David Stodghill editing WP

[Peter Damian]

There is much more than meets the eye regarding the Adams' article, including the manifold contributions of Adams herself. However, back to FT68. He makes no edits at all between 01:04, 30 October 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =167981649 and 10:16, 27 January 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =266721545, where he goes straight for the Adams article.

That there really was a gap is implausible, given his obvious addiction to Wikipedia. So what was happening?

Who is this editor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... s/LexiLynn ? See also this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... assistance .

Why in this essay http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... _in_charge does Adams refer to "a 46-year old overweight retard"? That was 9 February 2007, before FT68 began editing. However, a person aged 46 in 2007 would have been born in 1971, not 1968. All very mysterious.

[tarantino]

Who is this editor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... s/LexiLynn ? See also this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... assistance .

LexiLynn appears to be this violent sex offender and child pornographer who is currently in a Pennsylvania state prison.

LexiLynn and previous accounts tried to write the daughter of said offender into various articles. One previous account, WorkingHard (T-C-L), was banned by Jimbo for making violent threats.

One of his IPs, 65.184.20.38, went around removing information connecting the dots.

[Peter Damian]

Who is this editor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... s/LexiLynn ? See also this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... assistance .

LexiLynn appears to be this violent sex offender and child pornographer who is currently in a Pennsylvania state prison.

LexiLynn and previous accounts tried to write the daughter of said offender into various articles. One previous account, WorkingHard (T-C-L), was banned by Jimbo for making violent threats.

One of his IPs, 65.184.20.38, went around removing information connecting the dots.

Thanks. And is also probably editor JuliannaRoseMauriello http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... eMauriello , if this is to be believed http://davidstodghill.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... child.html .

Stodghill stalking Lazytown child actress Julianna Rose Mauriello online and off
From email: "I have noticed that your page does not mention his attack's on Julianna Rose Mauriello, and his actual stalking, and photographing her in New York. Also, it does not mention about him ever posing as Julianna on the net, opening a fake Myspace account as her, and even hacking her actual Face Book, and her brother's Face Book, Myspace, and MSN account's. I have spoke to her brother on many occasion's, and can tell you for a fact that this is ALL 100% true. Please check some past IMDB coversation's involving "Hoopdy", and Itzmauriello on Julianna Rose Mauriello's page to see what I am speaking of. Please add this important information to your page. Stodghill is also the person who made many people believe that Julianna was gay, and with former actress Amanda Burwasser awhile back as Sascha on Don't Link This."

This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=50438752 shows that user:JuliannaRoseMauriello is 65.184.17.216, who has these weird contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... 184.17.216 .

[Moonage Daydream]

There is much more than meets the eye regarding the Adams' article, including the manifold contributions of Adams herself. However, back to FT68. He makes no edits at all between 01:04, 30 October 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =167981649 and 10:16, 27 January 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =266721545, where he goes straight for the Adams article.

That there really was a gap is implausible, given his obvious addiction to Wikipedia. So what was happening?

I think it was mentioned that he was in Asia around that time? Maybe he was away from regular internet access or used a different account for that period?

[Peter Damian]

This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=43904898 suggests that 65.184.17.216 is Stodghill, and so Stodghill = 65.184.17.216 = LexiLynn = JuliannaRoseMauriello. Editing articles about child actresses etc. Also quite a few edits to Murder of Jessica Lunsford e.g. this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=54973577

On [[March 1]], [[2005]], ''JessicaLunsford.com'', the official website for Jessica Lunsford, hosted by David Stodghill and ''CharlotteWebHosting.com'' received over 10,000,000 unique hits in 9 hours, making it ''Alexa.com'''s third most visited website for the year of 2005.

We all remember Jessica Marie Lunsford, that 9-year-old Florida girl that was kidnapped, raped and killed by that registered sex offender and Terri Schiavo, the brain damaged Florida woman that was at the center of a bitter moral and legal tug of war and she wound up dying after her feeding tube was removed. Both of these stories captivated the nation's hearts and minds. They also caught the attention of David Stodghill. Where others just saw pain and suffering, he saw opportunity. On David Stodghill's old design page he actually took credit for Jessica Lunsford and Terri Schiavo being 'clients' of his!
http://davidstodghill.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... ghill.html

[tarantino]

Perhaps this should be split to another thread.

This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=43904898 suggests that 65.184.17.216 is Stodghill, and so Stodghill = 65.184.17.216 = LexiLynn = JuliannaRoseMauriello. Editing articles about child actresses etc. Also quite a few edits to Murder of Jessica Lunsford e.g. this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=54973577

On [[March 1]], [[2005]], ''JessicaLunsford.com'', the official website for Jessica Lunsford, hosted by David Stodghill and ''CharlotteWebHosting.com'' received over 10,000,000 unique hits in 9 hours, making it ''Alexa.com'''s third most visited website for the year of 2005.

