ColScott and BLP, (was: Colscott Says Hola) Options

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Hey, Mr. Murphy! Unsolicited movie ideas! I bet you've never seen be given these before!

[KamrynMatika]

Look, freak, here's the deal. He started it. You act like that is some sort of childish statement. FACT IS it is the most important statement. He started it. Fuck him and your sympathy for him.

oh sweet lol.

[Jonny Cache]

Look, freak, here's the deal. He started it. You act like that is some sort of childish statement. FACT IS it is the most important statement. He started it. Fuck him and your sympathy for him.

oh sweet lol.

Hey, here at Universal Simpatico Productions we got our wikipheet — well, sox any way — in ∀body's shoes. And all us old-timers — warning ! your timer may be reset for re*peated ebuse — we know what puts a guy in that frame (and I do mean frame) o'mind. Given time and tea and simpering enuff, El :el will e-vent-ually settle down and only screem obscentities b4 coffee or after his proper bedtime. Like the rest of us.

Hell, when I was growin' up in Texas — insert stock yuck here about how nobody grows up in Texas — we even had sympathy for the 15 year old kids I knew who drove around throwin' Coke™ bottles through random pholks' Rear (Car) Windows, jes pher phun. They only went to Juvie and maybe Deform Skool where they got larned to act more like professionals, I reckon. 'Course, there was the odd kid I knew who got "shot in the leg with a warning shot fired over his head" and bled to death b4 they could get him to the hospital — and fer what ? — fer doin' nuttin' more than Window Peepin' and scarin' some poor farmer's wife ½ outta her wits. But, Hey, that's what you get for tryna grow up in Texas. Jes like nowdays, yet another Windows™-related tragedy.

I know I'm violating Equal Time, but don't even get me started on Macks™ …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 31st August 2007, 5:42pm

[Somey]

Hey, Mr. Murphy! Unsolicited movie ideas! I bet you've never seen be given these before!

Indeed, I'm very strongly inclined to simply delete any such solicitations outright, particularly if they have nothing to do with Wikipedia. If Mr. Murphy wants a few "ad hoc" script consultants or even just a few opinions about how certain specific characters are likely to behave, I'm sure he'll ask for them.

And I don't want there to be any question of credit, either - if such a movie actually does get made and contains some ideas thought up or otherwise generated by some of our members, I feel confident that he'll include the proper acknowledgements. (Hint hint!)

But I'm no Natural-Born Killjoy, so let me hasten to add that this doesn't mean we can't post some general speculation about how such a movie could work, plot- and character-wise. Let's just not go overboard, OK?

I should also point out that the pro-Wikipedia movie, Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story, is still scheduled for a 2008 release. Will it make it into actual theatres? I doubt it - the people involved don't have much of a track record (that's actually an understatement) and since it's a documentary, the people actually on the screen will mostly be hardcore Wikipedians, and will therefore be a huge turnoff for viewers.

On a more personal note, last night I finally got to watch the new David Lynch film, Inland Empire. It struck me that any movie that tried to explain how Wikipedia really works would probably be at least as confusing as that movie, which I'm afraid did not get much theatrical distribution at all (though the fact that it was 3 hours long didn't exactly help). Still, some of the psychological fear sequences might have worked in a movie about Wikipedia... Something to think about, anyway!

[SqueakBox]

As for Squeakbox, well, just remember that not everyone who comes to Wikipedia Review is a critic. Squeakbox seems to be the enemy of Jonny Cache, and that seems to be his main reason to be here. I could be wrong of course.

Enemy of Johnny Cache. You have to be kidding. I was brought here by Denny Colt and I like the place mostly so I stay, Johnny seems a nice enough guy and certainly has never received my emnity. And Col Scott knows who I am, I'm the guy who trimmed his article to remove any personal info and then afd it. The afd faield but the edits haver not been reverted (for longer than a few mins).

[Jonny Cache]

Hey, Mr. Murphy! Unsolicited movie ideas! I bet you've never seen be given [sic] these before!

Indeed, I'm very strongly inclined to simply delete any such solicitations outright, particularly if they have nothing to do with Wikipedia. If Mr. Murphy wants a few "ad hoc" script consultants or even just a few opinions about how certain specific characters are likely to behave, I'm sure he'll ask for them.

