I meant the term "harm" in a broad sense. (I should have excluded the bit about self-righteous crazies) You did mention that him "
maintaining a healthy distance and relationship with his patients seems" is a concern. Him losing that as a result of the NYT piece is harm. I've never denied that. I just think people are sometimes overplaying the crazies angle. Doesn't sound like the few that have already supposedly reached out to his employer managed to do anything. Is him posting the NYT editor's information putting the guy at risk? Will Scott stans accept his qualification that the editor might not be responsible? Is the idea of the injustice of his doxxing and the loss of a treasured blog sending a stan into war-mode? Is EA on a plane as we speak, a cheesehead Gradus with murder in his heart? Probably not.
If you argue the likelihood of him being significantly harmed is low, because he's not really that inflammatory a figure, then that's still the case if he were more robustly doxxed. I'm just pointing out why he would react as strongly to having his last name revealed as "names, addresses, family members, place of business, etc"
I don't think his reaction is crazy or anything. I think it springs from some genuine concerns and I think it's largely calculated to stir up a response that will encourage NYT to maintain his anonymity. He talks about taking down the blog as having a "wait and see" angle to it.