It can take just one sentence — if not one word — to start a war on Wikipedia. One recent war of words on the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" — known as an "edit war" in Wiki parlance — started over a few phrases about former San Francisco supervisor and mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez.

A Wikipedian named Boodlesthecat objected to this sentence by another user: "Gonzalez's critics considered him a stubborn and willful ideologue." The entry went on to state that Gonzalez had "walked out of Mayor Willie Brown's State of the City address in 2002." (For the record, Gonzalez told SF Weekly he did not walk out — he simply didn't attend because of his concerns over Brown's previous State of the City address.)

Boodlesthecat was not pleased with the Gonzalez entry, and started editing, voicing concerns about unsourced and inaccurate criticism and biased language. It's important to note that a neutral point of view is seen as a fundamental principle of Wikipedia — a principle that is absolute and non-negotiable. But the devil is often in the details, and some Wikipedians spend days (if not weeks or months) arguing what a neutral point of view in a given article even means.

An 1890 drawing of an African griot. In African culture, griots are oral historians.
An 1890 drawing of an African griot. In African culture, griots are oral historians.
Author Andrew Keen says online anonymity "lends itself to dishonest people."
Author Andrew Keen says online anonymity "lends itself to dishonest people."
Griot battled one Wikipedia rival over former Supervisor Matt Gonzalez' entry.
Griot battled one Wikipedia rival over former Supervisor Matt Gonzalez' entry.

Boodlesthecat's comments about Gonzalez quickly unleashed the wrath of a user known as Griot. Alas, that was a name Boodlesthecat recognized from Wiki-pedia's Ralph Nader entry — the two had just been sparring over the environmental and consumer-rights activist and former presidential candidate, particularly Nader's role in the 2000 election.

"Now you've followed me to the Matt Gonzalez article," Griot wrote Jan. 31 on Boodlesthecat's personal user page. "C'mon man, gimme a break. You don't know the City or its politics. Your editing there was strictly personal."

Boodlesthecat wasn't having it, and promptly responded: "See the talk page for discussion. Please refrain from using my talk page for your speculations and insults, and rude advice on what I can and cannot edit."

Griot seemed apologetic at first, writing "Sorry Cat." But the edit war over the Gonzalez entry heated up again. "I'm sorry, but I have to take this back to your Talk page, since your edits at this article obviously don't pertain to Matt Gonzales [sic], but to me," he wrote, adding, "Cut it out, wouldya?" Soon both Griot and Boodlesthecat were blocked from Wikipedia for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule, meaning they made three edit reversions in a 24-hour period.

It's funny that Griot complained about getting personal, because I first learned of this particular user, who is reportedly San Francisco–based, during a conversation with my sister, Jeanne, about the plethora of anonymous online vitriol. We were discussing how many in cyberspace write things to each other — often using pseudonyms — that we couldn't imagine saying to people's faces. I mentioned that San Francisco seemed to have a lot of what some call "Internet rage."

That's when Jeanne, who is also a writer, told me of a debate over the entry about her in Wikipedia — and of one particular user, Griot, who seemed to be on a no-holds-barred campaign to delete her page after he blamed her for making dubious edits to Ralph Nader's page (which she denies). One Griot note on the talk page of a user called Calton, dated Aug. 27, 2007, reads, "Is there anything we can do about Jean [sic]? It's tiresome. Maybe we should give her back her personal page on Wikpedia so she isn't so lonely." He also accused her of creating several online identities to make a flurry of changes to the Nader entries. "Spicuzza is on the warpath again," Griot wrote to Calton, and made a snarky offer to Calton about my sister: "If you ever need help fending off this multiple personality disorder, don't hesitate to ask."

Over the months, I noticed that my sister wasn't the only person who had been taunted by Griot (for instance, Griot lectured another user, "Take your meds and shaddup"). It turned out he had made plenty of enemies on Wikipedia. One compared edit warring with this particular user to "arguing with a donut." Another even adopted a screen name riffing on his rival: "GridiotinSanFranciski."

By his own count, Griot had made more than 5,000 edits to 275 Wikipedia stories in three years. Griot seemed to take great delight in fighting with his fellow Wikipedians, as indicated by long lists of back-and-forth comments on his user talk page, which numbered 66 as of last week. (Each of Wikipedia's registered users can build a user page, which may be used to display information relating to its author as well as to hold discussions with others.)

After getting at least one user blocked from Wikipedia, Griot crowed: "The moral: Don't mess with the Griot."

I decided to ignore the warning. I decided I was going to find the Griot.

Griot (pronounced Gree-oh) is one of the 4.6 million registered users on Wikipedia's English-language site who have signed up to edit and write entries and ultimately determine what the Wiki-masses read. Wikipedia users rarely register with their real names, and Griot was (and is) no exception.

