Durova Threatens Brandt, Republishes his Bio + Claims "Someone" Sends her Slash/Threa Options

Gawd. Get out the meds, please.
Durova republishes Brandt's page on her blog, threatens to have his Wikipedia bio republished, and mentions all of this in the same breath as another "unnamed user" who has been threatening to throw acid in her face.

Please.

Durova. Call the friggin FBI if that happened (the acid throwing, rapist threat). Since you don't work there, and have no idea how anyone got that idea, call the damned place, report the threat, and get the guy arrested, and stop whining about it online. But wait - you can't.

Because I bet you made it up.

Just like the threat to whoever, what his bone-name is, anytime you don't want to face reality, you scream "terrorist" (no, on Wikipedia it's) "violent threat" or "stalker". Stop that. Grow up.

Any sane person would have reported that to the FBI, ASAP. Do it, stop whining, and get the sob arrested. Full stop.

And stop picking Brandt fights. Because you should.

And stop making sxxx up. Because ... well, just because.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 11th June 2008, 9:17pm

Wow. David Gerard calls Daniel Brandt a "sociopathic liar." Gerard is one of the few people in the world who can praise with harsh damnation.

Keep up the good work, Daniel!

This post has been edited by Saltimbanco: Wed 11th June 2008, 4:03pm

Um... facebook friends lists aren't private. At all. As in, you can just go look at them.

Wow. David Gerard calls Daniel Brandt a "sociopathic liar." Gerard is one of the few people in the world who can praise with harsh damnation.

Gerard.

I can't think of anything more potent to say. Just: "Gerard"

Um... facebook friends lists aren't private. At all. As in, you can just go look at them.

Actually you can set them to private.

Um... facebook friends lists aren't private. At all. As in, you can just go look at them.

Actually you can set them to private.

But were they at the time of the post? [Edit: they are still public to any member of Facebook - i.e. she is ranting about publishing something that is not private at all, bewaaahhhaaaahaa!.]

Regardless, it all smacks of "I have placed my name all over the Internet using all sorts of forums AND PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT ME "

I'm de-prioritising her importance to me. Oh, out of bounds exception, couldn't get less.

Um... facebook friends lists aren't private. At all. As in, you can just go look at them.

Actually you can set them to private.

Oh? I didn't know that. I know default for your profile is private, and public for friends' lists.

I can't think of anything more potent to say. Just: "Gerard"

Seems like a responsible forum would automatically replace that series of letters with a bunch of asterisks, doesn't it?

Gawd. Get out the meds, please.
Durova republishes Brandt's page on her blog, threatens to have his Wikipedia bio republished, and mentions all of this in the same breath as another "unnamed user" who has been threatening to throw acid in her face.

Damn, Durova screens her blog comments

Because I bet you made it up.

I would never call an alleged victim a liar without very good reason. Instead I think we should set the clear expectation that when someone is threated in a serious manner that they respond by making a report to appropriate law enforcement. That Durova didn't do this doesn't make her a liar. It simply means that people outside immediate knowledge of the matter can not reasonably credit her claim. We don't know if she made it up. We simply do not have sufficient indications that would allow us to accept her version of events. It is a threshold requirement. If she did make complaint we might still need to examine the merits of her claim before accepting it. But without documenting the claim with a formal complaint we don't even get to the merits. This is not because we are "telling her what to do." It because making a complaint is what any reasonable person who suffered the thread would do.

Considering Daniel is notable enough to be included in a "proper" encyclopedia, the "dead tree standard" his bio was deleted under doesn't even apply to him. That encyclopedia was published in 2005, the same year as his wiki bio.

Where is this post of Brandt's that she's talking about?

Her threat to campaign for Brandt's bio to be reinstated only proves that her concern is for petty revenge, not building a so-called encyclopedia. Having morals means that you don't toss them out the window just because you think the other guy has, Durova. Your true colors are showing now more than ever.

Where is this post of Brandt's that she's talking about?

Her threat to campaign for Brandt's bio to be reinstated only proves that her concern is for petty revenge, not building a so-called encyclopedia. Having morals means that you don't toss them out the window just because you think the other guy has, Durova. Your true colors are showing now more than ever.

It has been deleted probably.

Durova found me in a so-called "dead-tree encyclopedia," which is an encyclopedia about conspiracies. I've never heard of this book. Based on the snippet shown by Google Books, she figures I qualify for a bio on Wikipedia under her "dead tree standard."