And I don't want there to be any question of credit, either - if such a movie actually does get made and contains some ideas thought up or otherwise generated by some of our members, I feel confident that he'll include the proper acknowledgements. (Hint hint!)

But I'm no Natural-Born Killjoy, so let me hasten to add that this doesn't mean we can't post some general speculation about how such a movie could work, plot- and character-wise. Let's just not go overboard, OK?

I should also point out that the pro-Wikipedia movie, Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story, is still scheduled for a 2008 release. Will it make it into actual theatres? I doubt it - the people involved don't have much of a track record (that's actually an understatement) and since it's a documentary, the people actually on the screen will mostly be hardcore Wikipedians, and will therefore be a huge turnoff for viewers.

On a more personal note, last night I finally got to watch the new David Lynch film, Inland Empire. It struck me that any movie that tried to explain how Wikipedia really works would probably be at least as confusing as that movie, which I'm afraid did not get much theatrical distribution at all (though the fact that it was 3 hours long didn't exactly help). Still, some of the psychological fear sequences might have worked in a movie about Wikipedia... Something to think about, anyway!

{{↑ SATIRE ↑}}

Justin Case …

Then again, maybe we need to create a new Subphorum called the Cutting Rheum WikiPhloor ???

Oh wait …

BTDT …

Jonny

[Emperor]

Hey, Mr. Murphy! Unsolicited movie ideas! I bet you've never seen be given these before!

Indeed, I'm very strongly inclined to simply delete any such solicitations outright, particularly if they have nothing to do with Wikipedia. If Mr. Murphy wants a few "ad hoc" script consultants or even just a few opinions about how certain specific characters are likely to behave, I'm sure he'll ask for them.

Surely you can't be serious. My post was a joke, and Blissy's "kind of like Star Wars but better" pitch was hardly much different. On the other hand, you basically just asked for the same thing. Lighten up.

[Jonny Cache]

As for Squeakbox, well, just remember that not everyone who comes to Wikipedia Review is a critic. Squeakbox seems to be the enemy of Jonny Cache, and that seems to be his main reason to be here. I could be wrong of course.

Enemy of Jonny Cache. You have to be kidding. I was brought here by Denny Colt and I like the place mostly so I stay. Jonny seems a nice enough guy and certainly has never received my emnity. And ColScott knows who I am, I'm the guy who trimmed his article to remove any personal info and then afd it. The afd failed but the edits haver not been reverted (for longer than a few mins).

We all make allowances for Bliss — Aussie, y'know — all that time tryna hang on to the ⊥ of the planet, plus he works waaaaay too hard.

But here he's still just conphused about Who and What and Who's Wife and the Czech.

I'm starting to think he didn't get the memo.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 31st August 2007, 7:12pm

[Somey]

Enemy of Johnny Cache. You have to be kidding. I was brought here by Denny Colt and I like the place mostly so I stay, Johnny seems a nice enough guy and certainly has never received my emnity.

Indeed, Blissy sometimes tends to make statements that are based on, shall we say, internal thought processes that occasionally mystify others. But we still like him!

Anyway, a more appropriate answer to ColScott's question might be that Mr. Squeakbox is just one of those guys who took Wikipedia a bit too seriously for a while, and based his attitudes on a strongly anti-censorship philosophy, but eventually saw that it's really just a big website, and that it isn't the End of the World™ if an article about someone few people have heard of gets deleted.

Indeed, I'd like to think that the majority of Wikipedians have finally come 'round to this way of thinking - after all, when the Brandt article finally got deleted, he didn't then press his (actually non-existent) advantage by demanding "complete editorial control" over Wikipedia, nor was there an "overwhelming flood of demands" from other bio subjects to delete their articles. If anything, there have been far fewer such demands than even I expected (though there's still no real opt-out policy, just a willingness to "take the subject's wishes into account").

But the Murphy article is an excellent case in point of why an opt-out policy is still needed. Here's someone who's been literally hounded by someone on Wikipedia, a 15-year-old kid who's obviously using WP as a revenge platform, and they're not only doing nothing, they're supporting the kid. Think about this: Murphy makes blockbuster movies, and each production employs hundreds, even thousands of people. The profits from these movies help keep distributors and theatre workers employed, too. (Not to mention critics!) So... how many people does User:Saturday employ? My guess would be zero, and I don't think there's much need for a second guess.

