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

No wonder the source is unreliable and loves Wikipedia! The author is hiding behind a screen paper name:

Thom Burnett is a pseudonym for one of Britain's leading experts on security and military matters. Thom served with UK Special Forces in the 1990s, and since then has been undertaking postgraduate research in both conspiracy theory and military intelligence.

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.

Considering when the article was created (October), it is more likely the book was written well before the article. I don't think it uses Wikipedia as a source at all.

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.

That's absolutely not fair. I've asked Daniel Brandt a reasonable and clarifying question about levels of notability and when he answers it, all will be clear, I am sure.

Well, seems like Daniel Brandt has just lost this battle. The count down to restoring his article can begin. YEAH!

Well, seems like Daniel Brandt has just lost this battle. The count down to restoring his article can begin. YEAH!

Yes of course whether Brandt or anyone else has a biography on Wikipedia depends upon the overheated and self-manipulated feelings of a couple thousand teenagers regularly engaged on the site. Brandt is unpopular. Brandt doesn't want a biography. Brandt must have a biography. YEAH.

This is why the Wikipedian "community" can never be trusted with any part of the decision of whose biography ought to be included in the "encyclopedia." This includes any threshold question like "borderline notability."

Well, seems like Daniel Brandt has just lost this battle. The count down to restoring his article can begin. YEAH!

*sigh* - it's all about TheRevenge™, huh? This is exactly how Brandt behaves with Hivemind; propagating petty revenge on folks who piss him off. And some people maintain that Wikipedia has a streak of that, too? It has!

Well, seems like Daniel Brandt has just lost this battle. The count down to restoring his article can begin. YEAH!

*sigh* - it's all about TheRevenge™, huh? This is exactly how Brandt behaves with Hivemind; propagating petty revenge on folks who piss him off. And some people maintain that Wikipedia has a streak of that, too? It has!

But mommy, Wikipedia started it!

"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.

Thank God. I was thinking you'd never get it.

Slim works for the CIA. She's on loan to the NRO. Durova works for.... I'm not sure. Today's guess is the DoJ.

They're making a screaming fit because their hineys are going to be hauled in front of Congress in a few weeks.

Note Slim's false claim that WP has hired a cyberstalking expert. Jimbo refutes. It's a truckload of crap, that they are desperately hoping to use as a distraction. Won't work, but they have no other weapons, than their usual truckloads of crap. If they libel me, they'll get nailed for that. By two governments, not one. If not three. Good luck with that.

It's all this big grand game of excusing bizarre behavior on Wikipedia, justifying it as a reaction to (no, not terrorists, this is online activity) threats of violence.

Do you think that the Hambone threat and the Durova acid-threat in 48 hours is a coinkidink?

This is information warfare, and not at its finest.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 11th June 2008, 9:02pm

Well, seems like Daniel Brandt has just lost this battle. The count down to restoring his article can begin. YEAH!

*sigh* - it's all about TheRevenge™, huh? This is exactly how Brandt behaves with Hivemind; propagating petty revenge on folks who piss him off. And some people maintain that Wikipedia has a streak of that, too? It has!

A streak? Come on Alison. When someone stands up to the wikiadmin community they get pissed on and ridiculed for years - on the worlds largest and most popular reference website no less.

Just today, David Gerard called Brandt sociopathic.

I don't think Brandt's behavior comes close to this level of incivility. Most of the stuff on the hive mind was originally put on the web by the admins themselves. And now they are complaining that Brant is collecting and publishing it. I mean really, just exactly how stupid are these people?

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Wed 11th June 2008, 9:08pm

Has anyone stopped to ask: Why Brandt? Why Now?

He mocked her facebook friends who are all Wikipedians - big whoop.

This is a distraction.

Grade school information warfare.

Yawnworthy.

Brandt's article comes up. And it makes them look like crap when the heat is on.

Stay calm Daniel.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 11th June 2008, 9:19pm

Well, seems like Daniel Brandt has just lost this battle. The count down to restoring his article can begin. YEAH!

*sigh* - it's all about TheRevenge™, huh? This is exactly how Brandt behaves with Hivemind; propagating petty revenge on folks who piss him off. And some people maintain that Wikipedia has a streak of that, too? It has!

