Hivemind, Alison vs. Daniel Brandt Options

[guy]

We used to get crickets in the basement laundry room in the house I grew up in, back in Omaha. But 'crickets' was never used as an exclamatory expression.

Perhaps it's a UK thang.

So... What does it mean?

It may be a further corruption of "Crikey!", itself a corruption of "Christ!".

[jorge]

We used to get crickets in the basement laundry room in the house I grew up in, back in Omaha. But 'crickets' was never used as an exclamatory expression.

Perhaps it's a UK thang.

So... What does it mean?

It may be a further corruption of "Crikey!", itself a corruption of "Christ!".

Don't think so Guy, I have a feeling it came from a film or TV show but can't remember what it was.

[wikiwhistle]

I've not heard it before but it was obvious what Alison meant. Is she still waiting for an answer?

[Moulton]

Alas, the process of emotional maturation is ofttimes slow and sluggish, even with the occasional Bokononic Shove.

[Alison]

I've not heard it before but it was obvious what Alison meant. Is she still waiting for an answer?

Indeed she is. Maybe he didn't hear me.

Oh Jonathan, where was I "tampering with the PIR article and its redirects" and why was I made "fair game" as a result? Just point me to the diffs and I'll be happy!

[Docknell]

This discussion is interesting. I don't want to pass judgment on Alison per se as I cannot yet make an informed decision there.

But I would have to say that accusations of stalking or revealing identities, especially when such information is made public already, is definitely a very strong sign of being unreasonable/of the cabal.

On WP I've come across so many situations where people are punished for stating the bleedin' obvious about interested or overbearingly biased parties. In general its always about solving the bias problem, but you get your effigy burned for it nevertheless.

There are other signs of the cabal. I notice they do tend to make emotive consensus seeking dismissals, such as "thats doesn't ring true" or "thats just smoke" or other "Bah, humbug" types of statements to whitewash or otherwise smokescreen obvious dodgy intent.

I can't say I know much about Daniel Brandt either, but I appreciate the value of this newsgroup. Whatever the communication style, a clearer picture of what WP is actually about tends to become clearer.

[Viridae]

I find it extremely ironic that Brandt is doing to other innocents what he objects to so much when done by wikipedia, gathering personal information on a person which is already availiable on the internet and resynthesising it in one place so as to make it easily accessible...

Of course wikipedia being much higher in the google ranks the effect is magnified in Brandt's case, but I have no doubt that had wikipedia been a lowly site, he would still object.

[Aloft]

I find it extremely ironic that Brandt is doing to other innocents what he objects to so much when done by wikipedia

Brandt does not allow the information to be edited anonymously by anyone. Brandt does not have 500+ websites scraping and reproducing his page. Brandt is accountable for what he writes on his site. Do you see the difference between Brandt and Wikipedia? When are Wikipedians going to realize that the publishing of personal information is only a small part of the problem for BLP victims?

This post has been edited by Aloft: Wed 26th March 2008, 7:36am

[Viridae]

I find it extremely ironic that Brandt is doing to other innocents what he objects to so much when done by wikipedia

Brandt does not allow the information to be edited anonymously by anyone. Brandt does not have 500+ websites scraping and reproducing his page. Brandt is accountable for what he writes on his site. Do you see the difference between Brandt and Wikipedia?

Did I deny the differences? No. However the PRIMARY similarity is the one that I find so ironic.

[Moulton]

I find it extremely ironic that Brandt is doing to other innocents what he objects to so much when done by Wikipedia, gathering personal information on a person which is already available on the internet and resynthesising it in one place so as to make it easily accessible...

It's a rather banal irony that enemy combatants are wont to adopt the practices of their adversary, even as they denounce those reprehensible and repugnant practices. It seems that fighting fire with fire is a fairly common (if ironic) practice.

Then there is the notion of innocence — a judgmental label that tends to vary depending on who is adjudging whom. And so we run smack into such curious and antiquated practices as Guilt By Association and Bill of Attainder.

And so I once again propose a process for resolving these recurring dilemmas.

I would like to see NewYorkBrad, Alison, SirFozzie, Lar, and Viridae co-sponsor a Truth and Reconciliation Process to address and resolve the long-festering issue regarding problematic BLPs on Wikipedia.

[Random832]

I find it extremely ironic that Brandt is doing to other innocents what he objects to so much when done by wikipedia, gathering personal information on a person which is already availiable on the internet and resynthesising it in one place so as to make it easily accessible...

