News

Excellent article! You captured the spirit of Wikipedia. It's not an encyclopedia. No, it's a multi-life role-playing message board, where players like Griot are only pissed off at you because identifying them may cripple their ulterior motives, and they may need -- gasp! -- to create another anonymous sockpuppet one day.

Comment by Gregory Kohs — February 12, 2008 @ 08:39PM

I think that I can help you on who is Griot.

Actually, there are a lot of Greens who don't like Nader. Nader offended a lot of Greens when a proxy (Peter Camejo) ran for President and revealed that he was running as Nader's proxy right before the National Green Party Presidential Convention. Then Camejo became Nader's vice presidental candidate.

The Green who was the most vitrol (although he can use humor at times) at Nader is Marc Solamon, who lives in the inner Mission. (He might own records as well.) Salomon works off and on as a IT guy. He has a flair for it and appears to spend a lot of time on the computer. He has been known to be thrown out of various political chat rooms and then recreate another alias and get back on them. (A different type of shadow puppets) And he hates Nader.

Boodles sounds like one of Gonzalez's on and off girlfriends who's named Cat. Cat and Salomon have disagreed in the past and it's usually over something that Salomon has said about Gonzalez.

Hope that this is a help.

Comment by Lou Cyanne — February 13, 2008 @ 06:37AM

Great article! Thank god somebody finally started talking about the dysfunctional world of Wikipedia. Too bad you didn't check out Chip Berlet, character asassin and SlimVirgin, brain-dead-power-hungry administrator. If you want to see a disturbing edit war, just check out what Chip has done to Fred Newman or the 911 conspiracy theorists. Generally, I have found the administrators rarely understand or follow the editing guidelines. In an edit war, admins make content decisions based on the popularity of the editors in question. They have no critical thinking skills whatsoever. The real travesity is that people still agrue Wikipedia is a valid source of information. S C A R Y!

Comment by pK — February 13, 2008 @ 06:42AM

Nice friends you keep, I see: the very first comment comes from a long-banned spammer still carrying a grudge of his repeated rebuffs to use Wikipedia to spam his business, and the third is someone continuing an edit war to promote various conspiracy theories.

Overall, a pretty loathsome story of stalking -- or worse. See, there'S the bit where reporter Mary Spicuzza quoting a user in the story calling him/herself SeeknDistroi, whom Mary implies was blocked because SeeknDistroi was opposing Griot, when he/she was actually blocked for abusive sockpuppeting, one of many run by -- Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. Say, Mary wouldn't happen to be quoting her own sister, would she, while carrying on her sister's fight, using the resources of a newspaper and her position as a journalist to stalk and discredit own of her sister's "enemies"? It surely has that appearance to me.

She DID mention this conflist of interest to her editor, didn't she?

(You can find a list of Jeanne Marie's most recent sockpuppets in her war against Griot and for personal self-promotion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Telogen, in case your paper's IT systems manager want to work some of his computer nerd magic to confirm this.)

Comment by Calton — February 13, 2008 @ 07:51AM

That's right, Lou, I stand by my man, and you just keep your little green hands off of him and save the drama for you mama, honey!

Comment by Boodlesthecat — February 13, 2008 @ 08:40AM

Well written and true to the Wikipedia experience. I consider anyone on Wikipedia who doesn't use their real name to be a sock puppet anyway. This is one of the many reasons that I no longer advocate the Wikipedia.

A lack of accountability goes with anonymity. That might be good for Second Life, but for something claiming to be a storehouse of global information... it isn't adequate.

Comment by Taran Rampersad — February 13, 2008 @ 10:48AM

Nice article. 'Idiots' it is. The purpose of Wikipedia is to essentially protect the myths that the powerful want in place, while providing useless trivia for the masses.

For a good summary of how the CIA videotape destruction played out on wikipedia, see this article writtem by wikipedia user "Bov" --

Concealing Crimes of the CIA, Wikipedia Style
http://911review.com/articles/bov/wikipedia_cia.html

Comment by Victronix — February 13, 2008 @ 12:19PM

Mary Spicuzza's article on etiquette at Wikipedia -- and, unfortunately, occasional lack thereof -- was pretty accurate in capturing what does occasionally occur in discussions about various articles: as a Wikipedia administrator, I have dealt with (i.e., warned, blocked, and/or banned) a number of users like Griot. It's not always easy, but we do try to hold people to the same standards of civility and mutual respect they'd be held to volunteering at any non-profit, in real life or online.

Reading through his contributions, it's evident that his is a more complex case than most trolls and vandals. Griot gets away with being snide by attacking those whose edits are not in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thus, he can defend himself by claiming that his content is better, while getting whatever pleasure it is he derives from berating and speaking down to other editors.

Nonetheless, I will defend Griot's right to anonymity on the project. There are some sites established by critics of Wikipedia for the sole purpose of "outing" Wikipedians, posting personal information and sometimes even photos of users in an attempt to coerce them into content changes, or into leaving the project altogether. (I will not name them here as they do not deserve the free publicity.)

Benjamin Lowe
San Francisco, CA

Comment by Benjamin Lowe — February 13, 2008 @ 02:53PM

I'm the Cat referenced above. I am not posting under the name Boodlesthecat on Wikipedia. Whenever I post online, I post under my real name - for precisely the reasons discussed in the article about the dark side of anonymity on these types of sites. As does Marc Solomon for that matter, so what the Lou guy said above in his comment doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, I ust wanted to set the record straight that I have not been trolling around on Wikipedia picking fights with this Griot person. I would be fascinated to find out who it is tho...

Comment by cat — February 13, 2008 @ 03:02PM

An Open Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation

To Whom It May Concern:

I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source. I am none of the persons I am being accused of and do not suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly known as MPD. My attorney, Richard Rosenthal, has been supplied with these facts along with a request that all false claims, slanderous remarks and defaming content concerning me be removed promptly from the site. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

Comment by Jeanne Marie Spicuzza — February 13, 2008 @ 04:04PM

Calton Bolick's comment above about me being a "long-banned spammer" is pretty humorous, given that "his" own Wikipediot community has blocked his account on FIVE separate occasions for being a general detriment to what little remaining repute the project still has left! Calton loves throwing out offensive-sounding labels for people with whom he cannot compete on a logical, level playing field.

Here's the "diff" for you to learn about Calton Bolick:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type;=block&page;=User:Calton

Comment by Gregory Kohs — February 13, 2008 @ 07:50PM

This is an internet comment not a letter to the editor.

I am not griot, and I do not waste my time on messing with Gonzalez or Nader's wiki entry.

Ralph Nader is road kill lying on the center stripe ahead of Greens, he must be dealt with.

Politically, Matt Gonzalez is receding into the rear view mirror, why concern myself with someone who is not actively trying to do something stupid like Nader is?

I am only concerned with looking forward.

Although it is always disappointing to invest so much political capital in someone, only to see it pissed away for nothing, I did not edit Gonzalez nor Nader's web page as griot or anyone else.

The number of potential wikiteurs is only limited by the number of people Gonzalez and Nader have collectively been able to alienate.

-marc

Comment by marc salomon — February 13, 2008 @ 09:16PM

Gregory Kohs, please check your data before making claims. You accused Calton of being blocked five seperate times, when in fact he was only blocked four times. The last "block" is actually a modification of a previous block, which (due to technical reasons) was done as an unblock and a reblock.