The snippet reads, "Page 187
DANIEL BRANDT b.1948 Researcher and webmaster Brandt has been at the forefront
of conspiracy research for decades and for the last 30 years has been ..."

I can't access any more than this on Google Books or Amazon.com, but I already know that this book is based on an unreliable source. The only source that has ever stated that I was born in 1948 is my old Wikipedia bio.

I was not born in 1948. This dead-tree source is corrupted. We've come full circle, people.

Durova's example of a dead-tree encyclopedia is based on my now-deleted Wikipedia bio, and Durova is claiming that this dead-tree encyclopedia justifies restoring my bio under her own recommendations.

Instead, what she has accidentally demonstrated is that the dead-tree standard is hopelessly inadequate, because human knowledge has already been irrevocably corrupted by Wikipediots.

A no-questions-asked opt-out by the subject of the bio is the only solution for the BLP problem. I used to think that the dead-tree standard was reasonable, in conjunction with an opt-out. Not any more. The dead-tree standard does not cut it for me anymore.

A no-questions-asked opt-out by the subject of the bio is the only solution for the BLP problem. I used to think that the dead-tree standard was reasonable, in conjunction with an opt-out. Not any more. The dead-tree standard does not cut it for me anymore.

How about just an exemption for "works published by reputable publishers prior to the existence of Wikipedia which do not demonstrably use Wikipedia itself as a source"?

Opt-out for everyone is just not realistic, IMO - I used to advocate that early on, but I realized fairly quickly that they'll never let it happen. Then again, what am I saying? They'll never let a compromise approach happen either, at this rate...

I'll go leave a comment to this effect on Durova's blog, but I'd say chances are close to 100 percent that she'll delete it.

A no-questions-asked opt-out by the subject of the bio is the only solution for the BLP problem. I used to think that the dead-tree standard was reasonable, in conjunction with an opt-out. Not any more. The dead-tree standard does not cut it for me anymore.

Who should be able to opt out? That seems the sticking point. George Bush? Laura Bush? Jenna Bush? Vannevar Bush? (if he was still alive, or his heirs), Archibald Bush? Steven Bush?

I think it would be difficult to sell the first one as opt-out-able and the last one is obviously non notable but where's the line?

You've probably rightly pointed out that the dead-tree standard is imperfect. What metric is better?

Durova found me in a so-called "dead-tree encyclopedia," which is an encyclopedia about conspiracies. I've never heard of this book. Based on the snippet shown by Google Books, she figures I qualify for a bio on Wikipedia under her "dead tree standard."

The snippet reads, "Page 187
DANIEL BRANDT b.1948 Researcher and webmaster Brandt has been at the forefront
of conspiracy research for decades and for the last 30 years has been ..."

I can't access any more than this on Google Books or Amazon.com, but I already know that this book is based on an unreliable source. The only source that has ever stated that I was born in 1948 is my old Wikipedia bio.

I was not born in 1948. This dead-tree source is corrupted. We've come full circle, people.

Durova's example of a dead-tree encyclopedia is based on my now-deleted Wikipedia bio, and Durova is claiming that this dead-tree encyclopedia justifies restoring my bio under her own recommendations.

Instead, what she has accidentally demonstrated is that the dead-tree standard is hopelessly inadequate, because human knowledge has already been irrevocably corrupted by Wikipediots.

A no-questions-asked opt-out by the subject of the bio is the only solution for the BLP problem. I used to think that the dead-tree standard was reasonable, in conjunction with an opt-out. Not any more. The dead-tree standard does not cut it for me anymore.

It is the fruit of a poisonous dead tree.

"Collins and Brown" seems to be an imprint for illustration and how-to books, so it's a little suspicious that they'd publish a "Conspiracy Encyclopedia" containing material from WP - I wonder if they cite it properly?

They don't even appear to have their own website, which is also suspicious. Maybe they themselves are the actual conspiracy, in order to hide a much bigger conspiracy, like the one that's been going on in my pants for the last half-hour.

A no-questions-asked opt-out by the subject of the bio is the only solution for the BLP problem. I used to think that the dead-tree standard was reasonable, in conjunction with an opt-out. Not any more. The dead-tree standard does not cut it for me anymore.

In other words, you're once again moving the goalposts in order to finagle the desired result regardless of what principles need to be rejiggered to accomplish this.

The 2005 Daniel Brandt article refers to him as having been born in 1947, not 1948. It seems far more likely that the Wikipedia date came from this book, rather than the reverse.