do so, but we cannot allow people to simply avoid community consensus by repeating identical actions after the community has told them not to. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin User Sherurcij has left notes with two users who have a history with the deleting admin directing them towards this DRV. Needless to say one has already voted to restore. . Spartaz 20:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm pretty sure Sherucij was trying to canvass for Sami Omar Al-Hussayen a few discussions below this one. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


  • The ones obsessing about this are the ones insisting on backdoor deletions after we've already discussed it. Policy was blatantly violated, and Brandt being the subject of this issue is never a valid reason to violate those policies. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's your assumptions getting the better of you. I heard about Brandt before I knew about Misplaced Pages, and looong before I edited it. You can say "do you know who Daniel Brandt is" and someone might say "who?", but all you have to say is "the google-watch guy" and a very significant number of people will know what you mean. Having a redirect like this is standard issue, and there is no valid rationale to delete. The value is the same as any other redirect, possibly more considering people will specifically be looking to see where the content of Daniel Brandt went to. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy! Not helpful. Relata refero (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I completely misunderstood you. Though it still wasn't deletion that had support, but rather a merge, you are correct in that a full bio was removed. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and salt. Put the stick down and walk away. Mr.Z-man 19:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion and keep deleted until the unlikely day that he actually does something notable. Black Kite 19:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse This again? Oh god please take it away somewhere and let it die quietly. Spartaz 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Guy says it as well as I could. SirFozzie (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I thought this was a discussion on the deletion/restoration of the redirect - not the actual Daniel Brandt article. Am I wrong? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 20:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep it gone per Guy. Nuff said (and said well). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Addendum, I believe this should stay deleted, but that also, there should not be any sort of redirect. In other words, as WJBscribe eloquently said below, typing Daniel Brandt should result in, well, nothing. Endorse having No redirect as well. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The redirect in question was of no real help to readers - someone looking for Daniel Brandt on Misplaced Pages wants to read an article about him - that has now been deleted by community consensus. Putting his name in search bar will still result in the reader being pointed towards Public Information Research (and also offer Misplaced Pages Watch as an alternative), so they will still get to see that info. Normally we would redirect pages on people without articles, to other articles that mention them but this is not entirely unproblematic practice. It links the person with one event or project, which may not be entirely fair coverage of them. In this case, the subject of the article has made it very clear that he objects to the redirect's existence - that its existence is problematic for him and that he resents our keeping it. That's a fairly unique situation. The cost of deleting a redirect to Misplaced Pages is minimal (readers will still find out that the PIR article mentions Brandt). The benefit however is in giving effect to the wishes of the subject, which recognises the high profile Misplaced Pages articles have and the effect this can have on people's lives. In this case it also serves to stem the hastle various users suffer due to the redirect's existence and Brandt's issues with it, freeing up the time that was spent dealing with Brandt to more positive encyclopedic contributions. A redirect that is serving as a major headache for people wishing to get on with improving Misplaced Pages hinders the project's development. The previous DRV on this redirect was looking at the issues the article's edit history being deleted as well as the redirect - many comments deal expressly with GFDL issues that no longer arise. This is now a bare redirect, the history having been merged to appropriate places and different considerations arose. I do not regret deleting it - the cost to the encyclopedia is nil, the benefit is high. WjBscribe 20:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Most of the above is inaccurate. First, there was no community consensus to delete the Brandt article. The compromise which occurred was a "complex merge". As to the claim that that DRV was about GFDL, one only needs to read the close to see that that wasn't the cause of the close. Finally, the damage this does to Misplaced Pages is great; every time we give into harassement it sends the message that harassment works. That's why we didn't give in when he tried to blackmail SV or Durova or anyone else. And let's not kid ourselves that this is going to stop Brandt at all. Until every single mention of him is removed from this encyclopedia he is not going to stop harassing us. And he isn't likely to stop even then. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "A redirect that is serving as a major headache for people wishing to get on with improving Misplaced Pages hinders the project's development." No evidence of this whatsoever. Even so, if you find something a pain in the ass on Misplaced Pages, you don't have to deal with it, at all. We're volunteers, and no one is holding a gun to anyone's head saying "you must know about every request Brandt makes to be deleted, as well as all related news and gossip". -- Ned Scott 06:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly endorse deletion of redirect, consensus has established deletion and it would have serious repercussions on the project were we to restore a full article on this barely notable individual, we must not let power go to our heads as if wikipedia has special rights over whoever it chooses and I believe we will set a good precedent by removing the redirect as well and then salting. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Whilst the endorsement is appreciated, I should point out that JoshuaZ wishes my deletion of a redirect to Public Information Research reviewed, he is not seeking the restoration of the article. WjBscribe 20:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yes I had originally expressed myself badly, Josh droped me a note and I have copy edited my comment so it makes more sense. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    "consensus has established deletion" That's not true at all. The past AfDs resulted in merging, the past DRVs resulted in keeping the redirect. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should write in big, bold letters at the top of this DRV that this is about the redirect, and not the article? --Conti|✉ 20:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore REDIRECT - it's useful, normal and I'm not convinced that the deletion serves the project. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There are some nuances I may be unaware of but the basic article (minus the slam quote from Jimmy) seemed fine and any other person who had accomplished this much would certainly have a full set of keep votes on their AfD. Deleting would seem to embolden anyone who threatens or taunts in a similar manner. Benjiboi 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Let this die already. Seeing as Brandt became notable partially as a result of Misplaced Pages, and Brandt has done nothing but harass and stalk various users and admins since the article went live in the first place, just let this die already. He was only marginally notable in the first place (based on my reasoning on a courtesy-blanked recent DRV on a different article). Whatever he decides to do in response to this is up to him, but I hope it's constructive; I'm a bit worried about what he would do if the redirect were restored (even though to me, it's just a bloody redirect, but supposedly it's a lot more to him). --Coredesat 20:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break one
  • I would echo WJBscribe. A redirect is a convenience. It takes a reader from one search term to a related topic where an article is. Redirects are not encyclopedic content and are not intended to convey information themselves; articles are. We lose little by removing them, especially ones that aren't alternative spellings and such. In the case where a real person who is relatively un-noteworthy is potentially affected by a redirect, it should be removed immediately. We lose no encyclopedic content, only usability, and the loss in usability is marginal, in this tiny corner of the wiki in any case (notice that the redirect target is still the first search result for his name). We are a project about encyclopedic content, and about doing encyclopedic content with integrity, and that is far more important than a hardly-noticeable advantage in usability. I am even more disturbed by the fact that several people seem to want to keep this mostly because they find the person morally repugnant and unworthy of WP:BLP-like respect. I find shaming people we find repugnant to be the polar opposite of the integrity I would hope we build this encyclopedia with. Needless to say, keep deleted. Dmcdevit·t 21:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "I find shaming people we find repugnant to be the polar opposite of the integrity I would hope we build this encyclopedia with." That was never the reason for having the redirect, and your shortsightedness in this suggests you think Misplaced Pages is the center of the universe. Did it ever occur to you that people were asking for restoration because this was a backdoor deletion, because it was the total opposite of what was established in several past discussions? Who cares that it's Daniel Brandt, we don't do deletions in this manner. It sets a horrible precedent that editors here should be ashamed of supporting. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore. I've yet to see anyone make any policy-based argument for deletion. Basically, we're scared of what Brandt might do if we don't delete the redirect, so we delete it? Is that really any way to run an encyclopedia? Bellwether C 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. It conveys no information and putting Daniel Brandt into search will allow readers to find Public Information Research anyway.-- Ѕandahl 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That would call for the deletion of most of our redirects, including ones that would be given speedy closings (kept) if ever nominated for deletion. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion The benefit of having this redirect is what, exactly? It's nil, really. Anyone looking for his name by search will find the same article with or without the redirect. The damage from having it? It increases google ranking and thus, indirectly, does harm to Brandt. Those of you who know me know I don't swear much on the wiki, I believe swearing should be reserved for when one really wants to emphasize a point... Mark my words then, because I'm emphasising this, ... it is my considered and personal opinion that Brandt is a , and the fact that, in my considered and personal opinion, he repeatedly and hypocritically blackmails admins into doing things is reprehensibly disgustingly despicable, and you can quote me on that. But that doesn't mean that we should cause harm if we can avoid it. Note: I deleted two alternate spellings of his name that redirected to the same place, so if this is overturned, they need restoring. Ping me or just do it, either way. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll let the redaction by FT2 stand (one revert is all I'm good for and I commend that approach to others as a general practice), although, as I say on my talk, I think it dilutes the emphasis of how strongly I dislike this person, his approaches, his world views, etc... The point is as Dmcdevit makes it; no matter how low of a person I think someone is, and I think this particular individual is way way way down there for someone that hasn't actually committed atrocities, the importance of doing no harm, even to someone as unworthy of it as this particular individual is, in my view, outweighs my personal feeling. That's why I have been lately arguing for tighter and tighter standards for what BLPs we retain, and what stubbing we do to ones that we have to keep. As our importance grows, this problem grows in importance with it. ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse and deny him the recognition these debates give him. Don't tell me he doesn't enjoy this just like he enjoys being the big hero on WR. He feeds on attention even if he claims the opposite. Deny, deny, deny! EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore the redirect. Redirects are not just for misspellings. It is normal to redirect terms and names to the article in which they are described most completely if they do not warrant a standalone article for themselves. To prevent such redirects would be a very serious defect in Misplaced Pages. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would have said restore, but I trust lar's judgement. Endorse deletion then. Snowolf 21:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I wish we could violate BLP in this one instance, because of the great amounts of grief this individual has caused not only the community, but individual editors, but I'll defer to reason and Endorse deletion. MBisanz 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse And be done with it. However, I'm wondering now if the redirect is deleted, and the article is gone as well, if he will next insist on any written searchable reference to "Daniel Brandt" be removed from en.wikipedia.org. Lawrence § t/e 22:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And as predicted, over on Misplaced Pages Review Brandt has made comments grumbling that various AFDs and Deletion Reviews and pages on Misplaced Pages are coming up when his name is Googled. This DRV has already set consensus over as changed, but next he will want any typing-in of "Daniel Brandt" here removed. If anyone is voting Endorse in the hope he takes down Hivemind, don't bet on it. I predict it won't be gone until the words "Daniel" and "Brandt" no longer appear on any indexed Misplaced Pages page together. Lawrence § t/e 15:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
So given that, why are you endorsing? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm endorsing because I think he by name is only marginally notable, and Misplaced Pages will benefit from not having this redirect on him. Why does it matter what he does with Hivemind? Are you fighting to keep the redirect and material because of the fact he has some of us up there, yourself included? I could care less what this guy does on his own time--it doesn't affect what we do with his page. Lawrence § t/e 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hive Mind could be an argument for deletion and was certainly in my mind when voting here and in previous fds, if removing the redirect can help persuade Brandt to remove HM is that not a really good thing? I think so. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
And people can endorse for that, or because they don't like people with the middle name of Leslie, or because they don't like Texans. The point is, and the point I made on Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 5, is that nearly all this Brandt drama from the past year is all from the same tiny handful of culprits that seem to be either beating policy with a stick, or wish to simply beat Brandt with a policy stick to prove some sort of point. Enough is enough, children's games are over. Lawrence § t/e 18:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I don't care about hivemind at all. We must deal with this without seeing harassment as a reason to either keep or delete the redirect (indeed the harassment concerns have been brought up almost exclusively by people calling for endorsement which is very interesting to then go and turn around and claim that people somehow want to claim that the people favoring overturning want to get back at Brandt or want to play "children's games"). Otherwise we compromise the encyclopedia and that is something that is not acceptable. We must always keep the encyclopedia as our goal. But by the deleter's own description this was done in part to give way to Brandt's blackmail and threats. We should keep this redirect because it is a valid redirect that he only wants removed because it increasesthe page's google rankings. As the community correctly decided in the previous DRV, that's not our problem, that's googles and he should complain to them. We don't remove content to deliberately harm our standings on a search engine that we don't control. And again, at minimum this should be going through RfD, not DRV. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not Hive Mind or Brandt's actions are reasons to endorse or reject the speedy surely its existence upping Brandt's rankings on the currently dominant internet search engine is reason to, based on BLP and the Do NO Harm pillar as Brandt has genuine concerns that appearing high on Google woiuld harm his life, as he has made clear on wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no harm in his life. Among all these accusations that this DRV is childish I don't seem to be playing "let's pretend". He doesn't like having an article because he doesn't like an article about himself that's easily found that he doesn't control. This isn't about harm. And this isn't going to get him to stop. By his own description he is just as unhappy with a PIR article. The complex merge was meant to deal with the fact that there was no consensus to delete. This was done despite the concern that piecemeal deletion would then occur and that's exactly what we are seeing now. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Insisting on discussion happening on this forum or that forum for consensus to form is policy masturbation--who cares where it is, as long as it is and is seen. What does it matter if it's RFD, Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 5, or Misplaced Pages:Happy Happy Deletions/Wheeeeee Brandt? The encyclopedia is hurt by a redirect of barely measureable value that people fight like children over, again and again and again. All the DRVs save one are either by you or Ned Scott. The rest of the community is clearly "over" this, but you guys just have to keep resurrecting the corpse of the horse to lash it once more. Why? Why do we benefit from this? If he wants the bloody thing gone, gone. BLP > what you want. Your tainted view, JoshuaZ, is irrelevant here. Mine is ultimately irrelevant here. If consensus on this page, or AN, or wherever, decides its gone, its gone, and that is that. If you don't like it because this appears to actually be a final line in the sand on this issue and you may finally lose, you can try Veropedia, Conservapedia, Citizendium, Knut or whatever the Google one is named, or a host of others. Lawrence § t/e 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll refrain from ignoring your personal attacks which are incidentally fallacious anyways, and address other issues such as that this went through 14 AfDs (yeah, 14 AfDs was really Ned and Josh being obsessive against community consensus), that for of the 4 previous DRVs, the community agreed with 2 of them, and that one of those DRVs wasn't filed by either Ned or me. But if you feel a need to make us into some sort of villains in this story, I can't help you. I would hope however that you'd act a bit more rationally. And again, as I said, if the community does want it gone that would be apparent at an RfD. This DRV should be treated logically, whether it was inititaed by me, Ned, Hitler, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Lord Voldemort. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The forum does not matter. Our group decision does. Lawrence § t/e 19:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse as per Dmcdevit. Dr.K. (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse; Lar and Guy put it well. krimpet✽ 22:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, we balance slight encyclopedic value against the potential harm to a living person (via Google), and this is an easy endorse. Yes, it's another out-of-process admin delete for BLP issues, but this only demonstrates that our policies are currently inadequate. The harassment point is well taken, but it seems the redirect was deleted after Brandt's threat was fulfilled for the simple reason that those involved thought it was the right thing to do. Cool Hand Luke 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse In case this is confusing, I'm endorsing the deletion of the redirect. I hope. I'm actually confused a bit, but I think I have this right. Maybe not. But he doesn't deserve an article or the redirect. Is that clear? Who knows. OrangeMarlin 22:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WJBscribe probably should've gone through conventional channels in doing this, to avoid so much flippin' controversy over it ('course, we woulda' just had it there instead...), but his intent is good. It's been stated above that no one's raised policy reasons to have this deleted, but policy is meant to mirror consensus, not bind us. Consensus, given above, is pretty clear to me. Endorse, and get the thing gone. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus is not a vote, nor is it this discussion alone. Consensus was specifically violated in this situation. I even asked WJB to let us take this to RfD, instead of DRV, so that we could establish a new consensus. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if I was misunderstood, but I mean that, using this discussion as a benchmark for determining consensus, consensus appears to indicate that we want the redirect gone. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

  • Endorse Brandt's entire life nowadays is devoted to his silly websites. But real people come first. Maybe when Brandt continues to act in bad faith we should start following Misplaced Pages policy? John Nevard (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a good argument for not having a full article about him, but it says nothing regarding the procedure where this was deleted, nor is it an argument for the deletion of the redirect. The question isn't "do we need a redirect" but rather, "why do we need to remove it". In any other situation this would be standard issue, regardless of independent notability. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

comment per the explanation of the problem at the top of this discussion, someone restore it then, if consensus agreed it, someone only need do it and it is Scribe who's not acting in accordance with consensus. This shouldn't keep being reviewed until the people (not the main consensus) who feel this should be deleted get the result they want. special, random, Merkinsmum 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Usefulness has been established, just as the same as any other redirect. The "harm" is unrelated to the redirect, and Brandt won't change his activities because of its existence. If part of that "harm" is the "drama" then blame the people who deleted the redirect, not those wishing to correct a bad decision. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Per common sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, though I'm not at all happy that harassment and stalking has again forced the issue (surely there's a law against it?). I think the key issue here is whether the term "Daniel Brandt" is likely to be a useful redirect, given the main use of redirects is to guide searchers or links to the right article. No articles link to "Daniel Brandt" and it seems a fairly unlikely search alternative to "Public Information Research". Given that, I can see no particular value in having the redirect. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Brandt reminds me of a schoolyard bully who, after many threats, gets his way. This doesn't alleviate the problem but exacerbates it, as the bully returns again and again, with escalating demands, and further threats. Giving in to his bullying by deleting both the article about him, and this redirect doesn't solve any problems at all. It just guarantees that there will be more and worse problems in the future. The fact that there seems to be a groupthink endorsement of this deletion--even while admitting it is completely out of process--is quite disturbing as well. Bellwether C 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I sympathise with what you're saying but while Brandt's conduct is obviously deplorable, what counts here is Misplaced Pages's policy. If there are good policy reasons for deleting the redirect then that's what counts, not Brandt's views. We can and do disregard the views of biographical subjects if there are no good policy reasons for deleting their articles (see e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (3rd nomination)‎).
  • That only applies if the subject is marginally notable. It was well established that Don Murphy was far more than "marginally" notable, so there's not really any comparison. --Coredesat 01:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Some people don't want to deal with it" is not a valid reason to violate the deletion policy. The act of discussing this in itself is not the source of drama, but rather comments like yours. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason there continues to be drama is that there is no valid reason for a redirect of a non-notable person. I don't count whacking a hornet's nest with a big stick, just for fun, to be a valid reason. Or spite, just because Brandt's tactics against Misplaced Pages are admittedly over the top. These 'reasons' are harmful to the community and the encyclopedia. There is no encyclopedic justification for the redirect, in my opinion. I strongly endorse the deletion, until some time when community consensus supports the creation of an article or a redirect. ~ priyanath talk 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? This individual meets WP:BIO easily. He meets it for his work with Namebase. He meets it for his work with google-watch and he meets it for his work with Misplaced Pages-watch. Any of those would be enough. Let's not pretend that this is a not-notable individual. This is a notable individual. The reason there is any "drama" is because we have repeated out of process attempts to give in to his demands hoping that he will stop at each stage, where of course he then doesn't. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Childish games—yes. Marginal notability—maybe, though not enough for an article or redirect. Continuing the drama solely because we might be seen to 'give in to his demands'—exceedingly unencyclopedic, and I'm being exceedingly gracious in phrasing it that way. ~ priyanath talk 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If you don't understand the difference between "we shouldn't delete this because it could be seen as giving into his harassment" and "we shouldn't let his harassment effect us when considering whether to delete this" then I don't have any way of phrasing a response that that's at all polite even if I try to be exceedingly gracious. And I'll incidentally note that the whole point of the "complex merge" was that a substantial part of the community thought that he was way too notable to have his article deleted upon on request. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the community is changing its mind, then, which it should be allowed to do. Communities, like people, can grow up and leave childish games behind. ~ priyanath talk 19:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
And if the community does change its mind then so be it, but the proper venue for that should be RfD, not DRV. And continuing to assert that trying to preserve content is "childish" isn't helpful. And asserting something more times, doesn't make it so. You are correct that community consensus can change, and it might well have changed by the end of this. We'll see. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
For the final time, Josh, the fora doesn't matter. Will you abide by consensus decided on this DRV and not DRV Daniel Brandt again? Lawrence § t/e 19:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The forum (singular not plural) does matter. That's the entire argument I've been trying to make. In any event, if this DRV decides that there is sufficient consensus not to go to the procedurally correct step, I will of course not DRV this again barring a severe change in circumstances or policy. The entire reason I want this to go through RfD is that that is a consensus driven procedure and what we have here is an out of process deletion. It would be a tad bit hypocritical to ignore a community consensus. But this is again not at all relevant to the question before us. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the entire process wonkery problem, Josh. The question before is very easy: finish this off by keeping the redirect deleted, or bring it back. Thats what consensus here is hashing out. You want it to go through RFD because "that is a consensus driven procedure". What is this, chopped liver? Is your objection because this was initiated by a BLP deletion (which is never "out of process", but I digress)? That it wasn't initiated by an RFD? What does that matter in the end? If a consensus forms for an action what does it matter if it's begun in process, out of process, from a mail list email, or from whatever else? Lawrence § t/e 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Why it matters is because the default setting for the failure of reaching a consensus in this case should be keep, not overturning. As I've explained at User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP we should use RfDs and AfDs on BLP-penumbra issues. Wrapping all BLP issues together, especially comparing unsourced negative info to requested deletions is simply not good policy and not good for the encyclopedia. If of course we reach a consensus here then that's a reasonable consensus. The real problem is what happens on the borderline cases if we fail to reach a real consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the same shit that nearly killed rollback getting implemented until I basically shouted at Ryan and Doc to shut up and let nature take it's course--how or where we decide things DOESN'T MATTER AT FUCKING ALL. What matters is if we've decided, and if the majority of people agreed it was the right decision. Fuck process for process's sake. Praise process when it helps us, even if it's the evil dreaded new process. Fuck