Comment by Od Mishehu — February 13, 2008 @ 10:53PM

It would seem this article manifests a conflict of interest on the part of the writer which is not disclosed in the piece, in that her sister, presented here as a casual witness, was a highly active account which ended up getting banned for sockpuppetry. This reminds me of a recent case in an Australian election where a newspaper reporter was sending emails to an independent candidate trying to get them to preference a Conservative, and actually went to the stage of hitting a Labour candidate in the face, then trying to neutrally report about the whole matter afterwards, all while every other media in Australia + NZ was reporting on the salacious facts of her own case. Journalistic integrity seems to have fallen by the wayside, at least on Wikipedia there is some transparency at least as to what is going on.

Comment by Chris — February 14, 2008 @ 03:34AM

Calton and Griot are probably two of the most toxic people on the internet. See, Wikipedia gets a ton of newbies every day who think they can add whatever they like, so they write about themselves, their businesses, whatever. Most editors who run across this stuff just tell the users, politely, that there are rules against that kind of thing. Some editors prefer to use them as easy marks for their frustrated egos. You boys can make all the excuses you like, but the author is right here; you're using the project to find people to be mean to without any risk of repercussions. Grow up already.

Comment by Kate — February 14, 2008 @ 07:08AM

Its amazing the hyperbole the usual cast of beer drinking NASCAR driving invisible being in the sky worshipping can spew out of their uneducated mouths. If you don't like the system bucky, then get out of it. Mmm'kay?

Point is, you dolts can spew whatever bogosity you want, Wikipedia will be standing in the end. Our truth, the Wiki-truth, is the thing that matters. Perhaps you plebians can go back to whatever homeschool spewed you out to learn about such things.

BTW nice email has been sent to your Editor in Chief. I'd start looking for a new job if I were you broom-pusher.

Comment by Calton — February 14, 2008 @ 12:39PM

This article is pretty silly.

You are really talking about humanity here. There are some idiots, there are some smart people, some dumb and some just toxic. Wikipedia is no different.

You might as well be telling a story about a local community center.

The only difference with wikipedia, or any other online community, is that people who are idiots leave a trail behind for anyone to see, as do the good people, the smart people and the toxic people.

Reporting fairly would mean you should cover the good as well, as a much larger percentage of wikipedia's activity.

Comment by anne bartlet — February 14, 2008 @ 02:02PM

Griot wrote a letter to the author of this article which can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Griot#Letter_to_Mary_Spicuzza

I followed that up with my own response that he immediately deleted, which can be seen (being removed by Griot) here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff;=190675197&oldid;=190673998

Comment by BillyTFried — February 14, 2008 @ 02:10PM

"Its amazing the hyperbole the usual cast of beer drinking NASCAR driving invisible being in the sky worshipping can spew out of their uneducated mouths. If you don't like the system bucky, then get out of it. Mmm'kay?"

Riiigggghhht. Anyone who disagrees with you is an uneducated right wing idiot. Okay, Calton. If it makes you feel good about yourself to believe that the people you abuse for no good reason are 'bad' people, then go for it.

Comment by Kate — February 14, 2008 @ 02:37PM

Yeah really! And what the heck did you mean by "Our truth, the Wiki-truth"? That sounds kinda scary as if you know it's not the REAL truth, but your OWN truth that you have the ability to manipulate. Why would you boast of having "ownership" of the truth in the comments section of an article that accuses you of just that? Way to make Wikipedia look even better in the public's eyes! Bizarre!

Comment by BillyTFried — February 14, 2008 @ 02:44PM

This article is totally uninteresting. It can be summarized as: in Internet forums, there are boorish people. Great news... It's been true since USENET days, it's still true today, and there is no need for several pages of bla-blah to prove it. As a matter of fact, it is also true of "real life", which is full of people that just want to be annoying.

The part about the bylines used in the press being a proof of seriousness is hilarious. I've had to deal with the press a number of times, and I can attest that it is a business where people are quick to "pass the bucket".

I remember pointing an error to the author of an article, only to be told that it was not there in her original version and was added at the suggestion of the editor. Hey... Pass the bucket.

My favourite are agencies like AP and Reuters. Call a newspaper about a factual error, they'll tell you it was from an AP or Reuters report. Call AP or Reuters, they'll say the error is not from their office but from another office somewhere else.

Do not expect that the press will ever publish corrections. They'll do it only if the error is so obvious that many people complain, or if the error annoys powerful people, or if they risk a losing lawsuit.

That's what happens in the real world. All the talk about "responsibility" is just... talk.

Comment by Dog tag — February 14, 2008 @ 11:47PM

Excellent article. I've heard of this chump Griot from many wikipedia editors, but never have had run-ins with him. Although I think Wikipedia is a valuable resource, it is difficult for me to understand why a two-year-old trapped in an adult's body would be interested in collaborative knowledge gathering.

Although it was somewhat gratifying to see such a person being exposed for what he is in the mainstream media, I suspect it was equally gratifying to Griot as well. This type of behaviour which is normal for an infant or toddler, commonly referred to as "acting out" is a surrogate method of getting attention. When positive attention is unavailable, negative attention fills the gap. In a functional family, the behavior normally disappears after the toddler realizes that it far more cost effective to engage in behavior that is rewarded with positive attention. In a dysfunctional family, this behavior is rewarded or ignored, and it continues into adulthood. I think Griot's seemingly flippant remarks about his parents are a sign that he or she was raised in this type of environment and now he or she is in a situation in which he or she can only compensate for the lack of parental love by engaging in behavior guaranteed to provoke an overwhelming negative response. The amount of time Griot spends on wikipedia would also seems to indicate that he or she has few if any real world relationships in which to solicit this type of attention, hence the obsession with Wikipedia.

Although it may seem just for such an unlikable person to be exposed to public ridicule, it only encourages poor Griot to continue to act out. It's highly unlikely that this stunted indivdual will be able to extricate himself/herself from the vicious circle his parent(s) inadvertantly created, so if Griot deserves anything, it is our pity.

Comment by Henry Jones — February 15, 2008 @ 07:51AM

Oh my MY. Looks like the author's sister managed at one time to get slimed by two of thw most pathetic presences in the ether, known by their nom de pukes, Griot and Calton. Sorry about that! But don't fret. For a laugh, just do a google search for Calton Bolick and read about what a stunning mediocrity you had a run-in with. Here's a guy, the epitome of the stereotypical self-loathing loser who spends thousands of hours trolling the internet, smiting articles by anybody his diseased walnut brain feels unworthy of internet notability. He swings his delete button like the mighty phallic substitute that it is. apparently your Jeanne Marie, who appears to be an entertainer artist type with modest presence (and all the best to her success, hey why not) aroused the wrath of Calton's jealous male organ substitute; not too worry, it's a harmless, if noisy and malodorous organ. I see he is here in this discussion, true to form, in all his ill tempered loathsome glory. Hey, CalCal, watch out for those imported dumplings, I hear they're tainted!

Bingo Long

Comment by Bingo Long — February 15, 2008 @ 09:21AM

Two things:
1. I highly doubt there are many "beer drinking NASCAR driving invisible being in the sky worshipping uneducated dolts" that even known SFweekly exists let alone read or post here.

