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

[gomi]

... then went to a stoned editor who now has been driven from the project. His name was HIGHINBC and then H. He complained that I was not nice to him. I was essentially asked to kiss HIGH's ass. No thank you. ColScott got banned.

Welcome, ColScott!

As has been pointed out, User:HighInBC/User:H has returned to Wikipedia. Many know his new identity, and would be happy to provide it if need be. I only wish you had turned your resources on SlimVirgin, a much more formidable foe. Ridding Wikipedia of her would be a great service.

[Jonny Cache]

Why on earth are you mocking a 15 year old boy? He's a child. His behaviour is certainly not excusable but your response is incredibly childish and crosses into the realms of the bizarre. You had the choice to respond in an adult manner and you failed.

And it's rather amusing how you accuse him of being obsessed whilst at the same time you're using hundred of socks and so on and so forth to mess around on Wikipedia. If you have a real case, take it to court. Put up or shut up.

He's a 15 year boy running in a gang known as Jimbo's Youth Corps. His lack of impulse control is not being corrected by the gang (alias "Community") in which he bangs, but is instead exploited by cynical adults for purposes of their own. The exploiters could not care less what happens to these Clockwork Orange Essjay Bots when they finally do run afoul of the Real World Community that they should be learning how to live in — instead they abandon them to their fates as soon as it becomes clear which way the wind is blowing.

If there is anything truly despicable here, it is those who exploit these naive adolescents, who contribute to the deliquency of these unexperienced minors, who whip up the frenzy of unbounded enthusiasm into something beyond calling back, who warp the natural urge of Youth to Be Bold ! into something twisted, who render them a detriment to themselves and others, and toss them wasted on the garbage heap when their life is used up.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 30th August 2007, 11:14pm

[Kato]

Why on earth are you mocking a 15 year old boy? He's a child. His behaviour is certainly not excusable but your response is incredibly childish and crosses into the realms of the bizarre. You had the choice to respond in an adult manner and you failed.

And it's rather amusing how you accuse him of being obsessed whilst at the same time you're using hundred of socks and so on and so forth to mess around on Wikipedia. If you have a real case, take it to court. Put up or shut up.

He's a 15 year boy running in a gang known as Jimbo's Youth Corps. His lack of impulse control is not being corrected by the gang (alias "Community") in which he bangs, but is instead exploited by cynical adults for purposes of their own. The exploiters could not care less what happens to these Clockwork Orange Essjay Bots when they finally do run afoul of the Real World Community that they should be learning huw to live in, but abandon them to their fates as soon as it becomes clear which way the wind is blowing.

If there is anything truly despicable here, it is those who exploit these naive adolescents, who contribute to the deliquency of these unexperienced minors, who whip up the frenzy of unbounded enthusiasm into something beyond calling back, who warp the natural urge of Youth to Be Bold ! into something twisted, who render them a detriment to themselves and others, and toss them wasted on the garbage heap when their life is used up.

Jonny

Amen.

[ColScott]

And since Mr 15 year old Phil had been the cause of all this, we announced that one of my future films would be a documentary called "Phil Gronowski:Portrait of a Sad Young Man". We even came up with a ludicrous plot description for it, lol. Then we inserted it into the future films section of my entry. Over and over again.

This event led to my first direct email from Jimbo. He accuses ME of harassing a 15 year old boy. I accused him of harboring one.

I don't care how badly you feel used and abused by the Wikipedia system. A grown man harassing a 15-year old over a web site and then bragging about it is disgusting.

Indeed. It's more than a little pathetic.

Get your foot out of your mouth, smiley. The only harassment as you put it was to mock him openly on my site and list his publicly available information. The pathetic thing is that his parents seem to be unaware of what their own child is doing. The fact that you would question anything about this is astonishing. This CHILD has cyber stalked me incessantly for 9 months now. I SHOULD make that documentary and show up at his freaking house with cameras and let his friends know what he does. YOU THINK IT IS OKAY FOR A KID TO harass people on line without knowing who they are? On Wikipedia which has already been exposed for having an organized pedophile underground?