The only biographical information I found on Griot was on his or her user page, which was sketchy at best. Griot claimed to be a college professor and a record shop owner who was born and raised in San Francisco "in the Western Addition, to be exact" — and still lives here. Of course, it's difficult for another Wikipedian (or a reporter) to independently verify whether Griot is actually a record-shop-owning professor — or, for that matter, whether Griot is a man or a woman, Republican or Democrat (it's doubtful Griot is a Green Party member, considering his antipathy for Nader), and what other agendas may be at play while editing Wikipedia entries. For me, there was the practical concern of how I could track down Griot for an interview — a real in-person one, not an e-mail exchange — without a real name.

The best way to contact Griot was by writing a message on his Wikipedia user page. So that's what I did. I waited for a couple of days, but heard nothing. Then I sent a follow-up. Still nothing.

For centuries, West African history has told of griots — those who have bestowed wisdom to the masses and fulfilled the crucial role of sharing village histories, usually through song. Griots do more than tell tales: They have created oral histories. They are truth-tellers. The Griot on Wikipedia, though, seemed more of a shit-talker than a truth-teller.

"Be warned," Griot's user page read when I checked it out last month. "It has been said that I have a 'Dick Cheney approach to personal politics' , that I'm a 'hysterically paranoid info-deleter,' and that I 'use dirty tricks and corporate-style high jinks on Wikipedia to abuse independent artists' ." (This user page has since been altered.)

Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture, finds the anonymous nature of the wiki world one of its most troubling aspects, and feels that "it lends itself to dishonest people." He has a point.

There is the infamous story of the once-prominent Wikipedian known as Essjay, a man who was believed to be a tenured professor of religion at a private university — one holding a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law — who reportedly had written or contributed to 16,000 entries. After Essjay was featured in a July 31, 2006, article in The New Yorker titled "Know It All: Can Wiki-pedia conquer expertise?" he was unmasked as 24-year-old Ryan Jordan, who was not a professor and held no advanced degrees. "He was willing to describe his work as a Wiki-pedia administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page," the editor's note appended to the article reads.

The Essjay fiasco illustrated the limits of Wikipedia's editorial transparency. While everyone who reads an entry can click through to its editing history, as well as to any accompanying debates about changes and additions, you often still have no idea who the real-life editor is. How can you consider the source when you don't know who the source is?

Some Wikipedians do use their full names. Michael C. Berch, a 51-year-old Bay Area user and volunteer administrator who helps monitor the Wiki world, goes by "MCB," and lists plenty of biographical information on his user page. He said he understands why some users choose to be anonymous, but also voiced concerns about the "burden of anonymous editing." Berch, who called the Essjay saga a "great embarrassment," added that there isn't the same level of accountability when people don't sign their real names.

Another danger that any casual Wiki-pedia reader may notice: Some people seem more emboldened to act like assholes when cloaked by pseudonyms and online anonymity. Griot seemed to be a case in point.

Anyone with Internet access can edit Wikipedia, and the site's project introduction page speaks of the wonderful aspects of such a democratic pro-ject: openness, inclusion, and contributing knowledge as you see fit in a collaborative way. Champions of Wikipedia often invoke what's known as the "wisdom of crowds," or the idea that "the many are smarter than the few," as a 2004 book by James Surowiecki on the subject put it.

It's a noble principle. Unfortunately, the wise online masses too often erupt into vitriolic and wordy warfare in need of crowd control. Edit wars are a common manifestation of the crowds getting unruly.

Many an edit war may seem like a fight over nothing to the casual observer, but considering that according to its staff, the popular, multilingual Web site gets about 7 billion views per month, stakes can be high. An edit yields what millions of people read on the site on any particular topic. (That is, until another user dives in to make additional changes.)

Of course, some predictably controversial entries inspire frequent warring — the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example, not to mention the entry titled "Armenian Genocide," or the biographical entry of George W. Bush. But arguments can also break out over much more obscure matters, such as whether Nancy Reagan alienated herself from the general public with her expensive taste in clothes as well as her White House fine china collection. And then it seems some edit wars are waged out of sheer personal spite.

Wikipedians, for all their lofty talk about the collaborative spirit, aren't idealistic fools. They know it's not all about peace and love in the Wiki world. "Because editing, as far as the whole project is concerned, is normal activity, an edit war is also, from a statistical perspective, considered normal activity," said Jay Walsh, head of communications for the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that operates Wikipedia and other collaborative wiki projects.

Wikipedia has a disciplinary system in place to deal with edit wars. First, users are reminded of the site's policies, and administrators try to "talk down" the parties involved. Offending users may enter dispute resolution. They can be shut out, or "blocked," from editing for a period of time — it could be 24 hours, it could be indefinitely. Serious violators may be banned altogether. But, as Walsh points out, dispute resolution is handled by the Wikipedia community: "I would point out that Wikipedia itself doesn't regulate or prevent; rather, the various users and editors play those roles."

Despite the potential for being blocked, anyone who has peered into the history of Wikipedia entries knows violations of Wikiquette are rampant. Griot has been accused of many such violations.

But some users say that Griot seems to have a skill for baiting others to the point where they violated Wikipedia policies. He would then report them to administrators, which could result in them being blocked.