2. I'd like to say to anyone who reads this that in my experience the type of person who embraces and perpetuates the kind of bigoted and hateful stereotypes as the one quoted above is not representative of the average editor or the overall Wikipedia community in general.

Comment by BillyTFried — February 15, 2008 @ 09:52AM

Wikipeda as Orwellian internet cult....

Comment #4 by Carlton is a strong argument that Wikipedia is an internet cult. It is a scary, scary island..think Piggy and Lord of the Flies. They write what they want..PERIOD. Hostile-lowest-common-denomenator group think overrides established knowledge. God forbid you actually take the editorial polices seriously!!!!! If you question these bully editors and admins, you are put on trial, while they all pat each other on the back chanting, Kill the Pig! Kill him dead! Kill the pig!

Comment by pK — February 15, 2008 @ 01:35PM

I highly doubt your fecal brain matter could digest the words contained within Lord of the Flies, let alone understand the point of the novel mm'kay?

Give it up bucky, no one is going to help you. No admin is going to "speak to me about my behavior" as you so ELOQUENTLY (snicker) put it on your little cry-fest on the ANI.

The FACT is this article is libelous, one sided, biased to the extreme, and reads like the 5th grade newspaper of some redneck school in "MA DADDY FOUGHT IN 'NAM DONT DISRESPECT HIM" Alabama. The best thing would be for the so called "author" to be fired and this tripe ridden thread to be deleted forever.

And Wyatt.....I KNOW you're reading this....so put down the "Bear" magazine for a bit and flush that play-dough brain of yours out with some Drain-O mm'kay?

Comment by Calton — February 15, 2008 @ 05:03PM

Nice video Carlton!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elIwf0QZ1nE

Talk about fecal brain matter!

Comment by 12chan — February 15, 2008 @ 05:45PM

Calton: therapy. Now. Please.

Comment by Kate — February 15, 2008 @ 05:47PM

Great article! Thanks for bringing attention to the reckless, irresponsible, hostile and unjust world of Wikipedia. My advice to the author - both you and your sister should get non-published phone numbers and addresses ASAP. I'd also turn over all correspondance from Calton to my local police department, just to be on the safe side. Based upon his comments here and all the information about this guy on the net, it seems that he may be suffering from some serious mental health issues. I wouldn't underestimate Calton's desire for revenge. His apparent obsession with your sister is really scary. He strikes me as a sociopath, who doesn't seem to understand that harrassing people is a crime. I really hope this guy gets some professional help, before it's too late.

My deepest sympathies to your sister for all she's been through. I hope she sues!

Comment by Ann Onymous — February 16, 2008 @ 12:32AM

Comment #16 is a crude -- and crudely written -- forgery, as the slightest check of the posting IP by the site admins would show, and I demand that it be removed immediately. What, exactly, is level of self-righteousness that provokes such dishonest tactics like forgery and character assassination in pursuit of a vendetta?

Oh, and Greg, I'm still beavering away at Wikipedia -- not banned -- while you were blocked, permanently, by founder Jimbo Wales hisownself for trying to spam Wikipedia to line your own pockets. It takes some doing to get that level of personal service.

And Jeannie, you not only were sockpuppeting -- and have been blocked repeatedly for it -- but your own sister used one of those sockpuppets as a source without bothering to mention that fact it was you. That's a pretty big laspse of journalistic ethics if she didn't tell her editor and a very big lapse on the part of the editor if he or she DID know and let her. How she snowed her editor, I don't know -- maybe the same way she snowed the people at the Wikimedia Foundation about the type of story she claimed to be doing.

So rant about lawyers all you want, Jeannie -- assuming he exists and actually works for you -- but if he's even halfway competent, he's going to tell you that you don't have a legal leg to stand on and the evidence WILL be against you.

Comment by Calton — February 16, 2008 @ 08:12AM

Oh, and #25? Also a crude, sub-literate forgery.

Comment by Calton — February 16, 2008 @ 08:19AM

As to the above comment by Calton, this tactic of his, to deny posting the previous comments, is one he stated he would pursue. A quick scan of his Wikipedia activity will show he usually falls into one of 3 categories when caught saying something he should not be:

1. Denial, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
2. Blame the comment on a sockpuppet.
3. Ignore the comment as if it didn't exist.

He has done this before. I have NO doubt the above comments by Calton are in fact genuine, as they are too alike both in style and substance to his usual inane ramblings.

Comment by Bain — February 16, 2008 @ 08:24AM

I want to make something clear, even for you dolts. Freedom of speech is a PRIVILEGE NOT a right.

I demand that this entire thread be removed due to the obvious forgery, in my name, going on here. I have NO doubt this forgery is being done by more than one disgruntled former Wikipedian that was shown the door courtesy of myself.

If this entire thread is NOT taken down in 24 hours I WILL be in contact with my legal friends to seek other means of addressing this situation.

And as for Wikipedia user MegaMom AKA Wyatt AKA Bain, I strongly suggest you keep your plebian mouth shut. The Wikitruth shall prevail, as always, and there is nothing any of you clam-clowns can do about it.

Comment by Calton — February 16, 2008 @ 08:47AM

Hmmmmmm...Carlton...what is it...did I hit a nerve?????

Comment by pK — February 16, 2008 @ 09:15AM

Oh dear Carlton the Doorman WILL be in contact with his legal friends! At this point, let's remind him again that renting Season 7 of Law and Order is NOT the same as having legal friends. He DOES have psychic friends though. In any case, I hope it's clear to the amused non Wikipedian readers here what us editors have to deal with on a regular basis battling such omnipresent putzes like Carlton and Griot. Oh well, I guess old Jimbo Wales' little ego trip sure has gone down the crapper! Nice job, Carlton and Griot

Bingo Long

Comment by Bingo Long — February 16, 2008 @ 12:39PM

It's interesting to note that both the supposed forged Calton and the supposed genuine Calton used the fairly uncommon words "Dolts" and "Plebian" in rather similarly phrased hysterical rants that both ended with name calling that was also uncommon with the first one using "broom-pusher" and the second one using "clam-clowns". What is a clam-clown anyway?? They also both made bizarre statements as well. The first with the "Our truth, the Wiki-truth, is the thing that matters" and the second with "Freedom of speech is a PRIVILEGE NOT a right". Very strange indeed. And by the way Calton, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Privileges. Oh and I love the demands for this entire thread to be removed and threats of legal action. Too much! :-D

Comment by BillyTFried — February 16, 2008 @ 02:08PM

Mr. Fried,

I think I actually love that phrase..."clam clown"!! I've just reclaimed it for the forces of good.

Comment by pK — February 16, 2008 @ 05:45PM

Mr. Fried,

I think I actually love that phrase..."clam clown"!! I've just reclaimed it for the forces of good.