Both of you are beyond laughable.

"But HE started it!"

Why on earth are you mocking a 15 year old boy? He's a child. His behaviour is certainly not excusable but your response is incredibly childish and crosses into the realms of the bizarre. You had the choice to respond in an adult manner and you failed.

And it's rather amusing how you accuse him of being obsessed whilst at the same time you're using hundred of socks and so on and so forth to mess around on Wikipedia. If you have a real case, take it to court. Put up or shut up.

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.

[blissyu2]

I don't see why age is relevant, certainly not in a case like this. Actions are relevant. Indeed, it is difficult to determine someone's age. Anyone who pretends that someone has a valid excuse based on being 15 should also state that they have no business being on a site like Wikipedia. Quite frankly judge people on their actions.

[alienus]

I don't see why age is relevant, certainly not in a case like this. Actions are relevant. ... Quite frankly judge people on their actions.

Right, but kids are less likely to have good judgement. They lack the experience and maturity. That's why, for example, they're not allowed to drink or drive (or, especially, both at the same time). The problem here is that WP admins skew young; very young. And, on the whole, they do show the expected lack of maturity.

Al

[Somey]

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.

Language!

Oopsy, wait a minute, I forgot where I was for a minute there. Anyway, like Blissy and Alienus are saying, if they're going to give 15 year-olds the same respect as 45 year-olds when it comes to editing WP, they have to assign the same responsibilities and obligations too. It's only fair.

But the sad fact of it is, the internet is completely different from the real world in many respects, and age-advantage is one of them. In the real world, the 45 year-old has a significant advantage - he/she usually has more money, a stronger reputation, and is assumed to have more maturity and a stronger sense of ethics.

On the internet, the 15 year-old has an equally large advantage over the 45 year-old. He doesn't need money, he usually has a network of cyberfriends willing to help do whatever dirty work is required, he has vastly more free time on his hands, he has parents, juvenile delinquency and anti-pedophilia laws to protect him if he gets in any sort of trouble. And he has a bunch of patsies willing to make older types feel guilty for trying. Most importantly, he isn't burdened by strongly-held morality and ethics.

So no, even if ColScott here is a really nasty guy, I don't feel sorry for this "Saturday" kid at all. You can criticize him for playing the younger guy's game by the younger guy's rules, but did he actually win? I don't think so - he got a little further than Brandt did in a shorter period of time, but he also benefited from having his incident occur around the same time as Brandt's, when the WP brass was clearly in back-off mode, what with their personnel problems and all. (And let's not forget that pre-existing fan base!)

Last but not least (and I've said this before) - suing someone, especially a minor, is a HUGE undertaking. Telling someone to sue someone like that "or shut up" is a load of BS - you do everything you can to avoid having to file a lawsuit like that, no matter how nasty it is. The presumption of innocence will always be with the minor, and damages? Fuggeddaboutit - presumably the kid has nothing, nada, zippo. And that's just the problem: These kids are smart. They know that they can get away with all sorts of libelous crap on teh internets with impunity, and so they do, just for the sheer thrill of being able to.

Don't tell me Wikipedia doesn't know this; of course they know it. They depend on it. It's how they keep growing, and it's also how they keep people from fucking with them.

Hey, language!

[Jonny Cache]

I don't see why age is relevant, certainly not in a case like this. Actions are relevant. Indeed, it is difficult to determine someone's age. Anyone who pretends that someone has a valid excuse based on being 15 should also state that they have no business being on a site like Wikipedia. Quite frankly judge people on their actions.

As a recovering Flowerchild myself — it's been a long (and winding) recovery — I tend to sympathize with most every Children's Crusade (CC) that comes down the pike, and the Blind Faith Wikipediots that we see on the present scene are a recognizable species of that.

But experience matters. It teaches you what happened to those early CC's, and every one since. There are tricks that you fall for 100 times that you are less likely to fall for the 1000th time. And it grinds your guts to see poor innocents setting first foot on a road you know.