One Wiki user, SeeknDistroi, told me via e-mail that he'd been editing for a short time and then butted heads with Griot over the Ralph Nader entry: "Yeah, Griot. ... You disagree with him, he harasses you, you get blocked."

That battle had its roots in Nader's role in the 2000 presidential election. Seekn-Distroi objected to its position in the lead biographical section, suggesting it be moved to another location. "It's also not even accurate," he wrote on November 27, 2007. "The Supreme Court ruled W pres, despite Al Gore winning the popular vote. All that anti-Nader stuff that he 'made' Bush Jr. president is stupid and naive."

After much back-and-forth discussion with SeeknDistroi, Griot scolded other users on the Nader entry's talk page, "Moreover, Wiki does not have 'winners' or 'losers' (as you and SeeknDistroi keep asserting) but only truthseekers." But the warring continued, and SeeknDistroi was indefinitely blocked just as he was listing Griot's suspected sock-puppet accounts, where users create multiple online identities.

As I quickly learned while writing this story, some users have several screen names; one reported having as many as 15. While creating sock puppets is generally a no-no — at least when puppets belonging to one user "gang up" on those of another to win an edit war — users admit that it happens. They are also an easy way to get around a block — if one Wiki identity gets blocked, a user can use a sock puppet to continue editing.

While I was finding out a lot about how Wikipedia worked, I still hadn't heard from Griot. Apparently, polite messages to him weren't going to do the trick. I thought I might have to do something more drastic.

The staff at the Wikimedia Foundation is small — just 16 people — but also a helpful bunch. (At the time I contacted the company, it was still based in St. Petersburg, Florida; its headquarters has since relocated to San Francisco.) Almost immediately after receiving my request to interview Bay Area–based users, then–public relations maven Sandra Ordonez (who was not able to relocate to San Francisco) quickly started putting the word out. With her help, I spoke with librarian and avid user Phoebe Ayers — whose book, How Wikipedia Works, will be published later this year. Passionate Wikipedia editor George William Herbert was willing to patiently explain how the Wiki world works, as was South Bay user Rachel Rein.

But there was still no word from Griot. And silence can make most snoopy reporters all the more curious.

SF Weekly's IT systems manager, Max Pavlovich, had agreed to work some of his computer nerd magic. I tracked down what I suspected to be Griot's Internet Protocol (IP) address, a unique number assigned to every computer connected to the Internet. I naively thought that if I hung out in Griot's neighborhood, which seemed to be somewhere between the Castro and the Mission, maybe I'd spot this person, but I felt pretty ridiculous — and a bit creepy — stalking poor Griot. And, after all, it wasn't as if I expected he or she to be carrying a West African djembe drum.

Despite my best efforts, Griot still wasn't giving me the time of day. My editor wondered if I was being too polite; he thought I needed to bait Griot by editing one of his entries. I didn't want to go there, but I did tempt Griot by posting a comment about one of his hot-button subjects.

Those affiliated with the Green Party seem to especially strike a nerve with Griot. He has engaged in numerous wars over Ralph Nader's entry. Late last month, Griot wrote: "Now my question is how to address the fact that Nader's biggest impact was in 2000. That belongs at the top of both articles. No more white-washing, please." He wrote to rival editor Boodles-thecat on his user talk page: "Nader would have been a footnote to the elections if not for his role in 2000 in Florida. I'd appreciate if you wouldn't insist on glozing [sic] over this fact, as much as you may dislike it."

Another user, one going by only an IP address, leapt into battle and pointed out other concerns in the 2000 elections, especially vote caging and voter fraud concerns.

Again, Griot wasn't having it. "R .. A .. L ........ P .. H .. N .......... A .. D .. E .. E ... R," he wrote, posting a link to a YouTube video featuring the Mickey Mouse Club — complete with Annette Funicello.

I saw my opportunity. "So, Griot," I wrote, "is it safe to say that you put Ralph Nader and Mickey Mouse in the same club, then? I just want to make my article as accurate as possible."

The words "Griot Speaks" promptly appeared on my user talk page.

"That was a reference to the Ralph Nader Fan Club, a club whose name I mentioned to someone with whom I was exchanging messages," Griot quickly responded. "I wouldn't read much into it or take it personally."

Then he got right to the point. "Why all the interest in me? Why the five invitations to be in your article, four more than you offered anyone else? What's the dang deal?"

He also promptly pasted my messages into a section on his user talk page, titled "Mary Spicuzza Pitches Woo." It was later changed to "Mary Spicuzza Pitches Woo 7 Times!"

My messages didn't seem inflammatory or rude. The first one read, "My name is Mary Spicuzza and I'm a reporter with SF Weekly. I'm working on an article about Wikipedia and I'd love to speak with you. May I give you a call?"

Another: "Hi Griot. I'm still working on that article and would really like to get your perspective on Wikipedia — especially on how San Francisco is represented in the encyclopedia. I'm on deadline, so the sooner the better for me. Thanks for your time."

Alas, Griot seemed to have no interest in being interviewed in person or over the phone.