Comment by pK — February 16, 2008 @ 05:45PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbCiac03ycQ

Comment by Clam Clown — February 16, 2008 @ 06:19PM

For continuing education on Wikipedia, this may be of interest:

"Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'" by Cade Metz

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/

additional reflections here:

http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2257

Comment by AK — February 18, 2008 @ 08:42AM

Mary,

I just read your article on Wikipidiots and I would just like to applaud you on a wonderful piece. I am not a Wikipedia user and I try my best to stay away from the internet for critical information. If there is no accountability to the information I am receiving, I don't reagrd it as legitimate. Furthermore I cannot stomach internet users like Griot whom I like to call "Internet Warriors" who are as tough and critical as they want to be in the virtual world, but never dare show face in the real world. I have had altercations via e-mail in the past with people threatening my life. Of course when it came down to meeting in person they were more than reluctant. Again, unaccountable and full of nothing more than inner anger and an immense vocabulary. I even e-mailed one asshole my address and phone number if he really wanted to see me. I can't stand bully's. Especially scared ones with piercing words who have a latent smart-ass tone attached to their humor. Good job.

ps: I loved the last paragraph. You must be smiling bigger than I am knowing how much your article pissed off that asshole. Haha. I love thinking about idiots like him swimming in a vat of their own anger wanting desperately to destroy you, but having no weapon other than a poor and miserable facade.

Comment by Carlos Nieto — February 18, 2008 @ 10:32AM

Excellent piece. I have been active on the Internet since pre-Web days; back when 'newsgroups' were the hot ticket, and 'gopher' was leading edge technology. And I always rejected the implict intellectual and personal cowardice of using 'handles' or aliases or whatever; I always signed every post I wrote with my real name.

Until about two years ago. I posted a comment -- not an especially controversial one -- to a web political blog. As usual, I signed it with my real name (as I am with this post.)

Long story short: a couple of days later I began receiving harassing -- no, threatening -- phone calls from a number blocked from Caller ID. This freak called repeatedly for several days, and then quit. I suppose it wasn't very hard for him to track me down; my name isn't overly common, and my post gave a general idea of where I live.

In any case, since that time I've largely used aliases on the web. I don't like it; but I've learned there are some very angry and scary people out there on the Internet.

Comment by Brent Eades — February 18, 2008 @ 03:32PM

I read your article with great interest, and I found myself chuckling at your description of the petty wars waged among some of Wikipedia�s pricklier contributors. I refer to Wikipedia frequently yet I realize it�s foolish to rely solely on it for unbiased, complete, authoritative information. However, until Encyclopedia Britannica makes its above-reproach and impartial content as accessible, free, and easy to use, one would do well to consult Wikipedia � and its two-million-plus articles - with a salt shaker handy.

Comment by Scott Spiro III — February 18, 2008 @ 03:56PM

BillyTFried, as you slovenly pickananies should know, is a well known troll, libeler, and character assassin on Wikipedia. His parents were more than likely related before they got married, and I would not be too surprised if his father in fact, forced himself onto his "me so hor-ney" mother.

Bad trash breeds bad trash, as BTFried is evident of.

I also see this thread has not been taken down. Fine. Lawyers contacted period/full stop.

Comment by Calton — February 18, 2008 @ 04:02PM

Wow, insulting my mother and father eh Calton? How classy and sophisticated of you. "Lawyers contacted period/full stop." Hahahaha! Yeah, you BETTER get this thread taken down soon before you make yourself look any worse! LOL! So sad!

Comment by BillyTFried — February 18, 2008 @ 05:11PM

And what's with the racist "me so hor-ney" comment? You're the one who's Asian. Not me. Or was that entire post also a forgery? The "slovenly pickananies" must know! :-D

Comment by BillyTFried — February 18, 2008 @ 05:50PM

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Calton

Comment by Pk Ananies — February 18, 2008 @ 06:50PM

Calton's hateful and sociopathic behaviors on Wikipedia were already reported on in USATODAY two years ago.

An American expatriate called "Calton" apparently doesn't like the political userboxes.

"Kill them, kill them with fire, nuke them from orbit, salt the earth behind them," he wrote on one deletion-review page.

Then "Misza13" of Poland cried foul on "Calton": "I'd like to note that, in my humble opinion, your vote ("Kill them ...") is an example of Wikihate. Please, don't hate."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-02-27-wikipedians_x.htm

Comment by Nickz — February 18, 2008 @ 07:44PM

Now if this were Wikipedia I suspect some "snarky" admin would undoubtedly come forward to inform us all that the hostile and inappropriate messages signed by "Calton" came from the same IP address. A host of "established" members of the Wikipedia "Community" would then probably come forward to publish the IP address, the general location of the user, the Internet Service provider, and publicly identify any corporation associated with that IP address, in the hopes that they might be able to cause problems for the user at their place of employment. Nothing would give the "regulars" on WIkipedia more pleasure than to detail as much embarrassing personal information about the poster as possible. Of course, their breeches of Wikipedia policy would be completely ignored by administrators and their postings would be fiercely guarded, so that the embarrasing details of any "scrape" with Wikipedia's "powers that be" would remain on Google searches of the individual's name for YEARS TO COME! That seems to be the general "mission" of Wikipedia - public embarrassment and humiliation for anyone who doesn't take their idiotic site, which seems to be run by a group of disturbed social outcasts "seriously" enough. I honestly think someone should start a worldwide petition to get Wikipedia "banned" from Google search results - certainly the talk pages and "non article" spaces.

I sincerely doubt that anyone has "impersonated" Calton on this site! lol! Nice try, Cal! These postings are all too similar to his other published "works". The only difference appears to be a few typos. What's the matter, Cal? Perhaps, you had a few too many glasses of wine and don't remember posting these nasty little messages?

Mary, if you're really looking to write an interesting article that could draw wide spread international attention, I suggest you do a follow up focusing on "Calton". Based upon his postings here, he seems to be "begging" for your newspaper's time and attention. There is certainly more than enough available information for QUITE an article on this person, who many see as an Internet "menace". http://www.fireflysun.com/book/Berkeley_Wikipedia_cyberstalking.php

And before any "psychos" come forward to accuse me of "being" Wyatt - I'll state for the record that I'm NOT. It's really fascinating - "Calton" apparently stalks and harrasses this poor guy for years trying to destroy his professional reputation. Finally the guy has enough and starts his own website - exposing Calton for what he is - a CYBER STALKER. Now anyone who references this site, bringing it to the public's attention, is acussed of "being" Wyatt and allegedly "stalking" Calton! lol! "Calton", you are obviously very seriously disturbed - GET SOME HELP!

Comment by Ann Onymous — February 18, 2008 @ 10:25PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Griot

"And we would've gotten away with, too, if it hadn't been for you kids, and your article too!"

Comment by Pk Ananies — February 19, 2008 @ 03:27PM

I read this piece in the physical paper with some hope of it being a well-written and researched article, as it was the front page splash and touched on a somewhat worthy subject. The problem is that it spiraled into a personal mission by the author to criticize and ridicule one single Wikipedia idiot rather than formulate a worthwhile opinion or news piece on the state of Wikipedia as a whole and the effect that these numerous people have on it. From this article, one might assume Griot is the *only* person on Wikipedia that is a problem, or at least only the articles that he/she touched are plagued by such editing problems. There are plenty of problems with Wikipedia on many more subjects (usually controversial ones) including with Wikipedia "elite" staff/editors themselves who act as the stop-gates to topics and articles they "oversee." I guess we are to take heart in the fact that the author acknowledges her own bias, because of her sister's plight, and therefore forgive the witch hunt.

As a whole, a disappointing effort by the author, and even further disappointment that the SF Weekly chose to run it as the feature article. With a little more research and a lot more effort, this could have been a truly insightful and meaningful article with a much deeper message about our current social structure and how anonymity affects information bias and content.