And why is all this happening? Because that one obsessive kid decided he didn't like the way Murphy portrayed a bunch of Mattel™ action figures in a movie script! OH NOES! For someone who has a reputation and significant economic interests to protect, it's a nightmare scenario - simple as that. And too many Wikipedians are actively making the situation worse.

[SqueakBox]

It was at this point that a fifteen year old boy from outside Toronto named PHIL GRONOWSKI (current editor name SATURDAY) started trolling me, or ColScott. I found out later he was an obsessive Transformer fan who had seen me on a panel in Toronto. He started challenging every edit I made on anything. It stunned me that I have a master's degree in Cinema and have been producing movies for fifteen years and this child was not only challenging everything I said, but was permitted to do so by the Shitapedia rules. I condescended to the boy every chance I got...

User:Saturday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saturday asked me if I would post his response to Col Scott and this thread as he isnt a member here but wants to respond today. I ahve checked Saturday's response and it doesnt contain any material that would be unacceptable to WR IMO. So hoping this is okay and here goes :ph34r: :

Right, so this is the guy that Murphy says is stalking him. I was 16 years old at the start of the incident and turned 17 this past June. I thought it would be nice for me to explain things from my point of view. Questions or requests for clarification can be directed to me at phil(dot)gron(at)gmail(dot)com. You want screen shots or proof of something and I'll try and get it to you as soon as I can.

Back in the day when I was still User:Philip Gronowski I noticed some spamming on some articles (particularly ones regarding the perpetrators and victims of the Tate-Labianca murders) and removed it [1], afterwards giving the user a warning [Unable to give page, deleted]. I did not become obsessed with whatever he wrote, said or did. I removed his spam, warned him, and he eventually got blocked. I found out he decided to put up a post about myself and HighInBC on his blog. He was asked to remove it, did, and then reposted it (it's probably gone by now). He was then blocked for these actions. I continued to remove spam added by multiple meat puppets and did not come into contact with this user again until 12:26, 22 January 2007 [2].

I believed that user ColScott was once again active under the handle AZJustice. We had a debate about the validity of the Tate-Labianca Official Murders Blog and he continued to add the links. It was then brought to my attention by another user (User:Kynn) who was in a debate (which I tried to mediate) with AZJustice about Jane Hamsher (Don Murphy's former partner), that this person could very well be a Mr. Don Murphy. I was directed to his personal message board and began to watch the article about him. I was interested in the board because I noticed a message on his article saying that he attempted to buy Wikipedia admins and because I like Transformers. I soon noticed that the admin hunting continued, as well as a call to add spam to the Tate-Labianca pages. After a bit, AZJustice was blocked and things quieted down... only to later explode.

About the time of AZJustice's blocking, I decided to explore the connection between ColScott and Mr. Murphy so I searched ColScott's contributions. Surprise, surprise, there was a connection. ColScott had removed [3] a section involving an incident between Mr. Murphy and Mr. Tarantino. I decided to find some new sources and re-insert that section, as it was highly notable. While Mr. Murphy denies the incident ever happened, he himself admitted to the incident on his own website. He removed that particular page after I pointed it out to him on a later date and used it as a source (screenshots of that page again available).

I know that part of me that decided to explore the connection was stupid. I shouldn't have looked for it, it was only because I was bored and stupid. Adding the information back, however, was neither stupid or ill-meaning. I sincerely wanted the truth to be written and did not think that re-inserting it would be considered harassment or stalking.

He considered this dedication to fact stalking and harassment (about the time he started calling me a stalker and such), I consider it... well... dedication to fact. I didn't "dig up" the information on him, it was previously added by other users and deleted by him. He exploded and started asking for my personal information as well as the personal information of anyone who got in his way (Screenshots available on request). Some of the pages on his forum are now deleted, but were commonly titled Shitapedia Volume #. Many contained my home address and libeled me. There was even a time when a member of his forum offered to make contact (ass kicked is the exact wordage) with User:BigDT (Now User:B). You can understand that this caused me a great deal of stress.

After a ruling that it was undue weight, the information regarding the fight was removed and I no longer tried to add the truth. Consensus is consensus, I won't add it back until the Wikipedia community thinks it should be there. However, Mr. Murphy continued to add harassment about myself to his page (particularly a future documentary titled" Philip Gronowski: Portrait of a Sad Young Man) using his many sockpuppets. Things then quieted down for a long time.

