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

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.

Like Guy Chapman, Gerard takes existential pleasure in calling imaginary spades "spades," causing unnecessary problems for the project. He should have been thanked for his efforts and relieved of his responsibilities a long time ago.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Wed 11th June 2008, 10:03pm

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

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

But Brandt is free to use whatever overblown hyperbole he wants?

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

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

But Brandt is free to use whatever overblown hyperbole he wants?

Certainly, at the risk of undermining his own arguments, which he does from time to time. But Dan the "both sides are equal" thing has worn thin.

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

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

It's about the size of it. Brandt wanted his redirects deleted. He got his redirects deleted. He stated just last week that I was taken off HM as part of that, something about some "clique" or other. He knows what works, etc, etc

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

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

It's about the size of it. Brandt wanted his redirects deleted. He got his redirects deleted. He stated just last week that I was taken off HM as part of that, something about some "clique" or other. He knows what works, etc, etc

Terry Anderson was a hostage. You were subjected to a website publishing information about you that you did not want published. I think calling this "somewhat coercive" might have been justified. Running around yelling "hostage" is not helpful. It parallels SlimVirgin's accusation of "stalkers" and "harassment." It would best if Brandt was not conflated with Amorrow and you were not conflated with Slim.

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

Yes. Gerard's coprolalia even when it doesn't serve him well in the least, would be more consistent with simple ADHD and Tourette's syndrome. And if he takes any meds for that, that would explain some of the paranoia, too.

--Mr. Armchair Shrink. 5 cents.

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

Yes. Gerard's coprolalia even when it doesn't serve him well in the least, would be more consistent with simple ADHD and Tourette's syndrome. And if he takes any meds for that, that would explain some of the paranoia, too.

--Mr. Armchair Shrink. 5 cents.

Thank you for making me laugh quite a few times this week. Now keep it up!

This post has been edited by Iamlost: Wed 11th June 2008, 10:50pm

The author is hiding behind a screen paper name:

So did Lewis Carroll and many other very reputable authors.

So he's a Penguin author? An utterly respectable publisher?

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

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

Except it's not overblown hyperbole. You read the WHOLE thread alison posted here about what she had to go through right?

Or was it tl;dr for you, since it was much easier to believe that it wasn't that bad?

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

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

Except it's not overblown hyperbole. You read the WHOLE thread alison posted here about what she had to go through right?

Or was it tl;dr for you, since it was much easier to believe that it wasn't that bad?

Well, I do accept his point somewhat, Foz. Using the word "hostage" is emotive and somewhat inappropriate. Point taken.

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

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

Except it's not overblown hyperbole. You read the WHOLE thread alison posted here about what she had to go through right?

Or was it tl;dr for you, since it was much easier to believe that it wasn't that bad?

You are conflating Brandt and Amorrow. Alison has a serious grievance against Amorrow. She does not have a serious grievance against Brandt. If you put your information all over the internet why should you get to complain if people find it? Collecting IRL identifying information about Wikipedian admins is a lawful and proper activity. Better to publish such information without fear or favor and without regard to the conduct of the admins in relation to any individual. Unfortunately Brandt doesn't see it that way. But he is the person who made the effort to collect the information.

Alison is extending this discussion beyond reasonable sympathy for her from Amorrow's conduct. It no longer serves any productive purpose in relation to holding the true bad actor accountable. She has also demonstrated a proclivity to escalate the conflict with herself and Brandt. It now has a great risk of degenerating into mere internet whining.

Except it's not overblown hyperbole. You read the WHOLE thread alison posted here about what she had to go through right?

Or was it tl;dr for you, since it was much easier to believe that it wasn't that bad?

Brandt is no different from what any newspaper reporter is. He seeks the facts, makes a note, then puts his findings on his publication, called Hivemind. He is in fact no different from Woodward & Bernstein of the "Post". And as for Fozzie, would he know his Nixons from his Nikons?





This post has been edited by Gold heart: Thu 12th June 2008, 1:21pm

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.

I hope this is relevant, as well as being a little self-referential to a proposal that I started - but I'd love eveyone's thoughts on my 'OptOut' proposal.

If you get a moment, and want to register your thoughts about it - you can do so here.

The reason I'm dropping this in here is in reply to Lar's request - and you'll see at the proposal my answer to the 'how do we decide?' is 'we just pinch a long standing definition which happens to be from US law, and therefore has a degree of established usefulness, subtlety and nuance - we then tweak it as we go.....'

it's been my intention to try and get more signatures at the Long Term Straw Poll page for quite a while, and will likely pull on a few blazers 'on-wiki' again about this one... I think it's important.

This post has been edited by privatemusings: Thu 12th June 2008, 1:23am

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

Yes. Gerard's coprolalia even when it doesn't serve him well in the least, would be more consistent with simple ADHD and Tourette's syndrome. And if he takes any meds for that, that would explain some of the paranoia, too.

--Mr. Armchair Shrink. 5 cents.

Thank you for making me laugh quite a few times this week. Now keep it up!

I give you a dollar! More belly laughs appreciated (again).

You are conflating Brandt and Amorrow. Alison has a serious grievance against Amorrow. She does not have a serious grievance against Brandt. If you put your information all over the internet why should you get to complain if people find it? Collecting IRL identifying information about Wikipedian admins is a lawful and proper activity. Better to publish such information without fear or favor and without regard to the conduct of the admins in relation to any individual. Unfortunately Brandt doesn't see it that way. But he is the person who made the effort to collect the information.

Alison is extending this discussion beyond reasonable sympathy for her from Amorrow's conduct. It no longer serves any productive purpose in relation to holding the true bad actor accountable. She has also demonstrated a proclivity to escalate the conflict with herself and Brandt. It now has a great risk of degenerating into mere internet whining.

I gotta disagree. Brandt had legitimate gripes with the system of admins, and he did a lot of outing to hit back. Some people who had nothing to do with hurting him got dragged into it, probably unfairly, but he didn't care (and I can see how he got to that point).

He might well have left A out of it, given where she'd been truly, criminally harassed. Having her name online after that was not ok. He took it down, I believe, but not after being a bit nasty to her, which wasn't necessary. And I say that as someone (me) that Alison walked into my conflict and assisted it, on the good word of some very naughty liars. But that happens. I know who the drivers were.

Brandt didnt have to do that to Alison. Alison should also maybe not comment if she doesn't want the harassment discussed. My 2 centavos.

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?

I don't see why they all shouldn't be able to opt out. If George Bush really doesn't want a Wikipedia entry, they should delete it. I'm sure the George Bush article is way too costly to maintain compared to the value produced anyway.

George Bush is clearly worthy of note, yes. If Wikipedia were an encyclopedia, there'd be no question what to do. But Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, and it no longer even seems to be striving to create one. Instead, Wikipedia has become an end into itself - not a project to create rough draft encyclopedia articles to be finished by Nupedia, but a project to create the world's most popular website run by a non-profit organization. Different goal, different rules.

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.

Who hasn't Ms. Mr. Gerard called a sociopath? Well, he hasn't called me one yet...I'm a little disappointed about that, but I assure you I'm working on it.

He really likes that word sociopath. Methinks his overuse of that word lets us know what he thinks about himself.