I decided I had to get a little more pushy: I let Griot know he or she had become the main focus of the article. Maybe that would bring him or her out into the open.

Shortly thereafter, the words "Why me?" appeared on my user talk page. Griot was unhappy with being the focus of a news story.

"If it matters to you, and I suspect it doesn't, it's not something I would wish for," Griot wrote. "But since my wishes are being ignored, I just have to ask: 'Why me?' Is it my elegant prose? Did my many fans — they throw flowers at my feet and sometimes fire off one-gun salutes in my honor (hope you mention that in your article) — steer you to me? Your aunt? [I think he meant my sister.] I make my living partly as a journalist and writer, so I know how these things work. I just hope you're fair even though you never interviewed me or asked for my permission to do this.

"Is that fair to someone you don't really know?" he continued. "I teach at City College. I don't dare give you my name or the name of my business. I've had people from Wikipedia send me videos of them firing guns in response to my edits on gun control issues. I have other less mortal reasons for being anonymous."

Okay, for those of you keeping score at home: Griot is a teacher at City College, a record-store owner, and a journalist and writer. This is one busy Wikipedian.

Still, Griot had a point. Wikipedia is a public forum, and seemingly every discussion about an entry or a user talk page is open for the world to see. But just because a Wiki-pedian makes edits on a public forum doesn't mean he or she wants to divulge information about his or her virtual or real-life identity.

A Wikipedian named BillyTFried had indeed sent a video of himself at a shooting range to Griot in the midst of an edit war. That fight was actually over a couple of sentences Fried had wanted to add to the Chris Daly entry about San Francisco's Proposition H, known as the "gun ban," a ballot item that won the support of voters but was eventually struck down in court. Fried actually struck me as a well-meaning and earnest editor — one of the few willing to use his real name (and even agreeing to meet in person) to talk about his devotion to Wikipedia.

Before I could respond to all of Griot's "Why me?" questions, another user — Blow of Light — had suggested that I was likely a "single-purpose account" and should be blocked. I didn't know what I'd done to offend Blow of Light, so I quickly went to his or her talk page to write a note. That's when I noticed how much we seemed to have in common: "Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right," Blow of Light had written. "I encourage Wikipedians who think the same thing to join me in this quiet small way to say to the world: Wikipedians stand with the right of individuals everywhere to report on the facts of the world in peace."

I couldn't understand why this free-speech-loving user would want me blocked. And I developed a case of sock-puppet paranoia: Was Blow of Light secretly Griot? (I don't think so — Blow of Light provided thoughtful answers to my questions.) Griot could be anybody: a neighbor, a co-worker, an ex-boyfriend. It was all just too unsettling to think about for long.

It's not as though I can't understand why someone would want to be anonymous online. Still, I have to side with Paul Grabowicz, the new-media program director for the University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. "I guess I have the same feeling about Wikipedia and other citizen-generated sites [as I have] about the media: The more transparency the better," he told me. "People should be able to find out who is producing the information." Grabowicz says he encourages his students to use Wikipedia — but only as a starting point. And the longtime investigative reporter urges "a healthy degree of skepticism, no matter what the information source. I think the bottom line is I don't trust anybody."

Say what you will about the press: There is at least a measure of accountability in a newspaper that is rarely seen on Wikipedia. It's called a byline. I mean, I'm sure I've produced some less-than-brilliant work during the dozen or so years I've been a journalist. But at least I've had the guts to sign my name — my real name — to what I write.

When I finally tried to answer Griot's question by explaining I would be exploring issues of anonymity on Wikipedia — and pointing out how little I knew about the person behind the user name — Griot was characteristically snippy in response: "Then it's going to be one hell of a riff, your article, if it focuses on me, since that's all you know. I'm a big jazz fan (you can use that). I'm looking forward to reading your article to see how well you thrive on a riff. Good luck to you."

I had a glimmer of hope that Griot would come around. Yet another note appeared: "Hey, I put some more biographical material on my user page at User: Griot. Hope it's helpful to you."

Under the heading "This Is My Story," it began, "Griot, the eleventh of ten children, was born in a boxcar factory next to some chicken coops in San Francisco's Pacific Heights neighborhood. His father was a melungeon breeder of grasshoppers and a part-time hosier; his mother a voodoo priestess and Tarot reader who dabbled in currency trading and goat futures."

Suddenly, I realized that while I may never meet Griot face to face, I had learned a little more about the prickly Wikipedian. Sure, Griot may be an anonymous pain in the ass. But at least he or she is a pain in the ass with a sense of humor.

Alas, on Friday, Feb. 8, Griot was blocked from Wikipedia because of concerns over sock puppeteering. But the Griot would not be silenced for long.

Early on Monday, Feb. 11, I received an e-mail purportedly from Griot: "Dear Mary Spicuzza, First, a warning: Next Christmas Santa Claus is going to put a large lump of coal in your cyberstalking." The angry Griot went on to vent about my sister, accused me of misrepresenting myself, and added some thoughts on ethics in journalism.