We all remember Jessica Marie Lunsford, that 9-year-old Florida girl that was kidnapped, raped and killed by that registered sex offender and Terri Schiavo, the brain damaged Florida woman that was at the center of a bitter moral and legal tug of war and she wound up dying after her feeding tube was removed. Both of these stories captivated the nation's hearts and minds. They also caught the attention of David Stodghill. Where others just saw pain and suffering, he saw opportunity. On David Stodghill's old design page he actually took credit for Jessica Lunsford and Terri Schiavo being 'clients' of his!
http://davidstodghill.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... ghill.html

Here are some of David Manning Stodghill's wikipedia accounts. He's still a person of interest in a unsolved 1995 homicide and it's alleged he uploaded child porn featuring his offspring to the website virgins-r-us.com. He has been convicted for various other felonies. Most of these accounts edited the Stephanie Adams' bio or talk page.

65.184.18.231 (T-C-L)
65.184.20.40 (T-C-L)
65.184.17.216 (T-C-L)
65.184.17.197 (T-C-L)
65.184.200.7 (T-C-L)
65.184.151.49 (T-C-L)
65.184.17.197 (T-C-L)
65.184.18.231 (T-C-L)
LexiLynn (T-C-L)
WorkingHard (T-C-L)
JuliannaRoseMauriello (T-C-L)
Justadding (T-C-L)

Here's the death threat that got WorkingHard banned by Jimbo:

This type of game can get someone killed quite very literally.

Here are two evidence pages of Stodghill's wiki-exploits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... Blocked.3F
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kilo-Lima/Abuse

[NaymanNoland]

This is way too interesting.

[Vigilant]

Should definitely split this subject.
There's a TL;DR here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=76680886
Edit: derp

[Peter Damian]

CINEGroup (T-C-L) ?

[Peter Damian]

CINEGroup (T-C-L) ?

Yep looks like it. "I was blocked for calling somoene a vandal, and yet here [7] a user can say I am falsifying information on my page and I am lying about credits??? and there is "no such business as cine group east" Amazing: http://www.CineGroupEast.com" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... 9#you_know

FB https://www.facebook.com/pages/CINE-Gro ... 08?sk=info
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2KD2ecLhOM "David Stodghill / CINE Group East shares Puddle of Mudd full concert" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJlTVm-wr5c All uploaded June 2009, just before the incident which led to his later arrest and conviction.

23:26, 28 April 2007 Finlay McWalter (talk | contribs) blocked CINEGroup (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (threats, stalking)

Threats include "It's no wonder that several wikipedia editors have been murdered over the last few years, you look at their edits and see they were posting shit about people that wasn't true." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... :CINEGroup

Many edits to articles about guns, and about the Virginia Tech massacre.

[Vigilant]

Thank god that Qworty and Little Green Rosetta are ISOLATED OCCURANCES.

It seems like every time I peek at a new page, there's some miscreant being a giant douchebag on it.
How is it that the good guys on wikipedia (we know you guys are out there) put up with these vermin on the project.

Can't you band together and have some sort of wiki-stoning?

[Peter Damian]

OK found 19 Stodghill accounts altogether (including IPs) stretching up to February 2009. Some very crazy and stalky stuff. There was no point in looking for stuff after mid-2009, given that he committed the act that led to his and imprisonment in June 2009, went on the run, and was arrested at gunpoint in February 2010.

What does it mean? Well I found out about LazyTown (T-H-L) and the various odd characters who contribute to that. Google images "julianna rose mauriello" tells you all you need to know. But what does it mean? Main conclusions

1. A lot of very creepy people edit Wikipedia. I came across Stodghill because I was investigating FT68's work on the Stephanie Adams article. Stodghill's edits to the Jessica Lunsford article are revolting. If you are the parent of such a victim, do you really want to know that someone with a conviction for child molestation is editing the article about them, adding details about the decomposition of the body? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=66607803 It's too horrible. Oh yes, and adding where the parents actually live, if you scroll to the end of that edit.

2. It's hard to stop them. FT68 immediately reincarnated himself as Little green rosetta, Stodghill reinvented himself 18 times.

3. Very little is done by the adminstration. Look at the arbitration case http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... a_Lunsford and in particular the statement by Pia_L, which is comprehensive, verifiable and conclusive. S/he makes the salient and intelligent point that "It can't be right that victims are defined on Wikipedia by the words of their killers, and that descriptions such as this are featured so prominently in articles about murder victims who are minors". Yet NewYorkBrad blathers on about it being a "very serious situation requiring prompt attention, investigation, and resolution", but is worried that a public debate "is only going to exacerbate the hatred that is evident". The arbitrators reject (and Brad does not vote).