Comment by Peter C — February 19, 2008 @ 04:29PM

You guys should know that The Commonwealth Club's INFORUM Salon series is hosting Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and Andrew Keen in a Salon style event at The Bubble Lounge next Thursday, February 28th. It's called Web 2.0: Amateur Hour or Mass-ive Knowledge and they're going to be talking about just these issues. If you agreed with or dis-agreed with this article you should definitely check it out. It is limited to 100 people and tickets are going fast. But, if you want to know more check out, www.commonwealthclub.org/inforum.

Here's a teaser:

In today's self-broadcasting culture, where amateurism is celebrated and anyone with an opinion can post a video on YouTube, change an entry on Wikipedia or publish reviews on Yelp, we increasingly turn to the collective intelligence of large numbers of people. Should we rely on the "wisdom of the crowds," trusting that they are smarter than the expert few? Or is Web 2.0 weakening traditional media to the point where we only have opinion and chaos? Wikipedia's Wales and author Keen go head to head in this debate.

Comment by Caroline Moriarity Sacks — February 20, 2008 @ 12:41PM

Well well well look at what appeared on Wikipedia today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calton

scroll to the bottom and you'll see (before Calton deletes it)

Favor

Our journalist friend may have been made to walk the plank. Her name no longer appears on her paper's masthead.[4] I sent copies of the letter I sent to her two days prior to publication to her editors. I ambushed them, I think. I believe the editors were surprised by the revalation but had to print because cancelling was too late. Notice in the article that the sister stuff appears tacked on at the last minute. Maybe Wiki people stepped in for me. Maybe the editors had a fit. I don't know. A favor: Can you fix all links to my Talk page on "Attempted Outing"? "Attempted Outing" will go into archives soon and be uneditable. I would like the links to work, so can you make the links to archived versions of my Talk page as the current page is a blank? Two bloggers that I know of are going to write about the incident and maybe rival papers to the Weekly as well. I'm sorry for what happened but those yatches hounded me for a half a year and I had to take measures. Life without Wiki bullshit is pretty good. Lots of free time. Thanks for all. This message will self-destruct in ten seconds. 71.139.24.255 (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


This is where I would call the lawyers on Wiki. Hey, if anyone goes to that above mentioned debate that Jimbo is going to be in, this might be a good point to bring up.

Comment by Lulz — February 20, 2008 @ 10:24PM

i was the person with whom he was exchanging messages about ralph nader, presenting him with inescapable facts from the innumerable reports with people like greg palast and democracy now and howard zinn disproving his accusations, and he taunted me with that stupid mickey mouse thing! just to let you know, i find this personally fascinating. he is now blocked, thanks heavens and porridge:)

Comment by telly-gulliver poppins — February 21, 2008 @ 03:50PM

Just read it... I'm not sure what your article accomplished in the end,
but it DID provide interesting tidbits of info regarding the Wikipedia
World (how it works, who's involved, some of its effects, SF's
involvement, etc), AND it was a very entertaining story overall. It was
cool how despite your challenges, you made it work out in the end...
well, maybe not for YOU per se, but for me as a reader, it was
satisfying. Anywhoot, thanks for a good read! =)

Comment by Phil aka DJ Chicken Skratch — February 22, 2008 @ 07:33PM

I find it rather ironic that this thread is still here despite the fact I managed to get the author of said piece terminated due to her rather libelous and flimsy "journalism", which would best be suited to the National Enquirer.

I also find it amusing, to a point, the continued inane bogostic blabberings of the usual cast of clueless plebians and broom-pushers who have no idea how Wikipedia really works, and who base their rather skewered opinions on the fact they are more than likely EX-Wikipedians who ran afoul of policy.

I won, you lost. period/fullstop.

Comment by Calton — February 25, 2008 @ 01:22AM

I find it ironic that you can�t see what a pathetic rambling jackass you sound like.
And you didn�t get anyone fired idiot, the author resigned Feb 1 and works for MSNBC now.

Hyperbole, beer drinking NASCAR driving invisible being in the sky worshipping dolts, Give it up bucky, (snicker), bogosity, plebians, fecal brain matter, Mmm'kay, some redneck school in "MA DADDY FOUGHT IN 'NAM DONT DISRESPECT HIM" Alabama, "Bear" magazine for a bit and flush that play-dough brain of yours out with some Drain-O mm'kay?, I demand this tripe ridden thread to be deleted forever, Freedom of speech is a PRIVILEGE NOT a right, Our Truth, The Wikitruth, slovenly pickananies, His parents were more than likely related before they got married, and I would not be too surprised if his father in fact, forced himself onto his "me so hor-ney" mother. Lawyers contacted period/full stop. Clam-clowns, bogostic blabberings of the usual cast of clueless plebians and broom-pushers. I won, you lost. period/fullstop.

How can you not see what a pathetically insecure and quite psychotic chump all this pseudo-intellectual babble makes you sound? I can understand your frustration with the fact that even in Japan a fat ugly feminine half-Asian mega-dork like you still can�t get laid, but harassing people over the web for outing a sock puppet isn�t going to help your situation any. period/fullSTOP HAMMERTIME! :-D

Comment by ChumpGaijinSmasher — February 25, 2008 @ 05:34PM

I find it ironic that you can�t see what a pathetic rambling jackass you sound like.
And you didn�t get anyone fired idiot, the author resigned Feb 1 and works for MSNBC now.

Hyperbole, beer drinking NASCAR driving invisible being in the sky worshipping dolts, Give it up bucky, (snicker), bogosity, plebians, fecal brain matter, Mmm'kay, some redneck school in "MA DADDY FOUGHT IN 'NAM DONT DISRESPECT HIM" Alabama, "Bear" magazine for a bit and flush that play-dough brain of yours out with some Drain-O mm'kay?, I demand this tripe ridden thread to be deleted forever, Freedom of speech is a PRIVILEGE NOT a right, Our Truth, The Wikitruth, slovenly pickananies, His parents were more than likely related before they got married, and I would not be too surprised if his father in fact, forced himself onto his "me so hor-ney" mother. Lawyers contacted period/full stop. Clam-clowns, bogostic blabberings of the usual cast of clueless plebians and broom-pushers. I won, you lost. period/fullstop.

How can you not see what a pathetically insecure and quite psychotic chump all this pseudo-intellectual babble makes you sound? I can understand your frustration with the fact that even in Japan a fat ugly feminine half-Asian mega-dork like you still can�t get laid, but harassing people over the web for outing a sock puppet isn�t going to help your situation any. period/fullSTOP HAMMERTIME! :-D

Comment by ChumpGaijinSmasher — February 25, 2008 @ 05:35PM

Hey CalTON Bay Beeeeeeeee! Hows thatlegal action going?? 58 comments and counting....make it stop mommy make it stop!!! Keep watching divorce court in your underpants, maybe you'll get some ideas!! Oops , sorry, Calton/ideas???? oxycontinmoronic. Yiou got her sacked huh??? Whadya do, post deleete!!! hahahaahahahaha ya LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSER

Comment by Bingo Long — February 25, 2008 @ 08:53PM

I edited this story and I can assure you that Mary did not get fired for this story or any other. Mary decided to leave the paper to take a job with a local documentary filmmaker. She gave her notice before the Wikipedia story was published. She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister's fights with Griot and her sister's role is mentioned high up in our story. Bottom line: We stand by the story.