I received the e-mail way past deadline — and weeks after I first requested an interview.

To be fair, maybe as soon as I began getting reports about Griot's snide remarks and proclivity for personal wiki attacks, I should have immediately written, "Hey, Griot, I hear you're a real mean-spirited jerk who bullies those who disagree with you, but I'd like to hear your side of the story."

Then again, it's one thing to hear about somebody like Griot acting like an asshole. At least this way, I got to experience that fact firsthand.

Read more quotes, see research and links at the 'Wikipedia Idiots' web extra.
Show Pages
 
My Voice Nation Help
172 comments
PDT978
PDT978

She has this movie she's been failing to make for years... and YEARS... And it will never be made... ever! Why? Because she doesn't know the difference between vanity and art, that's why. [chuckle]

LBlatzKleiner
LBlatzKleiner

Dear Mr. Feldspar: Ms. Spicuzza "lent" her permission to the collective and non-members, not Wikipedia, as you've assumed, who share an ISP hub. I am not famous, nor did I claim to be. Ms. Spicuzza is. Your tone is quite rude, thus I make this my final posting. *Shelly Robbins, member (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...

Vunderbar
Vunderbar

My favorite quotes: "SF Weekly's IT systems manager, Max Pavlovich, had agreed to work some of his computer nerd magic. I tracked down what I suspected to be Griot's Internet Protocol (IP) address, a unique number assigned to every computer connected to the Internet. I naively thought that if I hung out in Griot's neighborhood, which seemed to be somewhere between the Castro and the Mission, maybe I'd spot this person, but I felt pretty ridiculous — and a bit creepy — stalking Griot." Naturally, because a creep often feels creepy. I also liked: "Griot could be anybody: a neighbor, a co-worker, an ex-boyfriend." About the latter, wishful thinking on the author's part, I wager.

Yakamo789
Yakamo789

What's the phoniest line in this article? I vote for "I decided I had to get a little more pushy: I let Griot know he or she had become the main focus of the article. Maybe that would bring him or her out into the open." As if the Griot wasn't the "main focus" of this article from the start!

Bestia
Bestia

Her name's not Yon YonsonShe lives in WisconsinShe don't live here no moreShe made a big boo-booBy writing some doo-dooAnd she got shown the door

Mary Jane Prattlefore
Mary Jane Prattlefore

And if you believe that I would spend my precious time on this merely because of an edit war, then, sir, you insult my intelligence, nay my life and my humanity. Good day, sir.

IlBigamo
IlBigamo

Mary, Mary, au contrairyWhere is your little pen now?Badger stater, masturbaterScribbling for frauleins and fraus

Rocko
Rocko

She ate jellybean communion wafers; thirty years later, she pretended to be a novitiate.

Bill
Bill

Her name's not Yon YonsonShe lives in WisconsinShe don't live here no moreShe made a big boo-booBy writing some doo-dooAnd she got shown the door

Info
Info

Visitor DetailVisit Start Time3/9/2011 8:27:06 AMLocationAnonymous ProxyOrganizationGBU Internet, LLCVisitor ID080A7F0B34From Domain198.65.160.20I.P. Address198.65.160.20 Referred ByBookmark or directBrowserFirefox 3.6PlatformWindows 7LanguageEnglish (United States)Screen Resolution1024 x 768 Java SupportNoCookie SupportYes

Start Page Default Page 3/9/2011 8:25:57 AM Next Page newsletter.html 3/9/2011 8:26:02 AM Next Page Default Page 3/9/2011 8:26:07 AM Next Page schedule.html 3/9/2011 8:26:08 AM Next Page Default Page 3/9/2011 8:26:19 AM Next Page links.html 3/9/2011 8:26:24 AM Next Page Default Page 3/9/2011 8:27:06 AM Report generated Wednesday, March 09, 2011 1:01:30 PM

Dirk Hofbrau
Dirk Hofbrau

Hello! Sorry, I'm not a very warm and fuzzy type, but there's my attempt. If you look at my edit history, you'll notice that I quite like a variety of topics. I'm interested in U.S. presidential election and political-related articles in general. I'd also like to look at some of the twentieth century world history articles. I've not had must chance to really dig in. It might be exciting to expound on the United States presidential election debates. I think it could use some work. Also electoral college and Third party (United States). My present focus has been on Barack Obama-related articles, in part because of the scenario described above, in part because of the block. Nevertheless, I would never "stick narrowly" to any single topic. As for article creation, I've mentioned one about Barack Obama and Pakistan and Afghanistan. Perhaps an international relations article in the future. As for how I would work with others, I'm displaying that to the best of my ability-- here. And if you look at dialogues on Ralph Nader-related pages, all you need is there. Writegeist so far took head and hit nail most squarely. I'm generally a civil-minded person, and then there are some who like to try and push buttons. I excel in recognizing the difference between opposition of ideas and personal opposition. I can be humorous yet remain calm in social crisis. I don't support bullying, or authoritarian head games. I don't like it when people try to use shame or humiliation to pound people into submission. Dignity, respect, humor, and, when all else fails, a little fire with fire. Tempered with fairness. Proof in da puddin'... Thank you for asking!

