So a month after having some socks banned, my trusty team of film fans was able to ID Consumed Crustacean and Aleta/Lady Of Shallot. I finally had a break and wrote long letters to CC's father and Aleta's employer so they know that the editors are members of a pedophile promoting, defamation encouraging cult.

It made me reflect on all this hard work and wonder if it were worth it. I mean, I just asked for some respect, to please not host an article that an angry 12 year old who hates Transformers movies could deface. They could have and should have taken it down...but now I get to save souls from Jimbo's crawdaddy hands.

I'm the lucky one. Amen

Well, at least I appreciate what you did.

(CC is yet another snotty teenager, isn't he?)

And I see that ColScott has taken care not to name these individuals or the employer in question. That's a level of care rarely exercised on Wikipedia, to be sure.

Yes, it's needful. The neo-media and the paleo-media have shown themselves to be amazingly slow to see a simple con game cum cult for what it is. You'd think they'd be the first to grasp the dangers of a dis-informed public, but they just don't see it yet. Wikipedia could have stayed ahead of the wave — but they chose to lag behind. Reality has caught up with Craigslist, and that will drag the Gov (more openly) into this medium. They all wanted the cover of being "just like a phone company", so now we'll all get the wiretaps.

Jon Awbrey

It's available on my message board. I was respecting the few people here who wouldn't like it mentioned, yes.

CC is 17. Indeed. Funniest thing was, he did this interview with the local paper and they were the ones who gave him up. I mean we tricked them and all, but still. So much for journalistic ethics.

Now hiveminded.

not a fan of outing people. Especially when Brandt decides to take the opportunity to defame them.

Even if they defamed somebody, that's not an excuse to put them on a libelous website, such as the one Brandt maintains. Ethics, where art thou?

How the hell is one's real name, city of residence, age and photograph even remotely "libelous"? I have never understood the obsession with Hivemind, anyway. Sanity. where art thou?

I don't understand. In the present instance what did Brandt say that is "libelous?" I don't support the use of quid pro qou bargaining to get people on or off Hivehind. I'm troubled by identifying minors as such. But you are mischaracterizing Brandt when you say there is anything remotely libelous about CC on Hivemind.

Sorry, I didn't see the defamation.

Is it "defaming" someone to call him by his real name?

Is it "defaming" someone to call him a Wikipedia Administrator?

Then maybe the problem is there.

Jon

no it's defaming someone to write that "all users listed" as Brandt is wont to do.

Go ahead and list them, Brandt. Just stop putting disclaimers that paint everyone with a broad brush, when the people listed have very little in common.

I visited his site once and it listed a whole swath of people, including Selina and various WR members, and wrote at the bottom some allegation about everyone on the page, which wasn't even true.

ColScott and Brandt aren't libeling or defaming anybody... they're just being assholes. Their antics make it hard for me to fight the "BADSITES hysteria" that erupts against WR from time to time, where the most potent argument they have is about how WR is dominated by people who think it's a good idea to harass Wikipedians by sending letters trying to get them in trouble with their parents, employers, significant-others, campus cops, etc.

BADSITES hysteria is expected and maybe even justified when you have WR members posting personal information about people to enable other WR members to harass them.
The BADSITES thing started because of WR members harassing Wikipedia editors. The root of the problem? Murphy's libelous "forum" and Brandt's website.
I will not visit Brandt's website, but I know it has libeled people in the past and I also know that Murphy has libeled people here and on his forum.

Tagged for Web Searches under • Give Me Libertarianism Or Give Me — Oh, Wait •

What he said. Why is this garbage permitted? What possible reviewing benefit does posting these individuals names and adresses have?

I get that the 60 year old retired koots and self-employed regenge junkies who engage in this reprehensible behavior will say "Hey, us 60 year old retired koots and self-employed revenge junkies go by our real names, why don't you?"

