http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread....591#post1303591

Turns out that the 9 month peace was violated by this jagoff and the jets have been sent to the strip

Ah, the life of a successful movie producer...stalking people at an encyclopedia via a messageboard.

Hey John, so l listen I just got finished laughing at the "encyclopedia" comment- you are a funny guy

So anyway man, stalking is a crime, and I was wondering if you were accusing me in public of commiting a crime. Because, like, my lawyers and I were wondering.

So, Puss in Boots, are you?

No, you've got the legal monopoly on accusing others of wrongdoing. You can do it to whomever you choose, but nobody had better dare do it to you!

It's great to you back, ColScott!

Hi Don! Don't forget to keep working on your Megapedia thing. It has legs.

Oh, cry me a river. How sad I am that those geeks are being "harassed" by a movie producer.
Successfully, I might add.

As for East718 (T-C-L-K-R-D) : where to start?
I assume his name refers to where he lives. (718 being a Brooklyn/Long Island area code.)

His history seems to be that of a Nawlinwiki type.
His talk page is an endless session of butt-snorkeling with other admins,
and his contribs are full of tedious block-revert crap, little notes posted
to various user talk pages, Grawp chasing, and bizarre little edits like this.
Plus a lot of move-protecting featured articles. (Something that would be unnecessary if
WP had general edit-protection, but hey, it keeps this guy busy.)

and we know exactly how he voted in the Arbcom elections.
Make of this what you will.


So, what is he: prospective cabalist, tedious and obedient wiki-drone, or good guy?
My money's on the drone part.

Mine's on "good guy", mostly (has an account here, not that that proves anything). While a good part of his work is mindless automaton stuff, he does some nice idiocy-combatting as well, such as recently when KamrynMatika was being prevented from voting in the Arb Comm elections on account of some IRC stupidity, and longer ago when he took on the thankless and probably futile task of policing the homeopathy article. Haven't seen a lot of him, and I certainly disagree with a few of his Arb Comm votes, but my impression is overall positive.

What's his relevance to this thread? I must be missing something.

ColScott is whining about being "banned" by East. That's the relevance.

As for 718, there's no need to speculate as to its meaning. He says right on his userpage that he lives in New York City, for the dedicated stalkers we have on this forum.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...month=-1]Blocks

Eh, maybe, just barely squeaks in. He could probably use a life.


Read the thread on Don's forum.
Looks like he blocked an "alternate account" Don was using.....

And East718 is running some kind of auto-delete program to
kill nonfree images. Thousands of them just in the last few days.

I'm willing to bet he just killed a number of images he should
probably not have killed. Who the hell checked all those files?

Plus he's been blanking a huge list of talk pages for blocked users.

See this and this.

Seems kinda funny to me. I think he's abusing himself.

You guys have no sense of humor at all.

While they're doing the "DICK Awards" in another thread, they ought to add a "Wiki Whiner Award" for biggest crybaby... it could be a tough race between ColScott and Daniel Brandt.

Completely agree. I was just thinking to myself earlier how similar the two of them are.

That's a slight on Brandt: while I think he's a petty and vengeful thug, he's also a credible, coherent, and lucid critic of Wikipedia. I haven't seen evidence that ColScott is (though I haven't really read his message board much).

They're obviously not similar in every respect. Just in specific traits; namely the one that caused ColScott to start this thread.

Hey Tobias, stop derailing the thread... you can start you own "People Who haven't been laid in a decade" thread and I promise to ignore it.

I'm no whiner- I fight these cultists losers with all that I've got




we're similar in the following ways

1- we don't want to be included in your polluted sandbox
2- we don't say "oh well" when we are libeled and attacked- we fight back
3- we have managed to to signifcant damage to the cult
4- we're ready to take them with us


---------------

I'm amazed at what cowards the cultists are and continue to be- this NaturallyBlind guy has hounded me and articles about me for a month- he came into existence the very day my wife's movie opened so he could attack it. Now his anonymity is threatened and you can just see from his contribution page he is running scared because I will find him. He acts like the laws are on HIS side when there isn't a court in the land that would do ANYTHING for exposing him. He seems most upset (like NYBrad was) that people would ind out that he was editing at work. It's like, if you are ashamed of what you are doing DON'T DO IT. Pussy.

if that's what you want to call it.