discussion for the sake of discussion. Praise discussion that gets us somewhere. I swear to God we should ban anyone who obstructs Misplaced Pages being better for the sake of "But we've always done it that way!!!" or "According to WikiCode 541.1§4.2 section 5, we must stroke our policy shaft as dictacted by..." Lawrence § t/e 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(De-indent) Ok, Lawrence and Joshua: I don't want to be Hall Monitor SirFozzie, but let me ask some questions here: A) Lawrence, do you think you're going to convince Joshua? B) Joshua, do you think you're going to convince Lawrence? C) Do you think that most everyone else in this discussion has tuned out the discussion due to the fact it's not getting anywhere and drowning out other folks? (the answers to this quiz is A)NO, B)NO, and C) YES, btw). May I suggest taking it to the DRV talk page or better yet, to one of your user talk pages? SirFozzie (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Headmaster Fozzie. I'm done. I realize he isn't going to be convinced, and vice versa. Lawrence § t/e 20:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Er I'd agree with that, but in this case I'm not trying convince Lawrence that forums don't matter consensus does. And I agree with him on that, the point that I'm trying to get across is that it matters in terms of what the default result is by a quirk of how the fora function. If the default to a no-consensus here was to restore the redirect I'd agree that complaining about would be process wonkery. In this case since it can actually change the outcome based on where it would be held it might matter. In any event, that won't matter at all if there is a clear consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Salt the Redirect and Endorse permanent closure. To much drama. Redirect adds no value to the project. People who are looking for information on PIR aren't going to search for Daniel Brandt and even if by some strange happenstance they do, PIR will still come up in the search, it just won't pop up immediately. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • keep deleted - haven't we had enough of this? —Random832 (contribs) 03:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What part of policy supports your argument? Wait, where is your argument? There is none. Don't waste our time and try to "vote" this through. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • My apologies if you or anyone else feel harassed by my comments, that was not my intention, but my comments are still valid. Several people here have not presented any argument, but rather attack the editors who have rightfully started these discussions. Comments like Random832's are harmful to these discussions and undermind them. It's a personal attack on anyone who feels we should be able to discuss this (and without being harassed ourselves). -- Ned Scott 21:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I stand by my opposition to WP:KEEPTRYINGTILLITSTICKS - there are people here who are trying to get the _article_ restored, for f***'s sake. This redirect is doing very little good, and a credible argument has been made that it does harm. "rightfully started these discussions"? Do you have a policy-based reason for wanting it restored? Is "Daniel Brandt" a plausible search term for people looking for "Public Information Research"? —Random832 (contribs) 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The only WP:KEEPTRYINGTILLITSTICKS that is relevant here is the deletion of this redirect which is precisely an example of that (after mind you 14 AfDs trying to get it deleted) That a few people are currently arguing that they'd prefer an article on him is in no way an argument for endorsing this deletion. As to the usefulness/plausibility of this redirect, I gave hard numbers demonstrating that this is a very useful redirect below. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Do you have a policy-based reason for wanting it restored?" Do you have a policy-based reason that calls for it to be deleted? Nope. It's very absurd to see you accusing those listing this on DRV of KTTIS. People tried to get this deleted via normal channels, and it failed. They went and did it anyways. We asked WJB to undo it, we even asked him to undelete and list at RfD, but he refused, leaving DRV the only option. This isn't KEEPTRYINGTILLITSTICKS, this is CORRECTINGABADDECISIONTHATUNDERMINDSTHECOMMUNITY. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse really this man is not widely known out side of wikipedia, the community has up until now completely ignored that. Viridae 03:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Can we stop kidding ourselves on that please? He's so well known that he's been parodied in The Onion.. Anyways, the issue here isn't how well he's known. The primary issue is the flagrant abuse of process after a DRV overturned exactly this sort of action. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh now get real Joshua, thats hardly Brandt being parodied. Thats google being parodied with brandt being used as a quotable figure in conjunction with his founding of google watch. Daniel Brandt simply isnt a common search term and DRV has long given up the image of just being about process and policy and instead has become XFD round 1 or 2 depending on the original deletion. I used to fight that but I have now given up. Had this been really a DRV i would have said gutsy IAR deletion, Éndorse Viridae 05:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • "Daniel Brandt simply isnt a common search term" I certainly disagree with that. For one, you have absolutely no way of establishing that other than your own personal opinion. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • And your opinion is so much more valid because...? Mr.Z-man 15:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
            • My opinion isn't more valid than his, and I'm certainly not implying that it is. If I insisted that something like this was fact, or at the very least, a view the community generally agrees on, I would expect people to object to me just as I have to Viridae. -- Ned Scott 22:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn Need I remind everyone that this is not a vote, and there was no valid speedy deletion criteria used, and this does not count as a BLP deletion. Regardless of how you feel about the situation, policy says that this should be restored. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And all of those "omg, I'm going to assume this is normal Brandt drama and !vote to keep deleted" or "I don't want to deal with this" !votes should have no bearing, whatsoever, with this DRV discussion. The only drama we've been seeing lately is the direct result of those who are violating the past consensus regarding this issue. Which, by the way, is another clear reason why this has to be restored, because of the past AfDs and DRVs directly supported the existence of the redirect. Editors such as Doc glasgow and WJBscribe are the ones at fault for causing this drama, not the redirect itself. Brandt will attack Wikipedians regardless of what we do here. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • One more thought, it would seem to me that the people endorsing deletion are the ones making this to be about personal feelings and the direct Brandt-Misplaced Pages relationship. They're the only ones making those issues a factor in this discussion. Having a redirect for him is in no way an attack at him, or some kind of "getting back at him". We would be having this discussion had Brandt been pro-wikipedia and a nice and friendly guy. And anyone who thinks that Brandt become notable because of his attacks on Misplaced Pages are clearly ignorant of the subject of Brandt. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore redirect. Regardless of the merits of including information on Brandit and PIR, there's really no justification for deleting a redirect from Daniel Brandt to an existing article which already has much information about him. We would never pass such a deletion in any non-heated context. It's tempting to afford special treatment in cases like these, but such blatent partiality would set a very bad precedent. The importance of neutrality doesn't stop at article writing; submitting to interpersonal sentiments in any editorial decision is a very Bad Thing. — xDanielx /C\ 06:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore. Rules are rules are rules, and as soon as we start overturning them on a whim, we validate Brandt's allegations. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The fact that the deletion was whimsical suggests overturning but let's not be what someone aptly called "process wonks" and look at the matter itself. I see four things that acting together should decide on whether DB has a place in Misplaced Pages. None of them alone should be determinative. Some of these four things point to the opposite directions and balance each other to a degree. Some point to the same direction and strengthen each other. Here they are (with my opinion in parantheses):
    • Notability (above the threshold, argument to include)
    • Subject's wishes (he does not want it, a clear argument against keeping but neither this or the previous reason by itself is sufficiently decisive. They act together)
    • Notoriety (its partly being related to wikipedia is the argument both for deletion and for inclusion, I am just not sure which one is stronger)
    • Fear for personal and the project's well-being
      • It is clear that some feel personally intimidated by DB and want less of him anywhere at all, including on WP, argument both for and against inclusion like the one above.
      • Some others simply think that the net loss to the project caused by inclusion is greater than the net benefit of having useful information on the subject (provided that the article can be feasibly maintained in NPOV and WP:V shape, doubtful)
      • Some fear that acting against his wishes will cause him to be more aggressive in his activities aimed against what he sees wrong with WP, while others assert that it pretty much won't affect his actions and he would act the way he does anyway (aiming at outing users who did not ever act badly in anyone's eyes is something even his supporters object to). According to this logic, he won't stop no matter what unless the project is changed in a way that can never be reasonably expected.