This, of course, ignores the fact that they are retired or self employed and have no commitments to others. They don't have bosses who don't care that the letter they got is made up out of whole cloth, or that the bombardment of 40 phone calls is just a bunch of rambunctious kids playing transformers on the internet, or that the long legal letter was sent by not a real lawfirm, but some guy that some guy knows.

Brandt and Murphy make me think of the stock character from children's TV shows, the "Grumpy Old Man Down the Block", who usually lives alone in a large old house with a huge yard surrounded by a fence with "No Trespassing" signs, and comes down hard on the neighborhood kid who dares to try to enter this yard, perhaps to try to retrieve a ball that accidentally went over the fence.

You are such an idiot.

Jon

Why bother using logic when a personal attack works better?

Logic don't work on idiots.

Ja Ja

Murphy wants his bio deleted. It's still there. When the whiners on this thread delete that bio and make it stick, I'll take down the two hivemind entries that he and his supporters researched. Bottom line: I respect Murphy more than I respect those admins who are giving him trouble. Pick which side you are on; you cannot have it both ways.

Unless being identified as a Wikipediot admin is a form of defamation?

But the counter is, if you don't want to be labeled a Wikpediot admin, then do not
become a Wikipediot admin.

If you live by the wikipeida sword, (all knowlege belongs to the people) then you have to die by the sword, ie knowlege about you and your role in shaping Wikipedia is public knowledge and the public has a right to know who you are.


You got to love the stink of high hypocrisy of the wikipeidot hive.

Next time you're on-wiki, kindly go and ask Shankbone the same question.
And don't forget this happy-time commentary.

What the hell are you talking about? Brandt IDs these freaks so the world can be protected from them. NO ONE MAKES THESE LOSERS EDIT.

Edit at your own fucking peril.


Don't want to get anyone in trouble- I want them exposed so that people can make intelligent and informed positions. Whether that is to hug them or stone them I could give a shit.





Hey Dipshit- I have never libeled anyone. Prove your statement or stfu and apologize.

Except you write people letters saying subjects are "members of a pedophile promoting, defamation encouraging cult."

Do you think you're self-serving lies are witty? That people believe you're not just a rage junkie because you talk with juvenile legalese pretending not to be out to ruin peoples lives?



"You are a member of a pedophile promoting, defamation encouraging cult."

Those statements, made about individuals without public notoriety, which you have published, are made with malice aforethought and with the intent to injure. They are also untrue in that the individuals you have targeted are not "members" of Wikipedia, and they are also untrue as you will fail to defend "pedophile promoting" and "defamation encouraging."

I kind of wish you'd figure out who I am and come after me - you've got deep pockets and somehow I think I could find some friends to represent me.

Note: I'm not your lawyer.

Look I know I am explaining to an idiot so what does that make me right? But I'll try.....

When Brandt id'd NyBrad, Brad got worried. When I posted the question on my highly travelled site "Does (Real Name) Edit Wikipedia on his client's Time?" Brad QUIT the cult for a very long time. Why did he do this? I don't know. I could GUESS that Brad quit because my assertion was true. If that were the case, Brad had something to hide and THAT'S NOT REALLY MY PROBLEM, GENIUS. Same thing here. I think (not sure) ALeta edits WP, a pedophile promoting cult, during office hours and she works for the library, a public job. IF SHE DOES indeed do this I am a HERO for exposing her not a villain. If she doesn't my letter is ignored.

Any confusion?

You not any lawyer, Puggsley.

1- there are many articles about WP pro pedophilia stance
2- I can personally affirm that I have been defamed repeatedly as have others

THE TRUTH IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE.

Basically you have no idea what you are talking about.

A registered user is a member.

Ban my next sock and I'll out you and LAUGH IN YOUR UGLY STOOPID FACE.

