RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Barrett Brown (first attempt)

Barrett Brown | Result: Keep

Barrett Brown (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Does not meet mission statement and is full of misinformation and misinterpretation — some BON, 11 May 2023 (User:2601:281:d880:ded0:346c:2b6c:294c:b8d3)

   The only way to improve this article in my opinion, is to burn it all down and restart again. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:281:D880:DED0:24E7:3603:7C1E:2BFE / talk / contribs}

2. Was created by a single user for obvious purpose of misinforming your readers, to such a ridiculous extent that its key claims have already been removed. To leave up anything else added by the same contributor - this entire page and nothing else - only makes sense to the extent that there's a reasonable expectation that a person who outright lies about a subject in the portions I've already addressed can nonetheless still be trusted on the same subject. It's certainly possible to me to go through all of the lengthy interviews that this user has paraphrased to present another set of falsehoods, and perhaps pull out quotes showing that I didn't say what I'm claimed to have said, but I would prefer that the burden of proof be on the person who's already been caught lying to prove his claims by quoting me, rather than on me to show that I didn't say these things any more than I'm a "targeted individual" and "Shyster". And I would think that readers would generally prefer such a standard. As it is, the article and the demonstrably false comments it contained have already been up for a year before I happened to come across it; it still contains falsehoods, including unsourced and debunked claims about the "co-founder of Anonymous" (and so does your page on Anonymous, in the very top quote; but that's another subject), such that I think it would be fair to remove all the contributions by that user and then, if you really need a page on me, have it written by regular contributors. - BB ^{— Unsigned, by: BarrettBrown / talk / contribs}

   On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

   Gotcha, thanks. I used to know that but it's been years. testing BarrettBrown (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep

1. Missional; improve not remove. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. It's missional enough insofar as it relates to Anonymous and Wikileaks. As previously noted to @BarrettBrown, we will correct anything that is inaccurate. Bongolian (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. I'm a bit too suspicious of the IP votes to let this slide. Plutocow (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   @Plutocow Please see below; the user was verified as a longtime contributor to a variety of entries, in contrast to the person who wrote the entire page and nothing else. I've engaged honestly, politely, and in good faith, and so I think it's especially unfair for me to have been implicitly accused of tampering with the process (especially since one would have to be a moron to edit one's own page or have others do so at the very time one is bringing it to the attention of moderators). BarrettBrown (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

   The Bon who defended you and thought you were acting in good faith here, yes I agree with you and the vote should be changed or at the very least deleted. 2601:281:D880:DED0:7C03:54B9:98D1:F12A (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

4. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Goat

1. Can the BoNs reveal themselves? I'm always a little suspicious when a bunch of BoNs show up to vote in an AfD, but maybe that's just me Plutocow (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, I'm suspicious too, particularly User:2601:281:d880:ded0:346c:2b6c:294c:b8d3 who appeared on the same day as BB and only edited the BB page. There's no rule against new accounts or BoNs voting on non-punishment votes, but double-voting is a no-no. Bongolian (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   Hi hello yes, I am the BoN, both of them, That is not two separate votes that is me commenting on why I think the article should be deleted beyond the reasons I have already given. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:281:D880:DED0:2DED:15B7:15F5:C02 / talk / contribs}

   On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   OK BoN, I've adjusted the formatting so it shows as one vote. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   That doesn't address the question of why BoN #1 appeared suddenly at the same time as BB to only critique the BB page. Bongolian (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   I thought he made good points and was acting in good faith, unlike other certain people. I have been making some edits from time to time without ever making an account. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:281:D880:DED0:2DED:15B7:15F5:C02 / talk / contribs}

   These you? /64 log. The last parts of this IP change often, but it's popped up shortly many times on more topics. Seems fine to me. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, that is me. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:281:d880:ded0:2ded:15b7:15f5:c02 / talk}

   Since the "suspicious" IP seems to have been confirmed to the satisfaction of a mod to be a regular contributor to a variety of articles, I'd ask the moderator who voted "Keep" due to having believed otherwise to reconsider their vote. To be clear I would have found it suspicious too if someone appeared out of nowhere to weigh in on my page and nothing else, but since that turns out not to be the case in this instance, I'd ask that the same standard of suspicion be applied to the non-regular contributor who wrote the entire page under discussion here and literally nothing else. I think this would be especially appropriate given that no one seems to deny that the person's contributions include falsehoods and that this would seem to make them a less than sufficiently credible source for any outlet, much less this one. 86.27.113.91 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC) BarrettBrown (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)