  • So, what do I make of it. I would still 3 and 4 aside even if only because there is no clarity about that and decide based only on notability and the subject's wishes. Should DB not objected to the article, it would have likely survived any deletion attempt but his notability is not high enough to ignore his wishes. So, think an optimal solution is to not have an article but to keep a protected redirect. This way, unjustified information about the person would not be so easily inserted or defended as the subject of the main WP entry would be not the person. And the target of the redirect would need to be patrolled. But it needs to be patrolled anyway. --Irpen 07:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn Doc, WJBScribe had no business unilaterally reversing prior consensus, especially when it was a difficult compromise. the subjects wishes are totally irrelevant, since it isnt so very borderline notability in the first place, and any threats he may have made are best ignored altogether. Paying attention to them is a violation of NPOV. Its time we modified the statement blp to get rid of the excuse there for violating the basic principle of responsible writing: NPOV. the original discussions on him were before was active here, and I havent gone back and learned them. Whatever was said then, we should think better of it now. the opinion of the subject for a public figure is irelevant. For a private person, paying attention might be justified. And its really an extension to say it applies to a redirect in any case. I think in this case we probably need a new discussion on an article, with all people previously participating barred for having a fixed POV. We need a neutral judgment. DGG (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • 1) This deletion has nothing to do with me. 2)Consensus is now that that the subject's wishes DO have relevance in some cases.--Doc 08:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I meant WJBScribe; as for the consensus on the applicability of BLP here, I think it is changing back again, to a very limited application of that rule, or at least removing it from the BLP arbitrary use category. DGG (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn the deletion and restore the redirect; if someone DRV's the out-of-consensus deletion of the original article, I'd favor restoring that, too. By the way, did the redirect have a talk page with links to the multiple Brandt AfD's? It should, so that readers aware of Misplaced Pages's normal policies will be able to see that an article was deleted because, at least in part, of the bio subject's hissy fits and successful blackmail. Those multiple AfD's contain significant information about Brandt that isn't readily accessible except to insiders. JamesMLane t c 08:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Section Break 3

  • Overturn and restore redirect Okay, let's stop letting Brandt get his way. This is a lot of drama, I know, but people will honestly be looking for him if they want to know about the Seigenthaler case. That was what first introuced me o Misplaced Pages, though I didn't start editing until years later. But anyhow, Brandt is a public figure whether he likes it or not and, while Misplaced Pages is a main source of it, the biography does him no real stress. All he wants is to harass Misplaced Pages, and he certainly got his way with his article currently being a redlink. To avoid further harassment, I think the redirect was in place if readers wanted to know something about him, but if he continues the harassment no matter what which is what seems to be going on, I say we restore the full biography and Misplaced Pages files a court case against him. Or this could redirect to the court case. :) Editorofthewiki 09:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Except again this won't terminate the "drama", the source of drama has been almost completely due to out of process actions, and Brandt' isn't going to stop harassing the project from this. Oh, and deleting things based on drama compromises the encyclopedia and sends the message to people that if they harass us enough they can get something removed. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "the source of drama has been almost completely due to out of process actions" - no, the source of drama is people obsessing over Brandt. "Brandt isn't going to stop harassing the project" - When was the last time Brandt made an edit to Misplaced Pages? Have you tried ignoring him? " deleting things based on drama compromises..." - you could make the same argument about any verifiable information, yet we delete tons of stuff on a regular basis. The fact is that Brandt is barely notable within Misplaced Pages and even less so outside of it. "if they harass us enough..." - Believe it or not, most people have the common decency to not do that. As for the people who don't, not harassing ourselves with big drama fests whenever they start to get noisy certainly wouldn't hurt, maybe if we make WP:DENY into policy? "Why didn't WJB do this?" - True, it probably would have been best if he left it alone, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. Mr.Z-man 02:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Brandt if you weren't aware has continued to harass the project and create real life problems for Wikipedians. Part of what prompted this deletion was an attempt to deal with Brandt (the full extent of the details I only learned a few hours ago which make me much more sympathetic to the deletion as a temporary measure) And you're correct that two wrongs don't make a right. The second wrong here would be keeping this redirect deleted. The right thing to do is to remedy the first wrong by restroing that redirect. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for everybody, but for me, this isn't about Daniel Brandt the person. We specifically talked to WJB and waited before making a DRV, to correct the situation with as little "drama" as possible. Drama is an unfortunate side effect of a sometimes necessary discussion, and avoiding those discussions for a mild annoyance that passes quickly and is easily forgotten, is a horrible idea. People being dramatic isn't that bad, so just get over it. That's the best way to deal with drama. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I also don't see much drama anyways. A discussion in which many people comment =/= drama. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion. Listen to me carefully here. Unless a couple of independent reliable sources are provided that clearly says that Daniel Brandt, who is of marginal notability, is well-known in most circles in which he is known primarily for an association with Public Information Research, redirecting his name to the PIR article is original research and unacceptable. Relata refero (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Brandt founded it in 1989 and he did most of his work that makes him notable under the PIR. Editorofthewiki 10:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide couple of independent reliable references that he is well-known in most circles in which he is known primarily for an association with Public Information Research? If not, then its OR. Relata refero (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but can you explain to me how you are getting the idea this is original research under that policy and moreover how this wouldn't justify the deletion of hundreds of redirects? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read the discussion. Unless you have a couple of independent reliable sources supporting the assumption that Daniel Brandt, who is of marginal notability, is well-known in most circles in which he is known primarily for an association with Public Information Research, you are making that decision, and therefore the redirect yourself. That's OR.
And if there are hundreds of contentious redirects unsupported by references, yes, that's a problem. Your point? Relata refero (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't say NOR, NPOV, or V didn't apply to redirects, but what you are suggesting is an extremely strict interpretation of them that is simply not supported by the community. However, that's a moot point, because even if we did have that criteria, the Daniel Brandt redirect would still pass it. Surly even those supporting it's deletion would have a hard time swallowing a NOR argument for deletion. Your interpretation on NOR is way off the mark on this. -- Ned Scott 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ned, multiple sources point out that Brandt is the head of PIR, and even without that this is a completely routine way of making redirects. We redirect individual members of bands to the articles about the bands, we redirect common mispellings of names to the correct names. None of this requires special sourcing. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ned:"what you are suggesting is an extremely strict interpretation of them that is simply not supported by the community" - strict how? What you are supporting is a content-free redirect. All I'm asking for is a couple of references supporting the information the redirect provides.
  • Ned:"interpretation on NOR is way off the mark on this".. you haven't yet bothered to explain how, though, in your defence, you have repeated it loudly several times.
  • Ned:"the Daniel Brandt redirect would still pass it". Supporting arguments please.
  • Joshua:"multiple sources point out that Brandt is the head of PIR" - not what's relevant. The redirect implies that Brandt is notable mainly for PIR. That has been justly challenged. It is now your responsibility to back up the assumption that Daniel Brandt, is well-known in most circles in which he is known primarily for an association with Public Information Research. The response to that is not "but he is associated with PIR!" Are we clearer about this now?