( I love how he THINKS he could find friends he isn't sure he has any)

Good question, Mr. Dan, but I think he's simply trying to suggest that this analogy of yours is so flawed as to be "idiotic." This is because the "neighborhood kid" in your analogy can usually be removed from the fenced yard in question without a great deal of difficulty - simply saying "get the hell outta my yard" usually does the trick. The neighborhood kid never feels a sense of entitlement regarding his being in someone else's yard, unless his parents are immigrants from a Balkan country (I know this from personal experience), though admittedly the young tyke might well be entering the yard with malicious intent - quite often is, in fact. Regardless, once removed from the yard, he normally leaves no trace of his having been there, and the incident is rarely - if ever - reported on by major media outlets.

Shall I go any further...?

Wikipediots are soooooo sensitive when it's their lives on the line — the merest possibility that screwing with other people's lives might have some repercussions on their own sends them into Wiki-Paroxysms of outrage. If only they had the capacity of normal human beings to turn that sensitivity around and see how it looks from the other guy's shoes they might never have gotten themselves into such a fix in the first place.

But Noooooo …

Jon

Moderator's note: Off-topic posts moved here (requires registration to view).

I guess what the WP folks are going to have to do, then, is determine which sock puppet accounts are Murphy's, and then just let him do whatever he wants with them. No "reverting," no silly waaaarnings, no nothing. Let him basically run the whole website - why not? In fact, why not just give him the WMF domains, all the servers, and the personnel required to run them, too? Have the WMF board, staff, and all the admins of all projects simply sign a release form giving control of all their personal assets and future earnings, as well as those of their children and grandchildren, to Mr. Murphy?

At least then they'd have taken some decisive action, instead of just sitting there and doing nothing, and having the identities of their many anonymous administrators cruelly exposed by Mr. Murphy, all to no good purpose.

Just as long as they don't do something that might imply that they don't have the divine right to do whatever the hell they please... Yack! Heaven forbid they might actually delete the Murphy article - surely no one would ever suggest such an absurd thing!

The WMF clings to its BLPs with the hopeless tenacity of an addict to a drug. It's difficult to understand why. I used to think it was just a straight Machiavellian thing which would allow them to cynically just delete the problem ones, while going ahead with what they could get away with. But no. It's actually not rational.

There's come connection with collection mania or hoarding disorder, which is probably active in encyclopedists. They can't throw stuff away even when their house is bulging and they can't move and it's a firetrap.

It's like getting a mad state to release its political prisoners (Gitmo!) or get even innocent people out of overcrowded prisons. The State just will not give them up. They'll suffer fines and embarrassement and even the fall of a government or empire rather than give any up. It's wacky, but it's also historical. It's like all those people you see on Animal Cops with the 120 starving cats or dogs, and looking for more....

What's really sad about this for me is, the last time one of my employers got an angry letter from a movie producer claiming that I was a member of a pedophilia-promoting defamation cult, he asked me if I could get him a membership card.

I did, but that's sort of beside the point here.

Wikipediots who edit BLPs have to realize that if the subject retaliates and the Wikipediot ends up getting spanked by his father, or loses her job, or whatever, the Foundation will not and cannot do anything to help him or her. That's because Section 230 immunity for the Foundation implies a hands-off posture regarding the fate of specific editors within the so-called "community" of Wikipedia. That's how I see it, and I'm fairly certain that Mike Godwin sees it the same way.

Ironically, the Foundation could just summarily delete the problem BLP article and be done with it, and I doubt that any judge would interpret this as a compromise of the Foundation's immunity under Section 230. I suspect the judge would interpret this as "common sense."

Of course, the Foundation will never see things this way, and someday enough BLP victims will get enough people spanked or fired so that the word will get out: Mess with a BLP and you might get messed up yourself!

I applaud Murphy's tough stand on this issue.

Arf arf - Whats good for the Dog (subject of a Wikipedia Bio from hell) is good for the master (wikimedia).

BTW, Mighty Dog is the offical dog food of your rank and file wikipediots

W-R's Poet Snoreaut asks...

So what exactly is wrong with writing atrocious song parodies about Wikipediots who publish atrocious BLPs?