One could almost say that what Wikipedia does is a sort of 'research' of 'public information'. A sort of half-blind, undirected research, but still...

This post has been edited by Random832: Wed 26th March 2008, 1:27pm

[Moulton]

I think it's worse than that.

For reasons that still mystify me, the otherwise anonymous editors of many WP BLPs seem to revel in finding and highlighting negative and controversial information about the subject of BLPs, to the exclusion of more normative, more balanced, and less titillating biographical information.

Is it any wonder that disgruntled observers of such yellow journalism are tempted to repay the favor by publishing negative portrayals of arrogant and insensitive WP editors and admins?

[Jonathan]

I've not heard it before but it was obvious what Alison meant. Is she still waiting for an answer?

Indeed she is. Maybe he didn't hear me.

Oh Jonathan, where was I "tampering with the PIR article and its redirects" and why was I made "fair game" as a result? Just point me to the diffs and I'll be happy!

I don't have the diffs largely because I don't tend to visit WP much other than to view certain ArbCom cases and to check out episode summaries of TV shows unavailable to the TV Channels I have. What I said was based on this said by Brandt:

If Alison deletes the redirect from Daniel_Brandt to Public_Information_Research and makes it stick, I'll delete her hivemind entry. Normally she would first have to assassinate JoshuaZ, but now that he is deadminned, a simple kneecapping might do the trick.

I took that to mean that you were either putting up resistence to deleting the redirect or you were causing other stuff to stop the redirects being deleted. It was based on interpretation (that may well have been wrong and if it was, I apologise) and on Brandt's word, but I still consider him a far more trustworthy source than you.

[Moulton]

While it may be expedient to recruit an otherwise uninvolved admin to review and correct an error or injustice perpetrated by others, the failure of the so entreated admin to achieve that prayed-for outcome does not translate into the novel theory that they had a hand in causing the original error or injustice.

Some systemic problems are simply too difficult for anyone to fix, no matter how diligent or good-intentioned they are.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Wed 26th March 2008, 5:23pm

[Random832]

I took that to mean that you were either putting up resistence to deleting the redirect or you were causing other stuff to stop the redirects being deleted. It was based on interpretation (that may well have been wrong and if it was, I apologise) and on Brandt's word, but I still consider him a far more trustworthy source than you.

Brandt has at no time (to my recollection) said (in any terms that wouldn't require extremely creative interpretation as you have done) that Alison had any involvement with the redirect, the article, or deletion and/or non-deletion of same, so shouldn't you rather say "on interpretation of Brandt's word" than "on interpretation and on Brandt's word"?

This post has been edited by Random832: Wed 26th March 2008, 7:27pm

[Alison]

I've not heard it before but it was obvious what Alison meant. Is she still waiting for an answer?

Indeed she is. Maybe he didn't hear me.

Oh Jonathan, where was I "tampering with the PIR article and its redirects" and why was I made "fair game" as a result? Just point me to the diffs and I'll be happy!

I don't have the diffs largely because I don't tend to visit WP much other than to view certain ArbCom cases and to check out episode summaries of TV shows unavailable to the TV Channels I have. What I said was based on this said by Brandt:

If Alison deletes the redirect from Daniel_Brandt to Public_Information_Research and makes it stick, I'll delete her hivemind entry. Normally she would first have to assassinate JoshuaZ, but now that he is deadminned, a simple kneecapping might do the trick.

I took that to mean that you were either putting up resistence to deleting the redirect or you were causing other stuff to stop the redirects being deleted. It was based on interpretation (that may well have been wrong and if it was, I apologise) and on Brandt's word, but I still consider him a far more trustworthy source than you.

Okaaay, well thanks for replying here. Thing is, though, I've never had anything to do with Brandt, his articles nor his redirects until he mentioned it here himself. I'd not really been following that issue at all, truth be known.

When I went over to enwiki to check what was going on, Lar had got there before me and the redirects were gone, so there was nothing I could do anyway. From here, it looks like you misinterpreted what Daniel Brandt had said in the first place, and took it a lot further than it was intended. Am I still "fair game" then?

Oh, and of course you trust him more than you trust me - I'm Evil Incarnate™

This post has been edited by Alison: Wed 26th March 2008, 9:52pm

[Milton Roe]

Did I deny the differences? No. However the PRIMARY similarity is the one that I find so ironic.

I still don't know why you find this ironic. Imagine Japanese during WW II sitting around and saying: "I don't know why the Americans are so upset about Pearl Harbor. After all, they're bombing us in just the same way. What irony!"

Well, it's not irony.