Comment by Will Harper, Managing Editor, SF Weekly — February 26, 2008 @ 01:55PM

But but but, Calton said his high powered legal team got her terminated! You sure this isn't just more bogosity from a broom-pushing clam-clown? Tell the wiki-truth plebian!

Comment by BillyTFried — February 26, 2008 @ 04:56PM

Mr.Harper is, as usual, lying. You can spin this travesty anyway you wish, the Wiki-Truth is she was shwon the door period/fullstop.

I find it also very amusing that a recent spat of rambling dolts and hook-nosed Shylocks have been vandalizing my Wiki talk page as well. Funny thing is, they all seem to be originating from the San Fransisco area.

Coincidence?
I think not.

I advise you Mr. Harper to call off any attack dogs (which in your paper's case would be French Poodles *snicker*) before you find yourself in as much legal stew as the hack 'journalist' who fabricated this birdcage liner article of yours.

Comment by Calton — February 27, 2008 @ 04:52AM

First the bigoted anti-religious-Nascar-fan-country-folks remark.
Then the shameful anti-Alabaman-Vietnam-War-Veteran comment.
Then the anti-Asian Me-so-horny comment despite your own Asian background.
And now making shocking anti-Semitic hook-nosed comments as well?

What's next? Spicuzza sounds Italian to me. Maybe some anti-Italian slurs as well?

And how well do you know Mr. Harper to know he's lying "as usual"? Have you been cataloging his lies for years?
And AGAIN what is this Wiki-Truth you keep referring to and how does it differ from the REAL truth? And why do you keep using the word plebian and saying period/fullstop over and over again? Do you really not see how bizarre it sounds?
And just what "legal stew" is the author of this article in for exposing the unethical behaviors of a couple of ANONYMOUS USER NAMES on Wikipedia?

Calton,
- Everyone knows your buddy Griot was confirmed to be an abusive sock puppeteer and was permanently and justifiably banned for it by the WIKI-authorities.
- Everyone knows you didn't get the author of this article fired for a story the editors had no problem making the FRONT PAGE story and still maintain they stand by.
- Everyone knows you have no legal team working day and night to get this comments section deleted from the web.
- Everyone can see your bizarre, hysterical, angry, hateful, racist remarks and figure out for themselves how deranged and possibly mentally ill you are regardless of the story or other's comments.
Every comment you make is not convincing anyone of your little fantasy stories and only makes you look even worse. Just stop posting already. Its the best thing you can do for yourself. Seriously.

Comment by BillyTFried — February 27, 2008 @ 10:44AM

Spicuzza resigned. That's cute. I think we really know the whole story, but thanks anyway for the denial. It's so...SF Weekly-like.

Comment by Moi — February 27, 2008 @ 09:54PM

Hey, you forgot to say at the end Griot, I mean Moi! LOL!

Comment by BillyTFried — February 27, 2008 @ 10:08PM

Hey people,

Thank you for all of your comments and letters to the editor. And it's true--I gave notice on February 1 after accepting a job with an amazing documentary production company.

Thanks again for showing so much interest in this article.

Best wishes.

Comment by Mary Spicuzza — February 27, 2008 @ 10:11PM

Let's see. In comment #10, Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, the author's sister, writes, "I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source." However, the article notes that Jeane Marie kept a page on Wikipedia and it was "taken off." Then in comment #60, an SF Weekly editor writes about the author, "She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister's fights with Griot." So her sister didn't participate in Wikipedia but managed to have "fights with Griot."

Hey, what's going on here? Then the author herself chimes in with a statement about how she quit in February, right before the article came out, and that her sudden departure from the Weekly had nothing to do with her appalling lack of journalism standards.

What's that I smell? Is it fish? Fishiness?

"Based on a true story" -- isn't that the Weekly's motto?

Comment by Firecat — February 27, 2008 @ 10:36PM

Hey, you forgot to say [Chuckle] at the end Griot, I mean Moi! LOL!

Comment by BillyTFried — February 27, 2008 @ 10:42PM

Just so you know, I've been treating Calton/Carlton, et al for MPD, multiple personality disorder for years. I thought Wikipedia would be a good therapeutic outlet for them, since they can never manage to take their meds consistently. Really though, there are so many lyin, wack-a-do's on that website posing as god knows what, I thought no one would notice! My bad! Plus, I really hate treating them. Calton/Carlton, et al are so very irritating, I thought about terminating our therapy, but their mother begged me to continue and yes, btw, I do charge her tripple. Y'all think you got it bad on Wikipedia, but let me tell you, I've got to listen to them whine and whine about B.E. (Britney envy). F**CK!!!

--Dr. Phil...out!

Comment by Dr. Phil — February 28, 2008 @ 08:51AM

I took Jean Marie's comments to mean that she does not participate in Wikipedia or use it as a resource at present. She doesn't say that she NEVER had an account on WIkipedia. Her cooperation with her sister's article sems to indicate that she did. Frankly, I couldn't care less if the woman had 50 accounts on Wikipedia! LOL! If she engaged in sock puppetry, it was probably to clear her own REAL NAME and reputation that was being publicly attacked. That's the great irony of Wikipedia they have an official process in place to "judge" an individual as "Non-Notable" and thereby unworthy of article space. After judging someone to be "non-notable" they continue to "publish" derrogatory commentary about these "PRIVATE CITIZENS". Isn't that a violation of libel and defamation laws? It's certainly an invasion of privacy.

As for "legal stews" - sockpuppetry and "vandalism" (like removing libel) are not crimes. Criticizing annonymous user names certainly isn't actionable. By contrast, publicly stating that someone was fired from their job, when they WEREN'T certainly falls within the boundaries of LIBEL. Likewise, it seems that the attacks against these sisters' professional reputations fall within the boundaries of defamation of character and potentially stalking and harassment. I hope "Calton" really does have a "legal team" - I suspect he and Wikipedia may need one.

Comment by Ann Onymous — February 28, 2008 @ 09:55AM

Oh for God's sake, doesn't anyone at the SF Weekly website have the tiniest of internet skills? Aren't the sysadmins competent enough to read the IP of the postings?

To reiterate for the conspiracy theorists among you, everything allegedly written under the name "Calton" after comment #31 are crude, sub-literate forgeries. Also: slightly nuts, what with the bizarre references to "Wiki-Truth", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. If anyone at the SF Weekly had the tiniest shred of integrity, they might actually check into that -- but then, they're the ones who published this hatchet-job in the first place, so I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to rediscover journalistic ethics.

The less said about the rather childish nonsense and trolling which followed, the better.

As for Mary Spicuzza's new job; well, as I recall, her sister claimed to be a documentary filmmaker in her original vanity article on Wikipedia. Betcha I know which "amazing documentary production company" Mary's now working for. And from the familiar prose stylings and obsessions (hello Jeanne!), I'll betcha "Ann Onymous" above knows which one, too.

