So last night ThePizzaMakingCaveman started editing and well, some people thought he might be COLSCOTT and even though every edit was legit and good and sourced, this one batshit user, Wildhartlivie started following him around and got him banned. Which was kind of the point since the good Caveman was demonstrating to a group of people the HIve cult dynamics and how they don't care about an accurate article they care about their made up rules.

Okay.

Now in the middle of this Livie started alleging that she had filed a complaint with the State Police against the good Col Scott. She later said she and other editors have done this.

That's so amazing- because I believe it.

So what do we think she did? Go to the police station and something like this-

Bored Cop- Cane we help you ma'am?
Livie- Yes. The producer of the Transformers movie has identified me.
Bored Cop- Who? What?
Livie- He's put my address on his website.
Bored Cop- Where did he get it from?
Livie- A different website.
Bored Cop- I see. Has this man threatened you in any way?
Livie- Well just to tell people I edit Wikipedia.
Bored Cop- I see. And this would bother you?
Livie- Yes. I feel in fear of my life.
Bored Cop- Okay, some guy across the country has listed your publicly available information. Cool. Got it. We'll get right on it.

Livie exits. Cop files report in trash.

I mean, what the hell with police reports- if you are that scared STOP EDITING morons!

Sadly, not one damn bit of this surprises me.

The sockpuppet report is here for amusement.

Jeez......you had that many socks??
Or is Livie simply, totally insane? (Well, I admit that's obvious.)

There's a LOT more socks than that- they think that a bunch from the Phil Gronowski days are all one guy and they are- me.


And she's obviously nuts. She LIVES on the Manson page and then states the Coslcott is obsessed with Manson- pure comedy!

What's funny is that not once does anyone react to the name I am using- like it's normal to refer to someone as a Pizza Making Caveman. They blanked the talk page, but at one point I had this maroon apologizing for not using my full name. Priceless

The level of hypercrazy x-hibited on that SPI page is just amazing.

You really ought to get your community into the PACMAN game — no, the other PACMAN game — get it to go viral and you could bring down this CU nonsense once and for all.

Ja Ja

Jon is right. His "PACMAN" game would be a lot of fun for your supporters, and it does an incredible amount of damage to the productivity of the vandal watchers. You'll have them blocking IP addresses from Wellington, NZ to Walla Walla, Washington, associating all of them with the wrong "sock master".

Meanwhile, I enjoy reading how "guilt" is ascribed on Wikipedia to those who can figure out some rather simple things:

just saw this on WP

# ColScott was recently involved in harassing an admin on this site, a female, and threatening to go after her in real life, including her employment. We should be vigilante in ensuring there is no place for him to edit on wiki. -->David Shankbone 18:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [i]

So David, we had a skirmish a year or so ago but I thought we parted on (relatively) friendly terms. What gives?

Harassing is a legal term. It is a crime. I have never committed such a crime. Accusing someone of a crime falsely IS actionable (screw your THREATS nonsense in the real world). Any editor that I fucking feel like is subject to the following
- identification
- publicly available information to be publicly gathered on my popular website ( isn't that what your popular website does?)
- people who are responsible for these editors (parents, employers) being notified of what the person is doing.

None of the above is illegal in the slightest. If someone has a problem with them, they have to deal with it or leave the cult. There is no third option.

This does NOT constitute harassment. It may be unnerving and upsetting. So is having an "Encyclopedic " biography of you that any 12 year old can amend into an attack.

So David, I am truly interested in your input here- what gives? Do you think that Wildhartlivie or Consumed Crustacean are due a level of internet respect that I am not?

You appear intelligent. Illuminate me.

Watch out, ColScott - there's a posse a-comin' for you.

Hate to poison the watering hole but I suspect there's vigilanteism on both sides. This could be a freudian slip rather than a simple spelling/usage error.

I have not broken a single law of any state or the nation... How dare you call me a vigilante.

Harassment is both a legal term and one used in every day language. The former, according to the tome of possibly inaccurate knowledge refers to "behaviours which are found threatening or disturbing." Assuming that definiton is accurate, "found" would appear to mean "found by a court of law", so unless Shankers was implying you had already been convicted of harassment, something which doesn't seem likely, he was using the term in the non legal sense - but of course you knew that already.