What really puzzles me is why semi-intelligent people keep puzzling about this, when the answer is too obvious to bother mentioning again. I think the answer — to the meta-puzzle, I said the answer to the object puzzle was too obvious to bother mentioning again — must lie somewhere in the theory of cognitive dissonance. This predicts that people who regard themselves as semi-intelligent, at least, will eventually find themselves puzzled why they wasted so much time on what they eventually semi-realize is a totally futile activity — and with utterly insufficient reward to boot — and their self-image of themselves as ≥ semi-intelligent persons will then cause them to make up some bogus explanation for why they did that. Invoking Greek archetypes or the Greater Glory Of God are popular sources of dramatic hamburger-helper, but I'm sure you have your own personal favour-rites.

Jon Awbrey

I don't consider research on learning disabilities to be a futile activity.

Is that what you think you're doing?

That's okay, I have my ≤ semi-intelligent days, too.

Jon

Does ColScott's mommy know what he's up to? Maybe somebody should write her and tell her. All the people and companies in Hollywood he might have dealings with should be written to as well. I'm sure something sufficiently sensationalistic can be whipped up, concerning him stalking and harassing people including minors.

And now you seem to have memory deficits, too.

That's kinda how this whole thing started, remember?

Jon

Will some moderator send Tobias to the tar pit?

If Tobias doesn't have the guts to accuse Murphy of "stalking and harassing people including minors" on his own site, where Tobias already has a convenient paragraph on Murphy just waiting for such a comment, then there is no reason why Wikipedia Review should have to host this drivel.

I'm not actually accusing him of "stalking and harassing people including minors", just using that as an exaggerated, trumped-up, sensationalized distortion of what he's actually doing, along the lines of his own connecting of people to "a cult of pedophiles" because they're active on Wikipedia.

Once again, the likes of Brandt resort to trying to censor their critics.

Alas and Alack


Alas, so I have noticed.

Then again, tomorrow is another day.

yawn. loser.

Guy Chapman tried that with Variety two years ago. Variety called. I showed them the WR article summarizing why I had come here in the first place. I pointed to the articles from Perverted Justice warning about pro pedophilia on WP. Twenty minutes later they left in disgust.




Btw, Tobias you nitwit, Jayvdb seems to be a Facebook friend of yours. He banned a sock yesterday and I'm working on his letter as we speak. You can say hi for me!

http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?t=30256

You bagged a checkuser, oversight, administrator, and arbitrator this time. And a participant on Wikipedia Review. Here is one of his recent posts:

Pretty funny. To paraphrase: "Many banned users could be good content producers, if they joined our cult..."

Maybe he'd like to explain himself here before you send off a letter. Oh, what the hell, go ahead and send it.

As Mr. ColScott mentioned above, someone already attempted to get a story into the entertainment press, without success. You might try again, but if anything, it's even less likely to be successful now. As for companies he has dealings with, I'm afraid your mental image of "Hollywood companies" is somewhat... distorted.

However, I can at least say that ColScott's mommy was notified of his behavior, and reacted very strongly, by steadfastly refusing to vote for him in his campaign for Mayor of Pelham, Alabama unless he "stops pussyfooting around with those stupid kids on the internet and starts chopping some heads off with a meat cleaver."

She's a very nice woman...

[This is all speculation - not only am I not a lawyer, I also have no insight into what AlioTheFool is thinking.]

The name "hive mind" implies everyone on the list thinks alike - given some of the names on the list, you can't see the problem for everyone else? The page also implies that some people "hide behind a screen name" who never have.

----

Oh, and since you're active here again, can you explain what I ever did to you besides disagreeing with you here on WR?

Wow, that quite a stretch.

I did say it was only speculation.

There's also the fact that the content of the page has changed before and it can change again, and he doesn't exactly have a track record of keeping his word even regarding actual removals from the list. There's a reason Hipocrite was going on about wanting it in writing before he'd consider acting.