Comment by Calton — February 28, 2008 @ 06:20PM

IMPOSTER!!! If you were the REAL Calton you would have called everyone plebians and ended your post with period/fullstop! What city were you born in, hmm? Mother's maiden name? What prefecture do you live in? Do you work for JET or the new Nova? I'm filing an impersonation suit on Calton's behalf ASAP! FBI, contacted! OVER AND OUT! :-P

Comment by BillyTFried — February 28, 2008 @ 06:45PM

"As for Mary Spicuzza's new job; well, as I recall, her sister claimed to be a documentary filmmaker in her original vanity article on Wikipedia. Betcha I know which "amazing documentary production company" Mary's now working for. And from the familiar prose stylings and obsessions (hello Jeanne!), I'll betcha "Ann Onymous" above knows which one, too."

Calton, the fact that you "remember" any kind of personal details from a stranger's biography that was apparently deleted months ago is scary stuff, and clear evidence of a proclivity for stalking. IMO, you appear to have a serious problem, pal! I'd stay in Japan if I were you, because, frankly, I think a return to the US could ultimately result in an eventual stalking or harassment arrest given your well documented history. For someone so clearly intelligent, you need to smarten up when it comes to "bothering" women. You are way over the line - dogging, investigating, initiating unwanted contact, pursuing and attempting to "control" women via public humiliation and harassment. Whether you realize it or not, your anti-social behavior patterns appear to be escalating. I suggest you get offline and get yourself some help before it's too late. I predict your escalating "campaigns" against people will end very badly - for you.

And NO - I'm not Jeanne. The manner in which you appear to obsess over the real life identities of any poster who disagrees with you, is further evidence of probable serious mental health issues. I wouldn't bet any money on Spicuzza working for any documentary film maker! LOL! If she and her sister have contacted authorities (which I suspect they have), the editor has likely been asked to publish disinformation regarding her place of employment. This is a common law enforcement tactic, when dealing with a stalker, Calton.

Jeanne, if your company has a website that he's been repeatedly visiting, I suggest you turn his IP address and any records over to the Feds. You and your sister may have a decent case under the Violence Against Women Act, given the apparent length and extent of the harrassment. I doubt yours will not be the first complaint against this person, who seems to be an Internet predator.

Comment by Ann Onymous — February 28, 2008 @ 09:29PM

Ann, thank you for your support. I have filed reports with various agencies and alerted my attorney to the threatening and slanderous actions of Internet user Calton Bolick. I hope to prevent anything like this happening to anyone again.

Calton, I am advised to request that you do not contact me, address me, slander me or imply any of the above in any way further. This request applies to the Internet user Griot, as well.


Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

Comment by Jeanne Marie Spicuzza — February 28, 2008 @ 09:59PM

You go, girl! You hit that "legal nail" right on the head! LOL! Go ahead, Calton! Contact her! Visit her website. Print ONE word about her any where and you'll be hammering the last nail in your own legal coffin.

Jeanne, please, be sure to file complaints on a Federal level, as well. I am optimistic that if enough women complain at that level, he might potentially be extradited from Japan for his crimes. And yes, "Calton", harassing and stalking women in the U.S for years does constitute criminal activity. You don't need to overtly threaten someone with physical violence to purposefully cause them mental anguish and fear. Calton, if you have half a brain in your head you'll start taking down all the derrogatory garbage you've posted about both private and public individuals on Wikipedia, make your appologies, and disappear. There appears to be a growing network of people in this country who would like to see you legally punished for your behavior. There are no kindly Wiki Admins out here in the real world, who will turn a blind eye to your harrassment.

Comment by Ann Onymous — February 28, 2008 @ 11:55PM

I find this whole Calton thing highly ironice given that he had another long time Wikipedia editor (and legit PhD) banned from Wikipedia for supposed off-Wikipedia postings that were NOWHERE near as bad as what Calton is posting here.
Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TruthCrusader#Your_dispute_with_Calton

Funny thing is Calton's ArbCom buddy jpgordon banned this guy based on 'evidence' Calton supplied that he REFUSED to show any other Admin, Editor, or ArCom member. Thats right, a totally non transparent banning where the banning admin refused repeated requests by the banned user AND OTHER ADMINS to show the so called 'evidence' Calton supplied.

Tit for tat, Calton should now be banned for these comments here. One of you wikipedia users ought to point this out to someone.

Comment by Al Kabong — February 29, 2008 @ 04:17AM

TruthCrusader will never get unblocked. jpgordon has made that clear to several of us that if any of us unblock him, we would be immediately blocked forever. And yes, I can verify that jpgordon refuses to show anyone, not myself, not CBD, NO ONE who has asked repeatedly, this 'evidence' that Calton supplied. I, in fact, was told point blank to stop asking to see it or I might find myself blocked for some arcane reason.

People need to know exactly how the Arbcom protects themselves and their own.
I dont know what Calton has on jpgordon and a few others that shield him from being blocked, but whatever it is it has given him free license to harrass, stalk, lie, and generally be a total twat on wikipedia.

Oh and since Im relatively safe here from Wikipedia finding out who i am, and since Calton is a total twat:

Phone: 011-81-90-4951-7474, if you're in the U.S. 090-4951-7474

Thats Calton's phone number, available from his well.com page http://www.well.com/user/calton/

So its not like I'm revealing any super secret information....I'm sure he'd love your calls.

Comment by Wikipedia Admin — February 29, 2008 @ 08:05AM

ALERT: Incoming Message
FROM: Beer drinking NASCAR driving invisible being in the sky worshipping dolt
TO: Calton
MESSAGE: http://tinyurl.com/2vb6nu

Comment by BillyTFried — February 29, 2008 @ 03:18PM

Once again, an example of why YOU DO NOT FUCK WITH ME
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lir

I win again period/full stop.

Calton

Comment by Calton — March 8, 2008 @ 05:56AM

If you call making a fool of yourself winning, then yes, you've won the boobie prize. Enjoy.

Comment by Pk Ananies — March 8, 2008 @ 11:29AM

wooohoo the mighty Calton roars LUUULLLLLLZ!!! That was friggin funny; #79 gives you all you need to know about what a mastubatory plaything Wikipedia is for Calton the mighty mouse clicker and Griot....oooops sorry...WAS for Griot....that sucka camre to a .....Fuuulllllllllllllllll,,,,,,STOP!!! watch out for those dumplings, Calton baby, and have fun with Mr Winky!

Comment by Bingo Long — March 8, 2008 @ 03:37PM

wooohoo the mighty Calton roars LUUULLLLLLZ!!! That was friggin funny; #79 gives you all you need to know about what a mastubatory plaything Wikipedia is for Calton the mighty mouse clicker and Griot....oooops sorry...WAS for Griot....that sucka camre to a .....Fuuulllllllllllllllll,,,,,,STOP!!! watch out for those dumplings, Calton baby, and have fun with Mr Winky!

Bingo Long

Comment by Bingo Long — March 8, 2008 @ 03:39PM

This article and the associated comments show the reasons why I decided to terminate my involvement with Wikipedia. I concluded that I either needed to be willing to fight with other editors or I needed to take abuse. I do not want to do either.

I have seen and experienced more abusive behaviour on Wikipedia than I have ever seen anywhere else on the internet. Why editors would want to continue contributing in such a hostile environment is beyond me.

Comment by trying to be anonymous — March 9, 2008 @ 12:27AM

Who exactly is Lir and how does he or she pertain to this article?