Jeanne Marie Spicuzza
Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

Dear Alan Ferguson:

I am advised to write this letter to you regarding your persistent harassment and cyberstalking. I am writing to you openly, to notify you that you are to cease any and all contact with me, any and all contact with web sites and web pages pertaining to me, and to cease contributing to web sites and web pages pertaining to me immediately. This will be the only notification that you will receive.

Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

Mary Jane Prattlefore
Mary Jane Prattlefore

Excellent critique of the dehumanization of war and exploitation of power. The writing is phenomenal! I look forward to more articles. I loved the crisp and colorful quality of the piece, resulting in an almost Impressionistic treatment of light. The interviewing is superb! The story bears a classic "Twilight Zone" quality, perhaps even David Lynch influence. Great writing! The dialogue is poignant, and makes its point without excess. The story follows the author, skillfully outlining the dealings of her sister, portrayed by Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. Her name means "heavenly messenger," and she is an "existentialist." Given these descriptions, we're told that she will, in essence, live... and tell. Very intelligent writing! I've discovered some interesting symbols, too. Even the gizard appearing in the story is indigenous to Vietnam! Brilliant and honest! I predict that this story will be studied and remembered as an important statement of our times.

Sir Edmond Putzfighter
Sir Edmond Putzfighter

"Plethora of anonymous online vitriol.." Now there's a girl with a prose style...NOT!

inflatable butt plug
inflatable butt plug

Your blog is very much valuable information. I'd like to recommend my inflatable butt plug. Hope you will find it useful.

Mary Spritzkindle
Mary Spritzkindle

Thank you for your time and trust. I can agree, and understand the WP:DUCK and all that, especially because of the controversy and the Donald brigade and all. But I'd like to make a request, if I may. You're right in saying I want to edit Nader. I'm thinking of staying away from pretty much everything, for now, because, well, it's not going over so great so far, as you can see! If you would, please have an admin assist with the Nader article, and any others I've contributed to that might "suddenly" take a turn for the worse. A certain user is clearly out for personal revenge (even contributed to an article on "Revenge"! See Griot's other User IP history). For some, it's more about ego, and power. But I really feel on principle, and what I think WP strives for, is quality and objectivity. The reason I fought was because I really do care about how people become educated. I wanted to share that. TNM says she's done. Don't know about Telogen. Thanks for the encouragement to return. I do feel the need to step back, for a little while, because this is stressful and, well, I'm not retired! I need to place some much-needed attention back to my life :) This Wiki can be addictive! I meant what I said when I told you I appreciate your help. You've done good work, Otheus. You're a good fairy. Be well, stay cool. I'm sure we'll meet again ;)

Mary Jane Prattlefore
Mary Jane Prattlefore

Griot, the user who instigated these past and present SPP accusations and Jeanne Marie Spicuzza article deletion, is an SPP. We challenged 'his' Ralph Nader article, so he began stalking my contributions, saw me contributing to an article that's been around for years before I ever came to Wikipedia, and he's determined to get rid of it. He felt powerless, so he's reacting out of fear and spite. He announced his departure from Wikipedia, but went around 'secretly' vandalizing user talk pages and links to the JMS article (see Telogen's note on the article's deletion page). It wasn't enough, so he prompted Calton to put boxes all over the article. I was away. Telogen reported it to the AN/I board. A few admins told Calton not to do that, and Calton got very miffed, violating WP:CIVIL, 3RR, etc. Calton placed the article on his AfD list. He and Griot, SPP, gathered some editor and admin friends together (why else would so many people vote "DELETE" on such an "obscure" article, as he called it, in 24 hours?). I try to fix it, I'm COI, SSP, etc. I must be blocked. It might become too good to delete or something. Telogen tells it like it is, now he and I are being trashed. My GF edits have been reverted by the same people who are now promptly voting to delete articles that Telogen and me and contributed to. As for the IP ID, per instruction of WP, I choose not to adopt a name, and Telogen adopted his with TNM hers (see above). I understand taking a name is an option, not mandatory. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to disregard WP policy. Per WP:AGF, you might chalk it up to the fact that I've contributing off and on for all of two months. I have a history of good faith edits, and Telogen guided the Ralph Nader article resolve that Griot was aggravating. TNM left for good. I pulled back. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...] Otheus asked me to. I did. That's why we're being accused of what exactly what Griot is doing. He's had some practice. He's got a Dick Cheney approach to personal politics. I'm pretty fed up with the whole business, I don't like all the conflict and backbiting. I'm noticing a lot of quality problems with articles, a lot of people not qualified to edit, poor writing, bullying, COI not addressed because these users know more people to back them than first-timers. Users aren't who they say they are. That's ironic, by keeping my IP visible, I'm MORE outright about who I am. I'm concerned about teachers telling their students not to come to WP, because it's so inaccurate. I wanted to help. Now, I'm just tired of it all. Griots of the world think they've won, because they get their way. They bully you into their way. Or do they? As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, man is powerless to the results, etc. The way some people are acting, you'd scarcely recognize their humanity at all. Maybe it's the computer, they think no one can see. Fear. But it's that much more visible, really. The best people do great things when they don't know or think someone else is watching. The heroes. Others hide behind an eponym, and by trying to hide, revealing their true natures. How lonely it must be, and so hunched over a keyboard most of your life. Telogen and I stated before that we are different people. We know the truth. Others continue to accuse, to cause confusion and divert from their own transgressions. Monkey politics. The hope of it-- I can leave here, have my life, know I'm honest, do good work. That's all I've got to say on that.