As to not being illegal, IANAL but I suspect gathering the details a person who could reasonably expect obscurity/privacy despite their details being available on the net (in various places, not in one place) for the purposes of intimidating them (you are pretty liberal in expressing your dislike) would have to run close to breaking some law, or at least open you to a restraining order. But as I said, IANAL.

I dunno. If some fruitcake organization of pimply teenagers -- or those with similar mental development -- engaged in harassing me on their website, publishing details of my life, when I could reasonably expect obscurity/privacy, then I would probably adopt ColScott's attitude. More so, if I had the financial resources.

If Wikipedia and its membership can live by the sword, then surely it and they can die by it, no? Seems only fair and just.

If the situation landed in court, do you think the outcome would be restraining orders on all sides? Some nasty notice pasted onto Wikipedia's website somewhere, telling them to leave me alone, and one on my front door telling me to leave them alone. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. If such a thing happened.

Putting aside, for the moment, the possibility that not everyone he singles out for this sort of thing necessarily had anything to do with his article (I'm not particularly familiar with this, so I'm not sure if this is the case)

Out of sheer curiosity - which modern legal jurisdiction is it, again, that recognizes the principle "live by the sword, die by the sword?"

Maybe I would too - though I doubt it. I dispute how much he can reasonably expect privacy though, given he has produced some very big name movies (Transformers and Natural Born Killers spring to mind). He is certainly more of a public figure than most wikipedia editors. (However the debate about the public's right to know vs the public figure's right to privacy is a topic for another thread)

I wonder, if it ever got to court, what a judge would think of ColScott's use of his forum and the members therein to gather the information? /b/ is not your private army. ColScott's forum appears to act like his at times.

Everyone has an expectation of privacy.

The more relevant question is whether there's actually any private information in the article.

I'd say every last one worth a damn does: you do have a right to self-defense. The punishment shall fit the crime, etc. "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Here are some examples to ponder:

If you don't want to die in a hail of gunfire, then maybe you shouldn't take up bank robbery.

If you don't want to be punched in the nose, then maybe you shouldn't be swinging your fists around in crowded places.

And if you don't want to be subject to BLP's, authored by the victims of BLP's at Wikipedia -- or even non-victims for that matter -- then, heck, maybe you shouldn't be writing them.

Honestly, when "Shankbone" (and others) complain about how ColScott is 'harassing' editors by exposing who they are, taking the fight to them, etc, seems a lot like kidnappers who complain about how their victims are trying to escape. Like, whoa, whatever else did you expect? Seriously?

Outside of actual self-defense (i.e. the defender is actually in immediate danger from non-metaphorical violence. "live by the sword, die by the sword" brings to my mind the idea of revenge killings, which are very different from self-defense), any punishment is supposed to be administered by a lawful authority.

So? Try a simple experiment: ask random people about who their favorite movie producer is. Or to name even one (1) "famous" producer. Repeat for the director.



A court would weigh behaviors on both sides. At least ColScott has an excuse: Wikipedia has indisputably drawn first blood. No one knows why they did, but that is what happened.

But this is all just theoretical, since nothing will go to court. ColScott isn't going to sue zero net-worth anonymous teens for obvious reasons, and said anonymous people aren't going to take ColScott to court, since they don't have the money, and it may just excite ColScott even more(!) to have a real target to aim at. If by some miracle it did make it into the courthouse, my prediction is that the judge would "bitch slap" both sides, issue RO's, and move on.

Most of this entire episode would evaporate completely, as well as short-circuiting any future ones, if Wikipedia would simply adopt sane and civil policies. Be honest with your editors -- you can not, nor should not, protect them, or even pretend you can. For God's sake, be a good network-neighbor! A small hint: every popular blog I know of that was open to anonymous comments a year or two ago has disabled the 'feature'. Can you guess why?

Yes, that is the theory. But in practice, it doesn't always work that way, cf. street justice.

But if this 'violent language' is bothering you to the point you can't go further and see the point, then simply read the phrase as "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones".

Dont you understand wikidiocy? They have their own selfproclaimed divine right to make articles about whoever they like. Anyone who objects is committing blasphemy against wikipeida.

Ehh, maybe you don't remember that we banninated Mr. Shankers a while back, so he won't be responding here. I'm sure he'll blog all about it, though! Also, appearances can be deceiving.

Best to ignore him...