  • Joshua:"this is a completely routine way of making redirects". How many of those redirects are challenged like this? If any of them are, we should be able to back them up as well. If not, they should go. Redirects exist for minor convenience, and if they exist in violation of our core policies, we can get rid of them. If, for example, someone challenges the redirection of Xyxx to Xyxxx on the grounds that Xyxx is more commonly found when mis-spelling Xxyxx, how would we settle the question? Yes, give that man a cigar! by appealing to our core policies, and checking if there are any available sources on the subject - what does Google suggest, for example? So, again "None of this requires special sourcing" is dangerous, lazy, and inaccurate thinking. Relata refero (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A redirect is not an assertion about a matter of fact, such as that Brandt "is well-known in most circles in which he is known primarily for an association with Public Information Research." A redirect is, instead, a convenience for the reader. It represents our editorial judgment that, given the present state of Misplaced Pages in which there is no article with a particular title, someone who types in that title will be best served by being redirected to an existing artice (or perhaps to a dab page). At present, Misplaced Pages's namespace information about Daniel Brandt is contained primarily in the articles Public Information Research, Misplaced Pages Watch, and Google Watch. Redirecting to any one of them would be more helpful to the reader than deleting the redirect. Of the three, I consider PIR to be the most logical because it's the parent organization to the other two. If you want to argue that most readers would rather be redirected to one of the other articles, go ahead, but that's an argument for changing the redirect, not deleting it. The reasoning behind having some redirect is pretty straightforward: A reader who's looking for information about Daniel Brandt will be better served by this redirect than by being told (accurately but unhelpfully), "No page with that title exists." JamesMLane t c 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
"represents our editorial judgment that, given the present state of Misplaced Pages in which there is no article with a particular title, someone who types in that title will be best served by being redirected to an existing artice". Indeed, it does represent our editorial judgment. And when that judgment is called into question, what will we do? Settle it by squabbling like this? Or by recourse to our core principles? You say that our readers would be best served by direct redirection to one of the articles, rather than to a search page. Why is that? If that redirection provides them with some information that may be incorrect, why are they better served? Relata refero (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You're still assuming that the redirection constitutes a representation that the redirect target is the primary basis of the searched title's notability. As I said, I don't think it makes that representation. It carries the implication that the redirect target has some information about the searched title. In this instance that implication is manifestly indisputably correct -- no good-faith argument to the contrary can be made -- because the PIR article has information about Brandt. I also agree with JoshuaZ's point that no one else seems to interpret a redirect as making the factual assertion that you read into it. JamesMLane t c 04:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "carries the implication that the redirect target has some information about the searched title"...So do other articles. So, why PIR? Why the overall business? Why not Misplaced Pages Watch? Why not the currently redlinked Student activism at the University of Southern California article, that will someday definitely exist? Google places W-W up top for a search on his name, not the holding company. And, James, the point is that it has been challenged as creating exactly this impression: that Brandt's work with PIR is the most notable thing about his life. In fact, its been challenged by the subject of the bio. Given that, if we can't back it up with sources, we're in trouble. Relata refero (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought I wasn't going to reply to this but I'm going to. It should be obvious that the article that is about the organization he founded to run all these different projects is the most sensible redirect. And contrary to your claim Brandt hasn't made any good faith claim that PIR isn't the most logical target of the redirect, he's simply claimed he doesn't like the presence of such a redirect at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"Should be obvious.." When editor 1 asks for references, Joshua, and editor 2 says "it should be obvious", I think everyone's OR-alarm goes off.
And if you think I'm going to go looking through the stalkboard for where he made that claim, you're mistaken. (For some reason they don't google-index it, or it would be easier.) It nevertheless remains the case that he has made that complaint, among many others of varying relevance. This is the one that, in my opinion, is valid in the absence of supporting sources. And just because he's made others, I don't see how the validity of this one is affected. Relata refero (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Look Relata, the bottom line is that what you are saying isn't anywhere in WP:REDIRECT which makes it quite clear that such redirects are perfectly normal and routine. This isn't an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument as you claim but rather a demonstration that your unique interpretation of policy is simply not backed up by other policies and guidelines nor is backed by community consensus. If you think otherwise I suggest you find a single example of such an argument being taken seriously at an RfD. They don't exist. Even your claim isn't consistent because using google to see whether Xyxx is more commonly found when mis-spelling Xxyxx is original research. This claim is highly novel, has no basis in policy and isn't even consistent. And the fact that you need to make novel policy interpretations out of whole cloth that clash with both common sense and common practice if anything just shows how flimsy the argument for deleting this redirect is. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Joshua, if you think that I am going to waste my time trudging through RfDs looking for an occasion when someone's made a variant of this argument, you're mistaken. However, I don't need to. See, I don't care how many times you say there's no precedent, or no direct mention of this on the guideline page, etc., etc. What you need to do is satisfy my concern that core policy is violated, or demonstrate that those concerns are irrelevant, rather than claiming that nobody has asked them before. For example, showing me how common sense is violated by asking for a reference for an implied claim would be a good start. Relata refero (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Because the claim is already referenced. We've been over this before. Brandt is the head of PIR. Common sense links to such things. If you want, I can go and make a few thousand nominations of redirects starting with Arthur C Clarke or if you prefer, I'll start with living people and claim there's a BLP concern if we don't have sources saying explicitly that the typo is notable. Or you can acknowledge that this novel understanding of what constitute a good redirect isn't born out in OR, NPOV or REDIRECT. If you want it changed, I suggest you start a discussion on I don't know, VP or such and see if you can convince a single other human being that your notion of what redirects should satisfy has any justification whatsoever. In any event, I'm not going to keep responding to this argument about redirects. I note that no one else has jumped in to defend you, even those who favor deletion. You're welcome to keep your novel policy ideas and the closing admin will no doubt take them as seriously as they deserve. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The claim isn't referenced. You can certainly reference that DB was at PIR. You haven't referenced that DB is known primarily for PIR. If you are challenged on that point, then you need to reference it. Simple as that.
"claim there's a BLP concern if we don't have sources saying explicitly that the typo is notable": That, Joshua, is known as WP:POINT. I am pointing out a legitimate concern Brandt has aired, and which we aren't addressing using our core policies. If you were to do what you threaten to, that would be random disription.
"you can acknowledge that this novel understanding of what constitute a good redirect isn't born out in OR, NPOV or REDIRECT". I have no idea what the guideline says on the subject, and don't really care strongly. That this is a problematic case where WP:R doesn't provide easy solutions should be blatantly obvious. OTOH, I have explained at length how we operate as article -writers here, which is to check, if a point is contentious, whether the sources are on our side. You haven't done that, you don't get to make the point.
"...VP.. convince a single other human being that your notion of what redirects should satisfy has any justification whatsoever." Again, I'm not here to take things to VP. I'm asking a single question, and you haven't responded except to say "it hasn't been done before to my knowledge!" Well, tough. We're not a court of law, here. You don't make the argument, yo don't back it up with sourcing, you don't get to do what you want, regardless of whether you think precedents are involved one way or another. Also, I'm not claiming that this should be the case for all redirects; but problematic ones, which have been objected to as unfair, I'd say its pretty obvious.