And why would someone who constantly refers to others as "plebians", which means unrefined people, resort to something as unrefined and low class as using profanities to attempt to make some sort of threatening point? A point that you also failed to make as I have no idea what it even was. That you're an internet tough guy or something?

And now that I've pointed out the hilarious irony in your post will you once again pretend it was actually an impostor?

It seems to me that you've got just the type of attitude that could land you in this type of situation: www.japantoday.com/jp/news/430108

Comment by Hiroshi Nakada — March 10, 2008 @ 05:59PM

Calton is again attacking people on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA#Nasty_gratuitous_vengeful_personal_attack_by_Calton

Comment by trying to be anonymous — March 11, 2008 @ 12:53AM

Give it up buckwheat, nothing is going to happen to me. I can do what I want, when I want, however I want and the bleating unwashed masses can spew forth their bogostic blabberings as much as they want, I'm untouchable. You should learn that by now you dyke.

Comment by Calton — March 11, 2008 @ 05:19AM

Wow, even resorting to homophobic slurs now, eh Calton. How pathetic.

Comment by BillyTFried — March 12, 2008 @ 06:58PM

This is a hell of lot of energy being spent on trying to find some anonymous clown who posts inconsequential dribble. What serious info. seeker would go to a site like Wiki to get information anyway? A huge number of so called "experts" who post on the internet are clueless, so why would anyone even pay any attention to these posters? Sounds like a tremendous amount of energy wasted by computer users, at a time when energy prices are soaring and more energy use is just contributing to global warming and the eventual destruction of our environment.

Comment by Hyman — March 17, 2008 @ 02:46PM

Anyone who would rely on Wikipedia is an intellectual lightweight. Those who edit and fight on it are nothing more than adults behaving as if still in high school, trying to make themselves part of the "cool" crowd, if only in their own tiny worlds.

Comment by dolby — March 17, 2008 @ 03:49PM

After reading this article, Wikipedia now leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I won't be using them in the future unless I have some salt.

Comment by M.S.C — March 17, 2008 @ 04:10PM

And the blabbering plebians stampede in like the good sheep they are.
Honestly, I got the author of this trash "article" fired, my lawyers had a nice chat with the poodle owning editor of this fish wrapper, why is this thread still active?

Comment by Calton — March 19, 2008 @ 10:07AM

I edited this story and I can assure you that Mary did not get fired for this story or any other. Mary decided to leave the paper to take a job with a local documentary filmmaker. She gave her notice before the Wikipedia story was published. She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister's fights with Griot and her sister's role is mentioned high up in our story. Bottom line: We stand by the story.

Comment by Will Harper, Managing Editor, SF Weekly � February 26, 2008 @ 01:55PM

Comment by via the SF Weekly site — March 19, 2008 @ 10:32AM

Here's another "bottom line" for you. In comment 10 above, Jeanne Marie Spicuzza writes, "I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source." But you can see plainly at this page on Wikipedia that Jeanne Marie was very active at the online encyclopeida before she was thrown off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Telogen

Sister Jeanne put a lot of hours into Wikipedia. Why didn't sister Mary mention sister Jean's expulsion from Wikipedia in her article?

As to the question of whether Mary Spicuzza was forced to resign from the SF Weekly, it's hard to imagine an editor staying with a story after the writer informs him that she would like to persue an online vendetta onto the pages of a newspaper and take care of family business by way of the press. It's a violation of journalism ethics, and kind of distasteful too. However, the SF Weekly does have low standards. Maybe Will Harper isn't bluffing to save Mary. It could have happened. Maybe she wasn't forced to resign. We should have an open mind on this matter.

Comment by DrLoveRockets — March 19, 2008 @ 05:45PM

An Open Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation

To Whom It May Concern:

I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source. I am none of the persons I am being accused of and do not suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly known as MPD. My attorney, Richard Rosenthal, has been supplied with these facts along with a request that all false claims, slanderous remarks and defaming content concerning me be removed promptly from the site. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

Comment by Jeanne Marie Spicuzza � February 13, 2008 @ 04:04PM

Comment via the SF Weekly web site

Comment by Comment via the SF Weekly web site — March 19, 2008 @ 11:16PM

An Open Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation

To Whom It May Concern:

I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source. I am none of the persons I am being accused of and do not suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly known as MPD. My attorney, Richard Rosenthal, has been supplied with these facts along with a request that all false claims, slanderous remarks and defaming content concerning me be removed promptly from the site. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

Comment by Jeanne Marie Spicuzza � February 13, 2008 @ 04:04PM

Comment by Comment via the SF Weekly web site — March 19, 2008 @ 11:36PM

"Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought"

Comment by Says it all — March 22, 2008 @ 02:19PM

I have no idea what this is about. It is virtually impossible that I could be this user I've never heard of. I couldn't be anyone else because I started sharing this apartment within the last month. I would like to understand why this is happening. I am requesting this unblock because there is no reason whatsoever for it. I attest that my statements are true. If check user can and is used to verify this information, why am I being blocked? This makes no sense to me. Thank you,

Comment by JM Spicuzza — April 5, 2008 @ 06:27PM

A Letter to the Editor:

The above comment was not posted by myself, nor any of my affiliates, and constitutes fraud. Request SF Weekly report corresponding IP address to appropriate agency for prosecution. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

Comment by Jeanne Marie Spicuzza — April 6, 2008 @ 05:07PM

User:Griot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
See block log � confirmed accounts � suspected socks � Checkuser request
Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppeteers

Comment by From Wikipedia — April 9, 2008 @ 08:28PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_10#Template:Temporary_userpage

Comment by Fun's over for Calton — April 11, 2008 @ 01:57AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Admin...well.2C_not_abuse...regarding_spam_talk_pages

Comment by Hey hey hey, good-bye — April 11, 2008 @ 02:01AM

It seems as though you plebian poodle-walkers have failed to get the message. I have demanded that these character assassination remarks by trolls masquerading as myself be removed, yet the hack Editor of this rag refuses to do so.

Fine. Tomorrow the lawyers get unleashed. Ask the fired bitch author of this article what happens to people that cross me.

Comment by Calton — April 16, 2008 @ 02:21PM

Yeah! They get to live happily ever after! Shaawwwwang!

(Calton is bored. He lost his w-ittle template. Bad putty-tat.)

Comment by PK Ananies — April 16, 2008 @ 03:36PM

I edited this story and I can assure you that Mary did not get fired for this story or any other. Mary decided to leave the paper to take a job with a local documentary filmmaker. She gave her notice before the Wikipedia story was published. She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister's fights with Griot and her sister's role is mentioned high up in our story. Bottom line: We stand by the story.

Comment by Will Harper, Managing Editor, SF Weekly � February 26, 2008 @ 01:55PM

Comment by See previous comment — April 16, 2008 @ 05:02PM

Yes! He lost his favorite harassment template - so now he's going to sulk for a while. Boo! Hoo! He's done this before. He disappears for a while, as if he's punishing everyone for having the audacity to correct his vile behavior. Unfortunately, he always returns - generally more abusive and obnoxious than ever. Maybe - just maybe - this time he'll get the idea, that NOBODY wants him back on Wikipedia! Calton, see a therapist!

Comment by Ann Onymous — April 17, 2008 @ 10:20PM

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID;=109313747

Comment by I almost feel sorry for him — April 21, 2008 @ 01:37AM