Mr. Murphy had previously contacted me by e-mail requesting an interview on his blog. I said I would be glad to give one (this was before I figured out you can't reason with this guy) and he began insulting me (screenshots on request). He continued sending e-mails that only insulted me, these e-mails had subjects lines like "spineless pussy" and "penis". Most of his insults I just turned back on him. I eventually said that I would help him get unblocked if he took down his stuff about me on his message board. Mr. Murphy apparently then contacted Cary Bass and arranged an unblocking, provided that he delete all of that shit on his board/forum. I believe Cary Bass too readily accepted everything Mr. Murphy said as truth, and completely ignored the victims. Well I didn't really mind except for the fact that he kept on calling me a stalker and claimed that I harassed him. I even got over that and just let him be. User: HighInBC wasn't all to pleased though. After a long debate where I was continually called a stalker (I was told to ignore it, kind of hard to ignore when my full name and the word stalker are being thrown around; that might not look to pretty on job interviews) and couldn't make comments without being told that I was trying to inflame the situation; ColScott was banned from Wikipedia.

Well, it was all good now. He threw another hissy fit on his board/forum and then forgot about it. All this sparked up again when I noticed a User:Muckrakerius editing Don Murphy related articles in a similar way to Mr. Murphy. I (correctly) thought it to be a sock, but let him be because he wasn't causing any trouble. Only when he added a link to the Don Murphy web page did I intervene and remove the page. I even answered Mr. Murphy's faux-ignorant questions as to why the link was removed. If you are wondering why I wasn't editing for 6 weeks beforehand it was because I was in Alberta with very limited access to the internet. I even had a wikibreak thing on my userpage and talk page. I decided to remove the link because through it you could access personal information about myself and several other Wikipedia members. At the moment there is a debate going on about whether or not the link should be included.

So here we are, I summed up the entire incident as neutrally as I could. In clarification on some things, have never seen him on any panel, I e-mail his account in response to his e-mails, and I never used Wikipedia as a revenge platform. I hate having to repeat myself, but damn near all of my actions except for that stupid Tarantino thing have been in self defense, removing links that out me and the like, trying to get an editor who harasses me blocked.


Philip Gronowski

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=97441873
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=103749659
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=73767996

[Jonny Cache]

Anyway, a more appropriate answer to ColScott's question might be that Mr. Squeakbox is just one of those guys who took Wikipedia a bit too seriously for a while, and based his attitudes on a strongly anti-censorship philosophy, but eventually saw that it's really just a big website, and that it isn't the End of the World™ if an article about someone few people have heard of gets deleted.

Look, DM is notable, period.

In the Real World, nobody who works hard at doing good work minds getting noticed for it — by Normal People. Well, okay, Hollywood Normal in addition to Peoria-Bloomington-Normal.

But all of that is beside the point — because Wikipedia Is Nowhere Near The Real World, as Normal People use the words.

So everyone is wasting their time and life arguing about Who's Notable and Who's Not.

That's not the issue at all.

As always, Wikipediots shift their attention — and constantly try to shift everone else's attention — onto the character of the Noticee and away from the character of the Noticers, where it really should be.

Nobody likes being noticed by these kinds of Noticers — not once they find out what kind of Phreaks they really are.

Jonny B)

[dtobias]

Since this is a forum where legal threats seem to be encouraged rather than prohibited, I wonder if the teenager in question (or his parents) would have a case to sue Mr. Murphy for harrassment, particularly given that Murphy was sending e-mail referring to sexual organs to somebody he knew to be a minor? Perhaps even criminal charges would be possible.

But the Murphy article is an excellent case in point of why an opt-out policy is still needed.

Actually, it's an excellent case in point of why there shouldn't be one... it's a case of a notable movie producer insisting his bio be removed, when there's no logical reason to do so.

[Kato]

Since this is a forum where legal threats seem to be encouraged rather than prohibited, I wonder if the teenager in question (or his parents) would have a case to sue Mr. Murphy for harrassment, particularly given that Murphy was sending e-mail referring to sexual organs to somebody he knew to be a minor? Perhaps even criminal charges would be possible.

I think not. And your post is in extremely poor taste. This is quite a serious case and such comments help nobody. Things have already got way out of hand.