"You're welcome to keep your novel policy ideas and the closing admin will no doubt take them as seriously as they deserve." You're right there, of course. Plenty of admins can't read this much without getting a headache. Still, I hope you've learnt that core policy is core policy and applies everywhere. Relata refero (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and restore redirect, without any doubt. Everyone's argument about 'let's put this behind us' is completely moot. If you want to put it behind us, stop nominating it for deletion and bringing this whole issue back up. I never did support the deletion of the article, and would absolutely support it being brought back; permanently fully protected if need be. However, I can see that there are too many people here who aren't interested in writing an encyclopedia, and would rather bow to blackmail and intimidation from someone who likes to imagine threats. As such, we are stuck with a Goddamn redirect. There is NO reason to delete that too. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes there is, see above. Relata refero (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've read it, and I disagree. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Then you believe that it is a reason for something, but not a reason to delete; or an insufficient reason; or something else? I ask merely because, as written, your statement is either incorrect or vacuous and likely to be ignored by a careful closing admin. Relata refero (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe it's just my local vernacular, but I've always been under the impression that saying 'I see no reason to do x' was just a stronger way to say 'I disagree with the idea of doing x'. In any case, it won't matter whether the closing admin takes what I say into account, as this is a forgone conclusion. I'm just registering my indignation. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Your Dour Northern Indignation is registered :) Relata refero (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion no RS provided on the notability of the link from Brandt to PIR, and how this is such a notable link that it warrants a redirection. The PIR article already mentions him --Enric Naval (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Links don't have to be notable the way articles do. That the article mentions appropriately a person in a significant way is enough warrant for a redirect. DGG (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would you say that? If person Y objects specifically to being associated with X institution that has an article on WP, even if X article mentions Y, we have a duty to demonstrate ,if required, that a redirect is justified under our core policies. In this case, if the claim is that Y is not mainly notable for an association with X, we have to source how that claim is not justified. We don't have carte blance just because we think there's no direct content; there is content, the association of Y and X in WP's voice, as it were. Relata refero (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Clarification - what do you mean by "direct content"? — xDanielx /C\ 05:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait what? "RS provided on the notability of the link from Brandt to PIR" The argument here isn't why we need to keep it, since this is standard issue for redirects, but rather why we need to remove it. That's very backwards thinking there. -- Ned Scott 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
See above. Standard, schmandard. Relata refero (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Your comments above do not address what I brought up. The reasons here should be so obvious that explaining them will cause insanity. I'm having too hard of a time doing it myself without sounding like I'm insulting you, so I'll let someone else do it. -- Ned Scott 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Only nobody has. For the excellent reason that the only reason people have is "but I create redirects without sourcing them all the time!" Yes, but not controversial, contested redirects. Those you had better source, if challenged. Humour me, alright? If I'm insulted, I'll let you know nicely. Relata refero (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As this was deleted out of process, surely the correct approach would be to restore the redirect then list it at redirects for deletion? Because we're not going to get consensus here, which will mean it stays deleted, but there would not be consensus at rfd, which would mean it was kept. A puzzler Whitstable 14:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Which is exactly why WJB rejected my idea of undeleting and listing this at RfD. Even for those who do believe this redirect should go, nothing in this situation is so urgent that would require this swift action. Deletion happened first as a disruptive strategy to give those supporting deletion the upper hand. The fact that I'm seeing WJB do it is very upsetting, and I certainly hope this is an isolated incident. -- Ned Scott 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think this needs it's own subpage. I've added in some section breaks for easier navigation. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion of redirect we had a consensus at the last DRV that the redirect should be kept, and it should have been listed at RfD rather than being simply deleted. Hut 8.5 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion of redirect and take it to RFD where it should have gone in the first place. Out of process deletion of redirect as last deletion review decided. Object strongly to the setting of any precedent here by which such redirects can be deleted out of process as some seem to be suggesting. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I agree with Davewild and others who've criticized the process. Despite our nominal policy that a lack of consensus defaults to "keep", we seem to be moving toward a system where, in practice, any lone admin can delete an article or redirect, and the deletion will stand unless there's a consensus against it. That would be (is) a terrible idea. JamesMLane t c 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, it is argued by many that, notwithstanding that the community has, at WT:BLP and on the mailing list, rejected the idea of reversing our presumption of "keep"ing for articles that are substantially BLPs, the "burden of proof...on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of policy" language of the Bdj RfAr (and the spirit of BLP) has served to effect such a reversal (this is a rather persistent misunderstanding of the Bdj RfAr , and one the incorporation of which into BLP is disputed at present, which makes plain, IMHO, that there is no consensus that it flows plainly from BLP), such that a consensus should be required for the restoration or recreation of a page that has been summarily deleted per BLP, and such that, indeed, the "lone admin" practice might be adopted, notwithstanding that adminship is purely ministerial. Even under that standard, though, WJB's deletion is flawed; a discussion of the propriety of the redirect was undertaken previously, and the community, having weighed the wishes of the subject in the context of the version of BLP that still prevails, determined those wishes not to be dispositive. Consensus about the issue might indeed have changed, but that change must be borne out at RfD before deletion, and so even those who adopt the strictest construction of BLPUNDEL ought, in view of the procedural issues here, to support restoration and then listing at RfD, lest the "lone admin" practice should be extended without limit. Joe 19:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Verging on incomprehensible there, Jahiegel. Avruch 19:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The correct procedure for an administrator who disagrees with a decision at deletion review is to ask for another, or discuss the clase somewhere appropriate to build up support for doing so, but not overturn it unilaterally. The BLP policy says the the Deletion Review procedure is for judging the deletions of admins under the procedure, no the other way round. One can't by oneself reverse to keep a BLP after a deletion review that says delete, and the same goes the other way round. As I read the last DReview, it endorsed this redirect. DGG (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • regarding claims that this is not a useful redirect If one looks at traffic numbers for Daniel Brandt and for Public Information Research one sees that the majority of the traffic for the PIR article is from the Brandt redirect. For example, in the month quoted, last February, the Brandt redirect was viewed 1315 times and the PIR article was viewed 1502 times. If one looks at earlier months one sees similar results. Most glaringly in December of 2007, 1157/1197 views of PIR came from the Brandt redirect. The notion that this isn't a useful redirect simply does not fit with these numbers. I urge the closing admin to disregard any such claims. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Uh, that might have more to do with the ridiculous amount of attention we and WR give to Brandt rather than casual readers looking him up, especially given that the PIR article is nearly an orphan, and that there are 0 mainspace links to Daniel Brandt but over 500 in other namespaces not as frequented by readers. Those stats don't include why people were going to that page. Mr.Z-man 02:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That's a valid criticism, I don't see any way of getting around that short of having this up for a few months and a note to a poll at the top of the PIR page "Did you get here from Daniel Brandt? Is this article useful to you?" but that's not a very viable option option. I would say that the numbers above are certainly suggestive. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • On the other hand, the presumption there is that usefulness should be assessed from the perspective of the non-Wikipedian. I think the idea is defensible, but somewhat dubious. We want information too! :-) — xDanielx /C\ 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Note that even if it were demonstrated that all the people looking at the article were actually here looking for info on Brandt - which I believe is ridiculous, because of the sensible point that Z-man makes - "usefulness" is not the sole criterion here. You also need to establish that the link is the most relevant possible and justifiable given the concerns raised above and by the article's subject. Which you haven't done. Relata refero (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Relata, repeating something doesn't make it more true. We've demolished this novel policy argument above. I find this attempted wikilawyering particular ironic given that the people calling for undeletion are being accused of being policy wonks. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
              • And Joshua, wailing about lack of precedent is not really a way to "demolish" someone's argument. And what I find deeply shocking is that you are declaring substantively equal a complaint about which community discussion is needed - which is really petty wikilawyering - with carefully stated concerns based on our core principles. Really, that's so inappropriate I don't know what to say. Relata refero (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Section Break 4