Whole hearted support for your right to make these choices, and pure admiration on number two. You know I've disagreed with a call here and there, as I have with Mr. Brandt, but on the main call…well, it's crystal clear.

Col Scott, what can I do to help?

I don't know- What CAN you do to help?

Take it however you like, let whatever crack 1-800-LAWYER team you have working for you figure it out.

Another happy subject of wikipeida's sausage farm.

GIVE THEM HELL Mr. Murphy.

I knew you didn't have any balls, and am glad you just showed that in public. Clown.

What, no nursery rhymes with clowns in them?

You can always try to get Fred Bauder to redirect your article to "Clown" like he proposed be done with troublesome bios during an ArbCom case a year or two back.

Is that what it's being called these days? "Balls"?

To do what? Accuse someone else of something when they're threatening litigation?

Interesting.

We've been down this road just recently, whereby the egregious misuse of the term "stalking" by the Wikipedia Faithful has resulted in a lot of unnecessary unpleasantness...

At this point I'm thinking we should just go ahead and impose a rule whereby anyone who uses that term under its Wikipedia misdefinition should be suspended for a couple of days and the relevant posts deleted. I think we're all getting really tired of this - they just don't get to redefine the English language to suit their petty needs, whatever they may happen to be.

A bit draconian, though. What about some kind of 'search & replace' filter, or somesuch? Whenever the Wikid abuse the word "stalking" it is immediately replaced by, say, "stockings". Or "banana". I think that would be good.

But then real stalking would be altered, too. And, however arousing some might find it, I don't think we need dozens of threads about Alison being banana-ed

It's probably worth noting that unless I've missed something obvious, User:Naturallyblind's evil and heinous crimes against Mr.Murphy were adding some negative and neutral reviews to an article on one of his films which conveniently contained nothing but positive ones, and adding the Rotten Tomatoes stats to another one. He did it for other film articles too, so he's hardly stalking Murphy.

Of course Murphy would like to pretend that negative reviews about his films don't exist, and clearly he is also within his rights to complain about BLP issues all he wants, but whining because Wikipedia articles on his films aren't filled with fanwank just makes him look ridiculous.

I don't believe anyone accused Naturallyblind (T-C-L-K-R-D) of "stalking" anyone, did they? I suspect you got slightly mixed up on the "who's doing it to who" question...

Anyway, I used to think such a restriction would be draconian, but like I say, recent events have shown that we can no longer afford to be so cavalier about this sort of thing. Besides, it seems like any time someone misuses that word here, the whole thread just goes to hell and turns into a shit-flinging fest over, well, the misuse of the word.

Nah, that was referencing Murphy's own words in the linked thread in first post - "(Naturallyblind) has basically 90% only edited articles related to me and my work."

The main point is that if Murphy's launching his, er, "crack" squad of painfully amateur Net investigators on people who actually edit articles about his films properly, he's reducing his credibility when he complains about things where he might actually have a point.

1- NaturallyBlind is a WikiDouche who appeared one day and started attacking articles that somehow pertained to me. The other films BlackKiteTwit refers to all come back to me- even articles on Brad Renfro for example stem from his obsession with me. He appeared with FULL KNOWLEDGE of all wiki cult terms and abbreviations and focused on me. I tried very hard to keep the peace, even going so far as to put up with his shit for three weeks while I was on vacation in Italy. I returned and he had had my 1112th name banned (do these clowns not understand that it amuses me when they ban IPS belonging to the major studios- it makes them look retarded- and they have YET to stop me in three years do they think in a world of free wifi they ever will?). Having done that, it was time to ID him. And considering how much crying he has done since he must have something pretty major to hide.
2- John Reaves is the cultist who accused ME of stalking in this very thread. Learn to read.
3- I asked him for clarity because I wanted to show that all of these people are cowards. With the threat of litigation would he have the sac to accuse me of a crime? He of course showed himself as the ballless wonder he is.

