Sandifer calls "Brandt, Bagley" "nutjobs", ...odd, B&B's proof shows Sandy's WP friends to be nuttter Options

[Piperdown]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/082715.html

[Daniel Brandt]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/082763.html

[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Fri Oct 12 14:28:17 UTC 2007

We possibly erred in deleting the article on him. This latest mention in the Slate article may have tipped the balance with respect to notability. If he is taken serious by mainstream media, perhaps we ought to have an article. Or perhaps we should make an explicit exception for subjects we are too close to, and not have articles for such subjects.

Fred

I predict that they will start another bio on me. This time it's even clearer than it was when Slim started it, that the general context is a feeling among certain admins on Wikipedia that it's time for malicious payback. That means everything in the bio had better be completely NPOV and accurate, or I'll have a defamation case even if the court decides that I'm a public figure.

The important thing, however, is that restarting my bio pushes Florida's two-year statute of limitations ahead, because it has expired now for the original bio.

Oh goody, another two years to find a kick-ass Section 230 lawyer who is willing to do it pro bono.

[anthony]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/082763.html

[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Fri Oct 12 14:28:17 UTC 2007

We possibly erred in deleting the article on him. This latest mention in the Slate article may have tipped the balance with respect to notability. If he is taken serious by mainstream media, perhaps we ought to have an article. Or perhaps we should make an explicit exception for subjects we are too close to, and not have articles for such subjects.

Fred

I predict that they will start another bio on me. This time it's even clearer than it was when Slim started it, that the general context is a feeling among certain admins on Wikipedia that it's time for malicious payback. That means everything in the bio had better be completely NPOV and accurate, or I'll have a defamation case even if the court decides that I'm a public figure.

The important thing, however, is that restarting my bio pushes Florida's two-year statute of limitations ahead, because it has expired now for the original bio.

Oh goody, another two years to find a kick-ass Section 230 lawyer who is willing to do it pro bono.

Why not sue the editors who actually write the article, thereby bypassing the section 230 defense altogether?

By the bye, does Sandifer, Gerard, Baudy, and the rest of the Motley Crew think that John Cooley is a "nut" ? We know that Weiss thinks Patrick Byrne is, and we know that Slim Underground thinks that her old boss Pierre went Nutty (for the Jayjg oversights tell us so!), but I just want to figure out why Brandt and Bagley are nutty. Quoting very reliable sources and showing IP logs = nutty. Hmmm.

Didn't Slim basically accuse Salinger of working for the CIA in one of her oversighted edits? That's certainly no nuttier than his accusing her of working for MI-5. Can someone point me to that edit?

UPDATE: Here it is: "In January 1989, Salinger began a three-year investigation with ABC News into the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. During this time, according to an article by Christopher Bryon in the American Spectator, Salinger passed confidential ABC News memos on the bombing to the CIA. Salinger admitted doing this to Byron, saying he was only trying to help. Those who worked with Salinger believe he later passed ABC News information on the bombing to Colonel Gadaffi of Libya."

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Piperdown]

Those who worked with Salinger believe he later passed ABC News information on the bombing to Colonel Gadaffi of Libya."

Hmmm. Didn't Slimmy "worked with Salinger"? So was this "belief" original, first-person research by a wikipedia editor? Or is there a reliable source for that?