posturewriter
posturewriter

Another example of a covert edit "flame" war by "Edit WarLords"????, or juvenile eraser gangs????There are a group of arrogant editors in Wikipedia who consider themselves to be elitist, and able to control the information that the public gets to read by selectively deleting it and blocking the contributors who add it.�

The readers and �newbies� of Wikipedia are called cattle (who can be easily herded - i.e. easily controlled, and easily led to believe something). When a �newbie� arrives and the �elite� editor doesn�t like the information being provided he tries to block him with the normal policies, processes, and forums etc. but if that fails the editor goes behind the scene of open discussion and posts a message on the flame war noticeboard to start a flame war. The �newbie� is called the �flame-bait�, and the other members of the edit elite are called flamers - or flamethrowers??? - They get the message, secret email, (or inuendo) and go to burn the flame-bait or �newbies� and their information?�They seem to come from nowhere into discussions that are in the normal process of being dealt with, and the �elite� editor can be paraphrased as saying �by the way I just happened to see this page by sheer coincidence and have known of the disruptive nature of this newbie before, so I am banning him immediately. The rest of you �normal� arbitrators can do something else now�.I found this information after contributing to Wikipedia for 12 months and recently being banned. It starts on this webpage . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...

You can see the photo of the bull at the top of the page with the label of PCCTL - which translates as �personal computer cattle�.�

They then proceed to misrepresent everything that has happened in the past 12 months, with what appears to be genuine complaints, but which looks to me like very skillful spin - on every word - an exercise in the pot calling the kettle black.They then start discussing the fact that their usual methods of discouraging people from contributing information to Wikipedia have failed in my case.Their backroom methods include the�attitude readjustment tools� which they mentioned in the 6th paragraph, and are highlighted in blue as a link to a Lart page, where they refer to the �newbies� as �Lusers� here http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/ht...which in turn has a link to the �flames� page, and just follow the endless links thereafter.

My Wikipedia ID code is/was Posturewriter.�

Reputation Online
Reputation Online

The poster's name is Alan Ferguson. He works for New Media Strategies, ironically an online reputation site. His Wikipedia identity is Scibaby, a user banned for sockpuppetry. His (current) dynamic Anonymous Proxy IP is 198.172.204.85, which has been used three times today for stalking purposes. I suggest contacting his employers.

From the Yahoo! Health web sit
From the Yahoo! Health web sit

Disorganized schizophrenia causes unusual speech and behavior, such as making up words or constantly rhyming words.

e.e. cummings
e.e. cummings

I see England, I see France

I hear someone's panty rants I see Ashb'ry, I see Haight

I hear someone bloviate

I see Moscow and Madrid

Poor old Jeanne has flipped her lid!

Edmund Wilson
Edmund Wilson

My favorite Mary Spicuzza article is "Panty Ranting" (Google it -- I dare ya). That article is so totally hot! If Mary writes her memoirs or autobiography, she ought to name it after that article. Like I said, it's so totally hot! It's about these babelicious high school dibs who wear thongs to school as a protest against the narrow-minded "draconian" dress code. Who owns the movie rights to this? The photos that accompany Mary's killer prose ("Jody Lasda may look like a fashion model, but the fast-talking powerhouse quickly proves that girls are not just meant to be seen, but heard as well") are awesome! And I really like this one subheading in the article -- "Crack Down" (probably the editors came up with that one, since the author has no sense of humor). This article is So. Fucking. Hot. And it empowers women too! More panty ranting Mary, please!

The Griot
The Griot

Yeah, I hear she's working for ABC News or something. Sounds like a promotion from the Weakly to me...

Mighty Sparrow
Mighty Sparrow

The princess has gone far away

To write about the spliff and jay.

Princess will you please come back?

We lack your knack for writing hack.

Alas but she cannot return

Much less distinguish or discern.

She has been run out of town

For running her profession down.

Tokuro Togudk
Tokuro Togudk

Anonymity is perfectly justified. A troublemaker is a trouble maker whether his name is John Smith or whether his name is PrincessGurlll12u892. Focus on actions, not on the name.

Any system that attempts to verify the name will either cause the Wikipedia system to collapse, or it will be easy to dodge. Instead focus on eliminating unwelcome behaviors. Of course every online system has a jerk or two. Focus on prohibiting their behaviors.

This article takes a very nasty tone, so I cannot take it seriously.