Hope that increases your reading comprehension Black Kite and AnonyMouse.

The thing that never ceases to amaze me is that these people are so ASHAMED of what they are doing. It is the only possible explanation for their fear of being identified. If you are not willing to stand beside what you write on line then DON'T WRITE IT. If you don't want people to know that you are editing an encyclopedia during work hours, don't do it. The future of the internet is going to be less and less anonymity, not more.

The saddest thing about this is that Wikipedia will have to be eliminated by one well placed lawsuit or law change in the next two years and all these cowards will have no place to play.



Dipshit- there is NO PROPER EDITING of anything that involves me or anyone else. Don't you get that you baboon? WHO AUTHORIZED YOU AND SAID IT WAS PROPER? No one is qualified to edit me except me. And I would prefer to be left out of your puss bin but you won't leave me out. But proper? What are Naturallyblind's qualifications? What are yours? If someone is going to publish something on the web and claim it is an encyclopedia by ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEFINITION it has to be proven by experts not by some fat kids in a broom closet. Hell, the current article on me uses a bio I put on my site which is filled with BULLSHIT just to show people I need to show how easily played your MMPORG is .

Are you full of anything other than empty threats and a pre-teen notion of trash talking?

It's certainly an interesting thought, though I foresee that it could prove a problem for articles on people who are dead.

"3- I asked him for clarity because I wanted to show that all of these people are cowards. With the threat of litigation would he have the sac to accuse me of a crime? He of course showed himself as the ballless wonder he is."

That's a juvenile argument to make.



Perhaps Death can grant an exception to people who need to edit their respective Wikipedia articles.

go away coward


Mouse- How are articles about dead people edited in a REAL encyclopedia? PLease you look silly

Are you?


Then you misused the word too, didn't you?

Don't worry - I've thought of a solution to that (admittedly awkward) point. Something "up my sleeve", as it were. We could simply read the posts where stalking is mentioned and, using deductive reasoning, decide whether it's real stalking or Wikid stalking (which isn't real). Then maybe implement another 'replace' function that changes inappropriate "stockings" and "bananas" back to "stalking". Yes; it sounds insane, but I don't see why I should be blamed. I'm sensitive.


True. True. Half-a-dozen at the most would be sufficient. Eight, tops.

My name is not Mouse.

Of course not.

I'm just trying to point out that the childish ad hominem nature of his posts seriously compromises any valid complaint he has.

Pffft. Murphy used "hounded", I used "stalked". So shoot me

In some countries, they might do just that!

But editing an article about a movie to add links to reviews of that movie is not the same as editing an article about you.

It's not about you. You've provided nothing but empty accusations even for your claim that he was editing those articles because of your involvement in those movies.

Consider yourselves trolled, geniuses.
Keep bitching at him, so he can amuse himself.

He hasn't? I thought we'd already established that since this was Naturallyblind's first edit, Murphy had every right to conclude that User:Naturallyblind was one of the various WP folks who'd been sniping at him since mid-2007. Since nearly all of his edits to articles other than While She Was Out (T-H-L-K-D) since that first one have been essentially innocuous, what else was he supposed to think, given his history with WP?

Uh Dipper, no, NINETY PERCENT of the articles were Don Murphy related I already established this and convincing you about something is not my job

What does "dipper" even mean?

[My tone was inappropriate here and I need to calm down]

It's slang for a member of the New Democratic Party of Canada. I think he just called you a social democrat - would I be right in believing that it's on now?

Cigarettes dipped in formaldehyde?