I would wonder about the role of the teenager's parents/guardians/teachers. Are they aware of this business? Have they done anything to de-escalate the situation and protect the child from his own activities? I wonder if Squeakbox could broker some kind of answer from the child. It seems he himself is unaware of how odd his behaviour has been here.

As Wales is unlikely to do anything here, it looks like Squeak is in the best position to mediate. Which should be a worry to us all, with due respect to Squeak.

[dtobias]

Oh... it's in good taste to bandy about talk of suing Wikipedia and teenage editors there, but not of suing those who harrass Wikipedians?

Well, I seem to be getting hateful vibes both here and on Wikipedia these days...

[thekohser]

Once again, I have to wonder...

Since Wikipedia is supposed to be a digest sourcing existing literature about subjects, undoubtedly all of the information that was traded back and forth within the [[Don Murphy]] article had already been published in print journals like Variety, People, the Los Angeles Times, and Entertainment Weekly. Right?

Thought so.

Greg

[Kato]

Well, I seem to be getting hateful vibes both here and on Wikipedia these days...

Yeah. This whole thing is all about you. And no. It isn't poor taste if someone discusses the possibilities of a film producer suing the WMF for defamation. It is poor taste to encourage a teenage boy, already in way over his head, to get even deeper into a mess that will serve him no good whatsoever.

A more measured post would be to suggest that the boy ceases his involvement in this business, and speaks to his elders about it, immediately. Watching grown adults like JzG go through the mill of compulsive behaviour is bad enough. Watching teenagers go through it deeply disturbing.

[dtobias]

Talk of teenagers messing with bigshot movie producers brings to mind the movie Big Fat Liar, for some reason.

[blissyu2]

Since this is a forum where legal threats seem to be encouraged rather than prohibited

I would suggest that 99% of the world encourages law abiding citizens. So don't act like its unusual. We don't love legal threats, but we're certainly not going to ban someone for them.

[ColScott]

User:Saturday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saturday asked me if I would post his response to Col Scott and this thread as he isnt a member here but wants to respond today. I ahve checked Saturday's response and it doesnt contain any material that would be unacceptable to WR IMO. So hoping this is okay and here goes :ph34r: :

Right, so this is the guy that Murphy says is stalking him. I was 16 years old at the start of the incident and turned 17 this past June. I thought it would be nice for me to explain things from my point of view. Questions or requests for clarification can be directed to me at phil(dot)gron(at)gmail(dot)com. You want screen shots or proof of something and I'll try and get it to you as soon as I can...

Awww look it can walk AND write.

(Thanks Squeak, it just makes me wonder more about you that you would support this stalker)

I stand by my version of events. The evidence is clear on the Wiki and even on this thread.

Here is the question for you Gronowski? Why are you here, and for a large part spinning lies? Why are you not on Wikipedia, your sacred shrine? WHY DID YOU FOLLOW ME HERE IF YOU ARE NOT SOME OBSESSED STALKER?

Don't answer. Just drop dead.

Oh... it's in good taste to bandy about talk of suing Wikipedia and teenage editors there, but not of suing those who harrass Wikipedians?

Well, I seem to be getting hateful vibes both here and on Wikipedia these days...

The only place that should be sued is Wikipedia, and closed because it is a danger.

If you believe that I was the one antagonizing this kid, indeed if you believe half of what he wrote, then you probably need more mental help than anyone can give you.

Facts are simple- I begged this kid since December to leave me alone.

And here he is.

[Jonny Cache]

Since this is a forum where legal threats seem to be encouraged rather than prohibited, I wonder if the teenager in question (or his parents) would have a case to sue Mr. Murphy for harrassment, particularly given that Murphy was sending e-mail referring to sexual organs to somebody he knew to be a minor? Perhaps even criminal charges would be possible.

But the Murphy article is an excellent case in point of why an opt-out policy is still needed.

Actually, it's an excellent case in point of why there shouldn't be one … it's a case of a notable movie producer insisting his bio be removed, when there's no logical reason to do so.

Except That It Isn't Anything Like A Real Biography !!!

It's A Piece Of Grafitti Garbage On A Wikipissoir Wall !!!

And The Wikiproprietors Of The Toilet In Question !!!

Are Maintaining A Public Nuisance, Harbouring Delinquents !!!

And Ought To Be Prosecuted For Enabling Juvenile Libelers !!!

There's your logical reason, you moral moron !!!

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 31st August 2007, 11:54pm