A streak? Come on Alison. When someone stands up to the wikiadmin community they get pissed on and ridiculed for years - on the worlds largest and most popular reference website no less.

Just today, David Gerard called Brandt sociopathic.

I don't think Brandt's behavior comes close to this level of incivility. Most of the stuff on the hive mind was originally put on the web by the admins themselves. And now they are complaining that Brant is collecting and publishing it. I mean really, just exactly how stupid are these people?

I've been on there myself, so go figure. In my case, Brandt had to dig through the EURID database to pull out the WHOIS record. They don't do private Anyways ...

When I said "a streak", I was being somewhat charitable I know it goes on. Indeed, without saying too much, one of the tasks of oversight is dealing with egregious defamation, so we get to see it all I spend a lot of time trying to keep all vindictiveness out and it appears there are certain people hell-bent on putting it right back in. *sigh*

If someone chooses to play in the gutter, don't be surprised that others play the same way.

If someone chooses to play in the gutter, don't be surprised that others play the same way.

Whatever happened to "stooping to their level"?

This is the second time Gerard has called me a "sociopath." Maybe someone from the press should call him and ask him to elaborate (his telephone number is on the Foundation's press page). Then I can sue the Foundation because he has no evidence for such a statement.

David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com
Fri Oct 12 20:23:33 UTC 2007
Brandt is a sociopath. "Truth" and "lies" only have relevance as far as furtherance of self. Trusting him to be anything other than a sociopath is not sensible behaviour.

Maybe I'll drop a note to Mike Godwin and ask for a Foundation apology.

Whatever happened to "stooping to their level"?

I think that how Daniel treated you sucked, frankly. But he's been wrecked all over the place by WP. For a few years. Think of how that horrid man treated you, and that's where Daniel is with WP.

This is the second time Gerard has called me a "sociopath." Maybe someone from the press should call him and ask him to elaborate (his telephone number is on the Foundation's press page). Then I can sue the Foundation because he has no evidence for such a statement.

David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com
Fri Oct 12 20:23:33 UTC 2007
Brandt is a sociopath. "Truth" and "lies" only have relevance as far as furtherance of self. Trusting him to be anything other than a sociopath is not sensible behaviour.

Maybe I'll drop a note to Mike Godwin and ask for a Foundation apology.

Well, technically speaking, it's a medical diagnosis, straight out of the mental health handbook, the DSM. So yeah .. it's really not a good thing to say at all

Well, technically speaking, it's a medical diagnosis, straight out of the mental health handbook, the DSM. So yeah .. it's really not a good thing to say at all

Its not just that. Gerard is gratuitously nasty - vitriolic, even. On a routine basis. Profane as a matter of course.

I don't know what good he does. Part of such a job is to facilitate. He's the anti of that.

Whatever happened to "stooping to their level"?

I think that how Daniel treated you sucked, frankly. But he's been wrecked all over the place by WP. For a few years.

Y'know, objectively speaking, I agree. I only found out really about the Brandt stuff on here, and relatively recently. I'd little idea as to what had gone on there, the revenge-creations, the socking at AFD, etc, etc. Totally wrong.

However, Brandt took me hostage and I got to pay the price. I've a welcome break right now, but I get to deal with this all over again next September 15. He got his redirects deleted. Hell, he didn't even ask me? I'd have done it myself in a heartbeat. I've already dealt with stuff subsequently, on request. Same as I would for anyone else.

Think of how that horrid man treated you, and that's where Daniel is with WP.

Well, no it's not. Not by a long shot. Look - I'm really not into playing games about who-hurt-the-most-and-how. No point. This whole thing isn't over for me, and won't be any time soon. I just really don't want to have to keep talking about it on here.

This post has been edited by Alison: Wed 11th June 2008, 10:06pm

I apologize. I did wish to note that he's been tortured - just not in person, and not with fear off physical presence.

I don't think how he treated you was ok, frankly. I did wish he'd have dialed it down when things were calmer, but I don't think that was... well, that's who he is. The whole thing did start with an unsolicited provocation, towards him.

However, Brandt took me hostage and I got to the price.

That kind of over-blown hyperbole, so typical of Wikipedians, undermines your argument.