Unless someone can get a novel interpretation past a judge somewhere, it wouldn't violate any current laws - though there has been some legislation proposed during the last year or so that might apply if it could pass "Constitutional muster." Most legal experts agree that it wouldn't, though.

Much of this is in reaction to the Megan Meier case, which involved impersonation of a minor by an adult - so it's probably more likely that the Wikipedians involved would be indicted for their actions, not Murphy for his. However, I would imagine both sides would have to prove malice, which could be problematic, since the real motivators are general idiocy on Wikipedia's side, and simple frustration on Murphy's.

Future legislation regarding alleged privacy-invading material (and the failure of websites to take such material down) could also just as easily apply to the Wikipedia article as anything on donmurphy.net - probably more so, in fact, because at least the material on donmurphy.net isn't being presented as objective, "neutral" fact.

Actually depending on WPs TOS, I think the Meier case, if successful, would put Scott at more risk than anyone, given that the charges were unlawful access (ie in violation of the myspace TOS) - if the WP TOS forbids someone from using their system once banned, as Scott is, then he could be running afoul of the law in the same way.

As to "objective, "neutral" fact.", the first thing the Wikipedia:General disclaimer says is "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" which pretty much takes care of that.

if the what, now?

I'm assuming there is one, somewhere. If not pffft. Not a chance.

FWIW, the implied TOS are that anyone can edit the encyclopedia - an open invitation so I think that a court of law would take a dim view of trying to suggest that people acting with legitimate purpose, like correcting a libel against themselves, regardless of the wisdom of some arbitrary goons with no legal status in the organisation, were acting unlawfully by working around a ban of dubious validity - especially as we find that the logic of bans (for those involved in this kind of dispute) usually falls apart when analysed using the logic of the Real World.

Yeah, you don't want Don Murphy to take you to court for 5 Million dollars...

How did that turn out again, Col?

Mod's note: I moved my digression about charges of sockpuppetry against myself to a new thread.

Possibly. It is unlikely to ever come to a head, the Meier case is proceeding as it did on the basis of something, anything, needing to be done to the woman who was so cruel to a 13 year old girl that she committed suicide (No disrespect to Megan and her family but teenage girls can be pretty over-dramatic). So unless Scott picks on a 13 year old girl who then commits suicide, nothing is ever likely to happen.



Lol that went well.

That's true, but that isn't what the legislative reaction/response to the Meier case has been trying to achieve. The congressmen in question are actually trying to avoid similar uses of ToS provisions in future, because a mother whose daughter has been driven to suicide (or whatever) shouldn't have to rely on a novel legal interpretation/precedent (in this case, of a ToS) to obtain justice. They actually want to make such precedents unnecessary, and to do that, they want to make it a criminal offense for people to anonymously "harass" people with intent to injure, including injure psychologically (which would probably make such laws useless for prosecutors, and unenforceable in 99.99 percent of cases).

In other words, legislators don't like the idea of punishing people based on a mere license violation, because licenses aren't written by legislators. They're subject to change at any time, are different for each website, and could easily be used abusively/coercively based on precedents such as those set in the Meier case. (Maybe NYB could explain it better...)

I'll have to look up some of the proposed legislation so's I can link to it - I haven't spent much time studying these bills because it's not really my "area," and AFAIK none of the bills have much chance of passing, though IIRC one of them did "make it out of committee." You never know, I suppose.


Words are cheap. Changing the actual "presentation layer" might make a positive difference, but just saying "read at your own risk 'cuz we might be wrong" isn't going to reduce negative impact in the slightest.

Pφφφt —

If you are assuming there is one, then you are making an Ass out of You and One.

Ja Ja

As Jon is aware WP has no ToS. Period. It's only rules are user generated content with no more dignity or authority than Penis Vandalism. This is simply amazing. It might be the single most dramatic example of the culture of irresponsibility that WP is built upon. It is often thought that this is some shrewed calculation that involves it's Sec 230 immunity. But other sites that rely on Sec. 230 immunity do have ToS agreements. WMF just seems to reilsh irresponsibilty for it's own sake.

Remember that the Meier's case has not gone past the trail court. No appeals that I know of to date. It is merely the law of the case, with no precedential value. Using a ToS to build a case of computer intrusion was a pretty aggressive move, doubtlessly motivated by the very hard facts of the case. Using an implied ToS as a basis for a computer intrusion prosecution just ain't going to happen.