Long time passing …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 31st August 2007, 12:06am

[Emperor]

Won't somebody please think about the children?

[Jonny Cache]

Won't somebody please think about the children?

Somebody beside infants will need to think about the children.

And if they are not infants they will see that the first thing to be done for the children is to get them out of Wikiphagin Jimbo's clutches.

Why don't we start there?

Jonny

[blissyu2]

Let's put it this way.

If I get someone write a massive smear campaign against me on the internet that is going to cost me my job, and force me to change careers entirely, then does it matter who has done it? If it is a man, woman, or child. If they are gay or straight or transsexual. If they are 15, 12, 35 or 60. None of that matters. Indeed, not only doesn't it matter, but most of the time you have a great deal of difficulty proving it. One common lie that is told by people who engage in this kind of thing is that they in real life are someone to feel sorry for. Perhaps they are a poor defenseless woman, perhaps they are just a kid, perhaps they have a mental illness.

But the thing is that it doesn't matter. None of it matters. The internet is a great equaliser, where common biases about race, gender, religion, age and other aspects don't matter anymore. It is really quite stupid even to mention it as being relevant.

And I am sure that Col Scott is only mentioning it as a way to make fun of it, not as a way to bully him. For all we know, this "15 year old boy" is really a 40 year old. Who knows? Unless we know their identity, we don't know. And even if they are a 15 year old boy, then why does it matter?

It is true that in real life if I got bullied by a 15 year old, I would be far less worried than if I was bullied by 40 year old thugs. But the thing is that then I would have physical superiority, I could call their parents to deal with it, and there would be many other ways that I wouldn't have to worry about it. On the internet you don't have such security.

[dtobias]

I also think the adult in this conflict is acting about as childish as the kid, and I have little support for either side. Due to my strong pro-free-speech sentiments, I oppose the ban on linking to so-called "attack sites" in all cases, so I oppose their removing the official site in this case. However, I equally strongly oppose them removing the article on a person who had an important role in the creation of some popular movies; that seems notable to me, and his own insistence that it be taken down shouldn't trump that.

[alienus]

His IMDB entry makes him notable, but the article has to avoid libel.

Al

[jdrand]

ColScott, I WELCOME you with Open Arms to Wikipedia Review. I feel sorry for you because you were accused of being a stalker and your case sounds a LOT like Daniel Brandt's. Really. You were abused, accused, and persecuted by what we here at Wikipedia Review call "Wikipidiots" or "Wikipediots". KamrynMatika, he did not harass a 15-year-old. The 15-year-old harassed him, and he did not harass him in retaliation. ColScott was persecuted. Age doesn't matter in this situation — harassment is harassment. I an 11 years old, and not afraid to admit it, but if I stalk someone I am still a stalker, and age does not change that. Since Saturday constantly harassed ColScott, and HighInBC supported harassment, HignInBC is wrong, too.

It sounds like Daniel Brandt Mark 2.

That is absolutely correct. Sympathy for Murphy, sympathy for Brandt.

... then went to a stoned editor who now has been driven from the project. His name was HIGHINBC and then H. He complained that I was not nice to him. I was essentially asked to kiss HIGH's ass. No thank you. ColScott got banned.

Welcome, ColScott!

As has been pointed out, User:HighInBC/User:H has returned to Wikipedia. Many know his new identity, and would be happy to provide it if need be. I only wish you had turned your resources on SlimVirgin, a much more formidable foe. Ridding Wikipedia of her would be a great service.

He has come back as User:Until(1 == 2) (T-H-L-K-D). See this.

I don't see why age is relevant, certainly not in a case like this. Actions are relevant. Indeed, it is difficult to determine someone's age. Anyone who pretends that someone has a valid excuse based on being 15 should also state that they have no business being on a site like Wikipedia. Quite frankly judge people on their actions.

Blissyu2, I completely agree. Welcome again, ColScott!