BTW my name is not Tokuro Togudk.

Horace Greeley
Horace Greeley

Society of Professional Journalists: Code of Ethics (preamble)

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

So, um, like what the hell happened?

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Poet's Corner: Excuzza me children, for you must hear

The midnight rants of daughter dear.

She, like mom, has gone quite nuts

And -- it's the genes -- is also a putz.

Jennifer Meyer
Jennifer Meyer

This article is great! You should submit it for awards. I like the way people's personalities emerged in the face of, so-called, anonymity. I've read articles about Wikipedia before, but this one gave me the feeling of being there. Thank you!

Cyberstalking
Cyberstalking

LocationAnonymous Proxy

OrganizationGBU Internet, LLC

Visitor ID6BC47F3120

From Domainverio.net

I.P. Address198.172.207.113

BrowserMicrosoft Internet Explorer 6.0

PlatformWindows XP

Languageen-us

Script VersionJScript 3.1

Screen Resolution1280 x 768

Color Palette16.7 million colors (32-bit)

Java SupportYes

Cookie SupportYes

Hostname:198-172-207-113.ga.verio.netISP:NTT AmericaOrganization:GBU Internet, LLCProxy:Confirmed proxy server.Type:Corporate

Geo-Location Information

Country:Anonymous Proxy State/Region:City:Latitude:0Longitude:0Area Code:

Cyberstalking
Cyberstalking

LocationAnonymous Proxy

OrganizationGBU Internet, LLC

Visitor ID6BC47F3120

From Domainverio.net

I.P. Address198.172.207.113

BrowserMicrosoft Internet Explorer 6.0

PlatformWindows XP

Languageen-us

Script VersionJScript 3.1

Screen Resolution1280 x 768

Color Palette16.7 million colors (32-bit)

Java SupportYes

Cookie SupportYes

Hostname:198-172-207-113.ga.verio.netISP:NTT AmericaOrganization:GBU Internet, LLCProxy:Confirmed proxy server.Type:Corporate

Geo-Location Information

Country:Anonymous Proxy State/Region:City:Latitude:0Longitude:0Area Code:

Cyberstalking
Cyberstalking

Visit Start Time7/27/2008 4:38:30 PM

LocationAnonymous Proxy

OrganizationGBU Internet, LLC

Visitor ID6BC47F3120

From Domainverio.net

I.P. Address198.172.207.113

BrowserMicrosoft Internet Explorer 6.0

PlatformWindows XP

Languageen-us

Script VersionJScript 3.1

Screen Resolution1280 x 768

Color Palette16.7 million colors (32-bit)

Java SupportYes

Cookie SupportYes

Hostname:198-172-207-113.ga.verio.netISP:NTT AmericaOrganization:GBU Internet, LLCProxy:Confirmed proxy server.Type:Corporate

Geo-Location Information

Country:Anonymous Proxy State/Region:City:Latitude:0Longitude:0Area Code:

Sebastian III
Sebastian III

Another thing that struck me as really funny about this article: the author explains how to pronounce "griot." She writes, "Griot (pronounced Gree-oh)" and goes on to explain what a griot is. Sheeesh. How far into the sticks does a person have to grow up to NOT know what a griot is or how to pronounce the word? I betcha the author originally thought the word was pronounced it "gr-eye-ought." What a hick!

Cyberstalking
Cyberstalking

Start Time7/17/2008 8:16:47 PM

LocationSan Francisco, California, United States

OrganizationSBC Internet Services

From Domainpacbell.net

I.P. Address71.139.18.186

BrowserMicrosoft Internet Explorer 6.0

PlatformWindows XP

LanguageEnglish (United States)

Script VersionJScript 3.1

Screen Resolution1280 x 768

Color Palette16.7 million colors (32-bit)

Java SupportYes

Cookie SupportYes

Hostname:ppp-71-139-18-186.dsl.snfc21.p...ISP:SBC Internet ServicesOrganization:SBC Internet ServicesProxy:None detectedType:Cable/DSL

Geo-Location Information

Country:United States State/Region:CACity:OaklandLatitude:37.795Longitude:-122.2193Area Code:510

Frank Frankly
Frank Frankly

Poet�s Corner: Phony-baloney macaronis / Should stay at home and drive Zambonis. / Sis sucks rocks, the brood�re mutts / Guy succeeds where Gal�s a putz.

Cyberstalking
Cyberstalking

Visit Start Time 7/6/2008 4:59:38 PM Location San Francisco, California, United States Organization SBC Internet Services Visitor ID 6D34EA3720 From Domain pacbell.net I.P. Address 71.139.42.128 Referred By http://www.google.com/search?h... %22jeanne mari... Search Term "jeanne marie spicuzza" Visit No. 2 Last Visit 7/6/2008 4:59:38 PM Browser Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 Platform Windows XP Language English (United States) Script Version JScript 3.1 Screen Resolution 1280 x 768 Color Palette 16.7 million colors (32-bit) Java Support Yes Cookie Support Yes

 
©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...