If Wikipeida and it's sociopathic admins and sexual deviants, like the Shankers dique can't deal with
actions in the "REAL WORLD" RL, by those, whose reputation are hurt by the wiki defamation farm, they ( the Admin and other wikipetiots should leave the project.

When you hurt people, expect the subjects of wikidiot defamation to fight back.

Lastly, TOS (terms of service) on wikipeida is a JOKE. The only rule is thuggery and might makes right. Justice on Wikipeida is an alien concept as alien as Praying Matias understanding the pain of the fly it's eating.

Despite you using the wayback machine to find an article that I had removed from the net because it was incorrect,(the $450 was to my lawyers for them missing a deadline) let me just correct your stupid ass and say

- The suit was settled for a LOT of money
- The Money went to a good cause

So it turned out fine, loser.

Well, at least this part was accurate:

my former partner wrote that in his book
I have no beef with Quentin any longer

Then you really should get in touch with The Onion's AV Club, which is where I got the link from. Interesting that you would think I'd spend time trolling through the WayBack Machine looking for stuff about you, though.

I don't think you have much hope of getting your entry removed from Wikipedia. I'm not taking a position on whether or not it should be, just stating my opinion on your chances. As far as I can tell, you feel that you have been wronged by having your personal details placed in the public eye. Your reaction appears to be seeking revenge against selected Wikipedia admins by exposing their personal details.

Let me make an analogy - you go to the parking lot to discover that someone has knifed your tire and now you have a flat. You feel hurt and angry (I assume). You complain to the parking lot owner who tells you that they aren't paying for your tire. For reasons which escape me, you decide that giving the parking lot attendant a flat tire will make things right. Another parking lot attendant sees this and bans you from the lot, so you get your children evil flying monkeys to follow them home and give them a flat tire, too. Unsatisfied, you continue to sneak back on the lot to spray paint graffiti on cars. Anyone who kicks you off the lot gets the flat tire treatment. You are still angry and hurt, and you still have a flat tire, only now there are a lot of people with flat tires who are angry at you.

You seem to be angry and vindictive, and harassing people doesn't seem to be solving your problem. Experience has shown that the way to get your tire fixed is to blow the parking lot owner. Maybe you should try that...

Good analogy.

The problem here is that the "someone" is known to the parking lot attendant. Not only that, but the parking lot attendant has erected a sign that basically says "Come on in and slash some tires! We don't care!"

But even that isn't exactly right, since your your analogy breaks at word number two. A better one is that a well known gang of immature nutcases encourages their members to go around slashing tires of any car they see. That is, you don't have to actually enter a parking lot -- their tires will be slashed even if their car is parked at their home.

For reasons of efficiency, the gang maintains a list of target cars (and locations) on their website that anyone can edit.

Well, ColScott's name appeared on the website and his tires have been slashed. Rather than just sucking up to the fuckwits who run the website -- please, oh please, do not slash my tires again, blah blah -- he chooses to take the fight back to them.

Is this truly so difficult to understand? What other outcome are you expecting? Can you can explain -- please! -- why anyone should interact with a bunch of socially and mentally undeveloped people?




Viridae, my assessment of your judgement just dropped right through the floor. Honestly, if you have one, you should surrender your sysop bit.

You may have missed the point of my admittedly imperfect analogy, which isn't about Wikipedia so much as it is about the actions of Don Murphy and his fanboy minions. Rather than finding other ways to fix the situation -- or learning to accept it -- Murphy is reproducing the very thing which upset him. Like an abused child, he acts out and replicates the abuse on others. I'm not defending WP here, I just find Murphy's bullying and abusive behaviour to be reprehensible.

Sir, I can only humbly request, with deep sincerity, that you take your "blame the victim" attitude and shove it.

Fuck! Why can't the admins and editors at Wikipedia learn to "accept" Don Murphy's supposedly immature actions?

What the bloody hell is the matter with you?

Let's leave aside the question of the Don Murphy bio for the moment. At this point Murphy is actively making himself "a victim" by creating new sockpuppets and drawing attention to them until they get blocked. In his mind this justifies setting his goons on the admins involved in the latest blocks. Repeat ad nauseum.