This post has been edited by jdrand: Fri 31st August 2007, 1:14am

[Jonny Cache]

I also think the adult in this conflict is acting about as childish as the kid, and I have little support for either side. Due to my strong pro-free-speech sentiments, I oppose the ban on linking to so-called "attack sites" in all cases, so I oppose their removing the official site in this case. However, I equally strongly oppose them removing the article on a person who had an important role in the creation of some popular movies; that seems notable to me, and his own insistence that it be taken down shouldn't trump that.

Aside from the oft-mentioned, immediately-forgot advertisement that Wikpedia Is Not S'posed To Be A Phreaking Phree-Speech Phorum — Xcuse the language, but it was all I could do to avoid Bold Crimson Impact Font In Yer Face Size Seven Type —

Let us now λ-abstract the leading principle of Dan's last argument from its application to the cases of "creation" and "movies":

λ"creation"."movies".Dan's Rule =

However, I equally strongly oppose them removing the article on a person who had an important role in the X of some popular Y; that seems notable to me, and his own insistence that it be taken down shouldn't trump that.

Let us now apply the abstracted rule to the case X = "direction", Y = "website":

λ"creation"."movies".Dan's Rule("direction")("website") =

However, I equally strongly oppose them removing the article on a person who had an important role in the direction of some popular website; that seems notable to me, and his own insistence that it be taken down shouldn't trump that.

Good.

Now let us view how many of the persons who had an important role in the direction of some popular website chosen at random have so far trumped the very idea that anyone would dare to write a Wikipedia Biography on them:

See Here.

Evidently, People-In-The-Know Know Something Dan Does Not, Or Maybe Just Chooses To Ignore.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 31st August 2007, 1:45am

[blissyu2]

LOL this is really slack:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...281+%3D%3D+2%29

19:45, 25 July 2007 Until(1 == 2) (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Until(1 == 2)" ‎ (content was: '{{wikibreak}}User:H')

If they're deleting the evidence, try to use a deletion summary that doesn't demonstrate what you're deleting!

Either that guy (1==2)/H/HighinBC is being stalked, or he is hiding something.

[jdrand]

LOL this is really slack:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...281+%3D%3D+2%29

19:45, 25 July 2007 Until(1 == 2) (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Until(1 == 2)" ‎ (content was: '{{wikibreak}}User:H')

If they're deleting the evidence, try to use a deletion summary that doesn't demonstrate what you're deleting!

Either that guy (1==2)/H/HighinBC is being stalked, or he is hiding something.

Until One equals two, User:Until(1 == 2) is still HighinBC.

[blissyu2]

Actually you can tell a lot from ColScott's block log:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e=User:ColScott

Admins aren't meant to block people they are in a dispute with. H went on a personal crusade it seems. Massive wheel war there.

[Kato]

Jonny C strikes the correct chord.

Our blame shouldn't be laid on this juvenile WP editor. Who is himself a victim of Der Jimbo's grand folly. And, of course, the blame should not be on the victim of these biographical slurs.

The blame should be placed firmly on the wanton irresponsibility of Wikipedia's promoters. For fostering a culture in which this kind of sordid episode is allowed to flourish.

But, of course, Der Jimbo's daft philosophy has no room for responsibility or accountability.

[ColScott]

I also think the adult in this conflict is acting about as childish as the kid, and I have little support for either side. Due to my strong pro-free-speech sentiments, I oppose the ban on linking to so-called "attack sites" in all cases, so I oppose their removing the official site in this case. However, I equally strongly oppose them removing the article on a person who had an important role in the creation of some popular movies; that seems notable to me, and his own insistence that it be taken down shouldn't trump that.

but that is because you refuse to follow that the law bifurcates between public and private figures

with Lindsay Lohan you can create a whole mockery site if you want to

I am not generally known by the public

I am a private figure

But them keeping records they not only potentially defame me because they have shown they cannot effectively monitor but they violate my privacy.

Anyway, your friend the stalking 15 year old (and he is that age) removed the link already Tobias, for all the effectiveness you showed.