  • Further comment. It's disturbing to me that what this out-of-process deletion has done is shifted the burden of proof to those arguing keep. The burden is with those wishing to delete, not vice-versa. There's clearly no demonstrable consensus here to delete it, and if this were a standarde deletion debate (as it should have been, had WjB not misused his delete tool), there's no way this would be deleted. As such, I would argue for a bold undelete and a referral to the standard practice for deletion of a redirect, rather than an out-of-process unilateral decision to delete (and protect), as has happened here. Bellwether C 03:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that redirects, or anything for that matter, can only be deleted as a result of a deletion discussion? And that any other deletion is out of process and should be reversed, not discussed at DRV? Or is this out of process not because its a deletion without an RfD, but because there was a previous DRV and only 4 months or so had passed in between? If that is the case, what is your personal threshold on how long after a DRV something is protected from deletion? I dispute your assertion that this deletion was out of process - there is a significant gap between the DRV and this act, and not all actions are reviewed ahead of time at XfD - DRV is for both those that were and those that weren't. There was a deletion - this is deletion review, and thus obviously the right place and the right process. Avruch 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that his point is that given that exactly this action was overturned on the previous DRV, it is unreasonable to wait a few months and then do the exact same action. RfD is always an option and is exactly what this was supposed to go through. While there may have been IAR concerns that would justify temporary deletion, those are currently moot. If DRV says not to do a certain action, yes you need to get a new consensus before you do it again. If for example, in three months someone tried an out of process deletion of Don Murphy that would be just as bad. When there is a clear consensus one way, to do something else you need to show that consensus has changed. Not delete something and then claim that that's magically now the default setting. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see this "clear consensus one way" that you speak of in DRV 3. Its about split, and Xoloz' "may be taken up at RfD" comment (predicated, clearly, on his belief that such would happen shortly) isn't binding. Given a weak or nonexistent consensus, interpreted by Xoloz as a consensus for reversal while noting the potential for an RfD and the need for wider consensus, I still don't see WjB's action as "out of process" in any way that requires a change to the default of DRV or the use of a different venue. Avruch 19:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact, to follow up - I counted, and including the nominator and the deleter (Doc and Dmcdevit) there were 19 to endorse and 20 to overturn in DRV3. How is that a clear consensus one way? Avruch 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You may want to talk to Xoloz who was the closing admin, but he said in part "The consensus below is that applying BLP in this manner to redirects is a new development, requiring more deliberation than one admin's opinion" which appears to be the relevant issue- there was a stronger consensus that this was a new thing that shouldn't be done by a single admin. Also, some of the endorsements are quite weak. See for example Nick's comment. I agree that my description of the consensus being "clear" is incorrect but the basic point remains. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop beating that dead horse and seal this nonsense shut. The resolution of the 14th attempt at an AfD was done over a year ago. This is the fifth deletion review for something that is gone and should be buried. Let this be the last deletion review of this - it's time to move on. Closing admin: please preclude the possibility of a sixth deletion review before the whole thing flares up again in a week or two. B.Wind (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That's a nice idea except that multiple of those DRVs ended in it being kept. The 14 AfDs were because people repeatedly tried to get it deleted. It is a tad bit hypocritical to make that sort of claim after spending that much time trying to delete it that to then DRV a step against the compromise that was supposed to end it is somehow beating a dead horse. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse So the deletion was out of process. That's pretty much indisputable. But to undelete it, just so that we can have a RFD, that could be skipped by just deleting it here and now, is in my opinion a waste of time. Really, anything regarding Brandt at this point is a massive waste of time. Which is much of my reason in wanting the redirect gone, aside from the fact that the target article has virtually no biographical information on Brandt anyway. In any case, to those complaining about how people are ignoring process and endorsing a bad deletion just because they don't want the redirect there: If enough people endorse this deletion to make it permanent, then you can guess how the inevitable RFD would have gone anyway. Just for the record, I do agree that this is the wrong forum for this and WJBScribe could have saved some time and effort by just going to RFD in the first place, but that doesn't change my opinion on the merits of the redirect itself.--Dycedarg ж 05:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore redirect. I don't see how it hurts to have it there -- really, it helps people find information related to a topic they looked for. Arguments can be made that the resulting search page does that, but I know people who ignore search pages. Dookama (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore redirect. I feel much less strongly about this one than I did about Don Murphy, because the latter is a clearly notable person, while Brandt is in my opinion more obscure (my opinions on the last AFDs were I think, to delete). Still, I think it is best to respect the outcome of the discussions, the complex merge was a compromise proposal and should have settled the matter, that outcome was even endorsed by community consensus. If someone disagreed with the outcome, a new discussion should have been opened, going ahead and deleting the redirect just like that flies in the face of consensus, undermines discussion, and should be overturned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Endorse deletion As much as has already been said in the above, the target of the redirect gives little information. This is in the best interest of the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
To clarify above, I think this was done with the best interest at heart, and in good faith. I also don't think that restoring this redirect is a net gain to the encyclopedia. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Ignoring policy (and previous consensus) in favor of one's personal opinion, in order to "stack the deck" for the ones who argue for deletion isn't in "the best interest of the project." What WjB did was wrong, period. Bellwether C 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    How precisely does deleting the redirect out of process, thereby ensuring that all the people adamant that process be followed despite their desire that the redirect be deleted eventually would vote overturn in the DRV that could not possibly have been expected not to happen, stack the deck in the favor of deletion? From what I can see, he's done quite the opposite. I would remind you that should this DRV be closed as no consensus, the redirect will be undeleted. It is if anything more difficult to wrangle an endorsement for an out of process deletion from DRV than it is to get a delete from an XfD.--Dycedarg ж 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Generally a no-consensus on a DRV results in no actions. So no consensus here would likely result in the redirect staying deleted. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Right. Which is why I said WjB effectively "stacked the deck" for his view by misusing his power of deletion/protection to enforce his view on the matter. Now we have to demonstrate consensus to undelete, which is an unfair stacking of the deck. Bellwether C 22:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Unless something has changed since the last time I participated in one of these, you are both incorrect. A no consensus result in a DRV does not result in no action, it results in the indication that consensus has not shifted since the last deletion debate that took place, thus the consensus from that debate becomes the default. Overturning an AfD requires consensus to produce action, but overturning a CSD or an out of process deletion/restore requires consensus to uphold the deletion/restore, and should consensus not be demonstrated the default is to undo the action. The last demonstrable consensus was for redirect, thus that is the default. This is done to prevent exactly what you fear: An admin using his powers to illicitly gain an advantage in a dispute. See this discussion for where I got my information. Discussion of this probably exists elsewhere, but I do not know off-hand where it would be.--Dycedarg ж 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Dycedarg, I disagree with you about the merits of the deletion, but I greatly appreciate your comment on this procedural point. The closing admin should note that a lack of consensus defaults to "keep", not to "no action". JamesMLane t c 04:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore redirect so then we can have a redirect for deletion debate, which will surely result in a "delete" and then due process will have been followed. Only then can a line be drawn under this. And the fact that he is now threatening to publish IRC logs from earlier in the year should make no difference at all, before anyone mentions it. Whitstable 19:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just keep deleted, jeez. No need to restart RFDs or whatever. -- Naerii 21:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore redirect; take it to RFD if necessary. I'm not so bothered by the fact that the initial deletion was out-of-process as by the fact that I can't see any good reason for it. I've read through this whole page, and nowhere have I seen any good argument for why this redirect should be deleted, other than 'Daniel Brandt keeps harassing people about it'. Take a look at the deletion criteria for redirects at WP:RFD#DELETE, and tell me which one this violates. (That list isn't meant to be comprehensive, but it covers all the usual reasons.) The closest it meets is 'the redirect is offensive' - and even then, I don't really see how. Does Public Information Research violate WP:BLP by describing Brandt in an unfairly negative way? If not, then how is the redirect offensive?
It's true the redirect isn't of great encyclopaedic value, and Misplaced Pages would lose very little if it was deleted; I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it. But I don't see what we'd gain by deletion either. The article Public Information Research mentions Brandt prominently; if someone searches his name, that seems a reasonable place to direct them to. I still don't see what's so bad about that redirect.
It seems to me that the main argument used by people arguing for deletion here is WP:NOTAGAIN; since this has caused so much drama in the past, they just want to end it once and for all and be done with it. I have some sympathy for that view; I too wish we could just reach some consensus on the Brandt issue, put it behind us and move on. But before this deletion, I thought we had reached that consensus. The redirect was the considered result of a long and complex AFD discussion; that decision shouldn't be overturned without an RFD discussion, at the very least.
Whatever the result of this Deletion Review, I too hope we can finally put an end to the Brandt business. Daniel Brandt's deletion log () is officially ridiculous, and when I think how much time and effort has been wasted arguing over it, it makes me want to cry. But none of that means deletion is the right answer here, still less out-of-process deletion. If there's a good argument for getting rid of this redirect, let's have a long and careful discussion about it at WP:RFD. Terraxos (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore I guess Daniel Brandt got his wish of the redirect being deleted a couple of days after he posted it on Misplaced Pages Review. Some call this proxying for a banned editor. But I digress, had this gone to RFD, I may have supported the deletion. Note what I disagree with is how arbitrarily the decision was made. Something of that magnitude needed to be discussed before hand, and should not have been a decision from a single editor. — Κaiba 17:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)