4. Wikipedia is not a safe place to edit. At least two people who came across Stodghill were threatened with violence. It is particularly unsafe for children. There are strictly two types of people who are interested in children's TV shows/child celebrities, of radically different age groups. They should be kept well apart from each other, in every possible way.

How is this allowed to go on? Have any of the steward candidates replied to questions about child protection?

[Peter Damian]

Thank god that Qworty and Little Green Rosetta are ISOLATED OCCURRENCES.

Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good, I mean that’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries on Wikipedia is that most people only want to help us build this free, non-profit charitable resource"
(Jimbo on CNN, Dec 2005, following the John Seigenthaler incident).

[Vigilant]

Thank god that Qworty and Little Green Rosetta are ISOLATED OCCURANCES.

Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good, I mean that’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries on Wikipedia is that most people only want to help us build this free, non-profit charitable resource"
(Jimbo on CNN, Dec 2005, following the John Seigenthaler incident).

Poor Jimbo doesn't understand probability.
"We've got lots and lots and lots of users. Only a small percentage are bad."

If you rarely get rid of the most evil ones then they tend to drive out the rest over time.

I'd bet you could find a ton of PhD thesis topics in the area of evolution of editor types and populations within wikipedia over time.
Some sort of animated graph, "Watch the Wiki-Troglodytes drive out the Wiki-Neanderthals in BLPs"

[EricBarbour]

Thank god that Qworty and Little Green Rosetta are ISOLATED OCCURRENCES.

I beg to differ. Try looking through /b/ sometime.

[Zoloft]

Thank god that Qworty and Little Green Rosetta are ISOLATED OCCURRENCES.

I beg to differ. Try looking through /b/ sometime.

There's that sarchasm again.

[Versus]

Looks like someone noticed us:

http://davidstodghill.blogspot.com/2013 ... utiny.html

[The Adversary]

Pia L (T-C-L) pretty much nailed him back in 2006, with this edit (mostly removed later by DS himself, presumably):

I think this article deserves attention from experienced wiki-people here for two reasons: 1. The proposed additions by Party 2 seem to aim to push a web hosting firm. In an article about a murdered child, that aim is in extremely poor taste. 2. Some troubling documents pop up with a simple Google search on the mentioned web hoster's name, for example [http://turboface.com/vv/doc1big.gif]. I would normally consider this sort of document of dubious value and importance, especially since the site where it is published seems to be put together by people in the porno industry who have had hosting disputes and rocky relationships with the web hoster in question [http://turboface.com/vv], but the reason I am still finding the whole thing extremely troubling is that the court document posted on the site appears to show that the web hoster is also involved in the online adult industry. Pushing the mention of this web hoster, in combination with the pushing for details from the molester's mouth about the child, is just too much for me to stomach. Even more troubling: the use of unique hits in advertisement in an attempt to profit from a similar site about human tragedy is demonstrated in the second document [http://turboface.com/vv/ebay2.gif]. My personal preference would be a Wikipedia where no commercial enterprises at all are pushed in encyclopedic entries, and in this case, the advertisement of a product actually makes my skin crawl.

The links she quotes are now down, but can be found on archive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/200703021214 ... oc1big.gif
http://web.archive.org/web/200605071618 ... ce.com/vv/
http://web.archive.org/web/200710251710 ... /ebay2.gif
Look at that 2nd link...and note that the arb.com did not accept the case...as they had not tried mediation first! (And I don´t think Brad was on arb.com at the time,)

[Woden.Ragnarok]

I have to say my young kid is a fan of Mauriello, and reading through the contibs if the account I'm physically sickened. Does Stodghill believe he is Mauriello in some sick fantasy, or is it just a ploy to befriend Mauriello's young fans?

Either way, I think there's a reasonable BLP interest in revdeling every edit made by that account whilst it claimed to be the actual (young) actress.

[The Devil's Advocate]

There are strictly two types of people who are interested in children's TV shows/child celebrities, of radically different age groups. They should be kept well apart from each other, in every possible way.

Even if you just mean on Wikipedia and only mean children's educational television, you are pretty seriously wrong if you are implying that it is just pedos and children who are interested in those shows.

[Peter Damian]

There are strictly two types of people who are interested in children's TV shows/child celebrities, of radically different age groups. They should be kept well apart from each other, in every possible way.

Even if you just mean on Wikipedia and only mean children's educational television, you are pretty seriously wrong if you are implying that it is just pedos and children who are interested in those shows.

Well maybe slightly wrong, but 'seriously wrong' is taken it too far, IMO.

[tarantino]

If you want replies to IMs you need to have them enabled.

[EricBarbour]

(This is off topic and should be split off from this generally scary and creepy thread)

Done. More or less.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2387