Is this fixing the problem (ie getting rid of the article)? Nope. Will it ever? I don't believe so, and I don't think Murphy cares anymore. So why do it? And why are you defending it? How does it help fix (or destroy) WP?

Because that's the only way you can blame Murphy for the mess, presumably.

Delete the BLP, watch in awe as the whole thing goes away. Try it.

I think you're missing it somewhat here, Mr. Carbuncle. Mr. Murphy doesn't want to "fix" or "destroy" WP, he wants to expose it for what it is, or more precisely, for what he (in his experience) believes it to be - a dangerous, irresponsible, and cult-like pox on our culture, and civilization in general. If he manages to get the WP'ers to delete the article on him, so much the better... but regardless, the incidents involving sock puppets and "stooges" and such probably aren't meant to actually bring about a specific result, they're simply meant to keep the buzz going and prevent WP'ers from thinking his situation is "quiet" and that he has, in effect, acquiesced, which he clearly hasn't.

I do believe that despite his (limited) public visibility, a well-crafted WP opt-out policy would, in order to be successful, have to include people like Mr. Murphy. He might be on the extreme end of the "notability spectrum" for those being allowed to opt out, but if WP doesn't include people like him, they won't get the necessary moral/ethical boost from having implemented the policy - and ultimately they'll either scrap it, or have it actually be a net-negative from their perspective. (Note that it could never be anything but a net positive from the "external" perspective.)

Try it? I'm not here to take the role of WP apologist. You must have me confused with someone else.

Whatever the root cause, whether or not Don Murphy is "the victim", it doesn't excuse his actions. He gets to harass other people because WP done him wrong?

I suspect most people here wouldnt disagree.

Yes, just as somebody punching you in the nose gives you license to punch him back, so that he doesn't punch you again. Very simple.

In fact, it's so simple, I wonder what it is here that you're not getting? Self-defence is as basic as it comes in ethics and law, both.

I can't say it better than that- thank you Somey.

The number of Shitapedia editors who have told me I should have tried to work within the system??? Fuck You! I don't want to even have to think about this shit. But you want to fight, YOU PICKED THE WRONG GUY because I will not stop. The amount of shit that has been cause by me and my fans because of a 17 year old Canadian kid, a freaking Candadian stoner and a goddamn lying fool named Bass.... amazing.

It's like a lawsuit- it would have been cheaper for you to settle with me.




He's being willful and dumb.... because of course punching someone is illegal as is punching someone back. But WP claims what they are doing is NOT illegal and not harassing- so of course when I do it back it cannot possible be either.

Also fyi I tried that Pacman experiment- I opened up Churchman6718 ( an address that I think Betty Patrick/Wildhatlivie might live it) and gave it to the winged stooges... but it got banned relatively early on.

One at a time kami-krazies won't do it.

Wikipedia is an Information Vehicle that is unsafe at any speed — it's a Brain Wreck happening in slow motion and what you have to do is speed it up so that all the really Slow Fokes can see it.

It will take a mass action to combat the Hive — to ripen the Swiss Cheese Infrastructure that is Wikipedia's no-account system until its inherent rot can be smelled by all.

Jon

Quite so. Life is complicated enough without having to negotiate one's way through the maze of ultimate darkness, whilst being ever so careful not to damage the fragile egos of its elite admin core.

The price of being successful is you get noticed, so Mr. Murphy this whole sorry situation is clearly your fault.

Wikipedia didn't force you to become successful, its article is merely a by-product of that success.
In the same way that shit is a by-product of eating.

Most of us flush away our shit, Wikipedia on the other hand lovingly tend theirs and save it for posterity.

Hey Col, I see that you made a connection......

Remember that BettyPatrick dustup a few months ago, deeply involving Wildhartlivie (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

It may have something to do with the vague idea that
Wildhartlivie's real name is Betty Patrick.

Plus.

(PS: judging from the use of the odd username "wildhartlivie" elsewhere, she may be a big fan of the canceled TV show Charmed. I suspect she used a sock to edit the WP article. Yeah, it is my considered opinion that she's crazy. Need an example of a wiki-fool who stirs up endless trouble on-wiki, and gets away with it? She's your tool. The more I look into her past history, the crazier she looks. Also quite good at wiki-lawyering and manipulating admins.)

If one accepts as given the notion that your actions are equivalent to theirs (including those of them who had nothing to do with your article), you're absolutely right.