On 4/25/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Just got this charming missive. If we're not going to do anything about Brandt, I'll just stop editing the article like he wants because I don't need to spend the rest of my life being hounded by a crazy man.
Just one more edit from Jokestress on my bio article, or just one more edit from you on my bio article <b>OR</b> on any of the two Talk pages or my User page, regardless of the nature of the edit -- even if it is ostensibly friendly -- and you and Jokestress are both going into a Google-Watch sidebar with your real names and pictures. I may throw in Sir William Reierson Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet of Kittybrewster, into the mix as well, since he is part of the Google Groups episode as of today (which makes it relevant to Google-Watch.org). I don't know about him yet because I'm not sure he knew what he was doing. By the way, this is not a threat. It's a promise. Also, I'd advise you to put your real name on your user page, because all of your harassment (please learn to spell this word) from January 5, 2006 until now has been done "without disclosing his identity," which makes you potentially liable for criminal penalties under that new law that you deleted from my user page. It doesn't matter that I've identified you, because you are still operating on Wikipedia as someone whose identity is not disclosed. Yes, please take this to Brad Patrick, Wikipedia's lawyer, in Tampa. My position is that he should be reporting you to the U.S. Attorney in Tampa as part of his legal obligation to protect Wikipedia. If he doesn't, I can raise the issue with the Florida bar. In other words, it would be a conflict of interest for Mr. Patrick to give you any advice on this. Jokestress is off the hook in terms of the criminal statute because she identifies herself on her user page. I'm sending a copy of this to Jokestress by external email. --Daniel Brandt [[User:68.93.142.243|68.93.142.243]] 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Good grief. I'm starting to wonder whether we should have a group of editors who haven't been foolish enough to break their pseudonymity assigned to articles like this (the idea being that if they haven't been foolish enough to give out their names and pictures for people like Brandt to abuse, they'll be less liable to be threatened by "exposure"; for instance, if Brandt were to make any threats against me, they would be completely hollow: no one on the wiki or the web knows who I am, where I live, or what I look like; the data just isn't there.)
~maru
Good grief. I'm starting to wonder whether we should have a group of editors who haven't been foolish enough to break their pseudonymity assigned to articles like this (the idea being that if they haven't been foolish enough to give out their names and pictures for people like Brandt to abuse, they'll be less liable to be threatened by "exposure";
Perhaps anyone considering editing that web page should create another account to do it with.
Theresa
On 4/25/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
Good grief. I'm starting to wonder whether we should have a group of editors who haven't been foolish enough to break their pseudonymity assigned to articles like this (the idea being that if they haven't been foolish enough to give out their names and pictures for people like Brandt to abuse, they'll be less liable to be threatened by "exposure";
Perhaps anyone considering editing that web page should create another account to do it with.
Wise idea. Never thought of that...
On 4/25/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
Good grief. I'm starting to wonder whether we should have a group of editors who haven't been foolish enough to break their pseudonymity assigned to articles like this (the idea being that if they haven't been foolish enough to give out their names and pictures for people like Brandt to abuse, they'll be less liable to be threatened by "exposure";
Perhaps anyone considering editing that web page should create another account to do it with.
Theresa
Nope. New accounts can't edit that page.
Anthony
On 4/25/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:>
Good grief. I'm starting to wonder whether we should have a group of
editors who haven't been foolish enough to break their pseudonymity assigned to articles like this (the idea being that if they haven't been foolish enough to give out their names and pictures for people like Brandt to abuse, they'll be less liable to be threatened by "exposure"; for instance, if Brandt were to make any threats against me, they would be completely hollow: no one on the wiki or the web knows who I am, where I live, or what I look like; the data just isn't there.)
Too bad you couldn't go back in time to give that particular advice to myself as a college freshman.
On 4/25/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Too bad you couldn't go back in time to give that particular advice to myself as a college freshman.
I think the "Infinite Archive" effect will affect three main classes of people the most:
1. People with very distinctive names (people with names like "John Smith" have little to worry about, since Google is flooded with entries on them). 2. People who get interested in the internet at an age where they don't care about or realize the consequences of having tons of public records about them sitting out in the open (difficult to retract most of them), or didn't realize that Usenet and Yahoo Groups and other such services kept archives which are then googleable. 3. People who have/had strong interests in anything who also fall into one of the above groups.
I personally meet all three of the above characteristics, much to my present annoyance.
FF
On 4/26/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Too bad you couldn't go back in time to give that particular advice to myself as a college freshman.
I think the "Infinite Archive" effect will affect three main classes of people the most:
- People with very distinctive names (people with names like "John
Smith" have little to worry about, since Google is flooded with entries on them). 2. People who get interested in the internet at an age where they don't care about or realize the consequences of having tons of public records about them sitting out in the open (difficult to retract most of them), or didn't realize that Usenet and Yahoo Groups and other such services kept archives which are then googleable. 3. People who have/had strong interests in anything who also fall into one of the above groups.
I personally meet all three of the above characteristics, much to my present annoyance.
Definitely 2 and 3 for me. My name is probably about as common as a "Mark Harrison" (no, that's not my name) - not as common as John Smith, but common enough for my identity to be safe.
An old work email address I used to (among other things) post to various anti-spam newsgroups and to vote on the creation of new alt.* newsgroups is *still* listed in some spammer's hatelists, even though that email address is no longer active. I'm sure that notices from the FBI saying they are investigating my online activities are still going to that address.
* maru dubshinki wrote:
Good grief. I'm starting to wonder whether we should have a group of editors who haven't been foolish enough to break their pseudonymity assigned to articles like this (the idea being that if they haven't been foolish enough to give out their names and pictures for people like Brandt to abuse, they'll be less liable to be threatened by "exposure"; for instance, if Brandt were to make any threats against me, they would be completely hollow: no one on the wiki or the web knows who I am, where I live, or what I look like; the data just isn't there.)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admins_willing_to_make_difficult_bloc... for a related idea.