Wikipediocracy

NaymanNoland

I'm relying on nothing more than my Creep Radar here, but it's proved reasonably accurate in the past weeks. I have no sense that lightspeed is being anything but genuine here, and I have a STRONG sense that the people beating up on him are Creeps. The only reason I'm not entering into the Andrews d...

NaymanNoland

<snip allusion to moved post - Zoloft> I've set up the Qworty Cleanup Project - and I've probably done it wrong. Can you have a look, and tell me if there's anything that needs doing? I don't, for instance, really want my username in the page title - it's hardly MY page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/i...

NaymanNoland

(Oh, and I apologize for apologizing to The Devil's Advocate. What he's now doing at Wikipedia to derail the truth about Qworty is just fucking unbelievable. I don't care whether he has a coherent agenda, or whether he just likes doing annoying stuff because it annoys people - it's sure not aiding t...

NaymanNoland

And, surprise surprise, there's a misguided effort to erase most of the Qworty controversy from Robert Clark Young's entry, on the grounds that it somehow violates BLP. Only one source, you see. (Wikipediocracy not being a source or anything. And Salon being an oh-so-minor one.) This is why I intend...

NaymanNoland

That's more than a squib. That's a stick of dynamite worthy of Wile E. Coyote.

In fact, Wikipediocracy's coverage of this in general has been at least the equal of anything in the mainstream press. You're in danger of becoming a publication.

NaymanNoland

This is way too interesting.

NaymanNoland

Just wanted to post some fanboy recognition of the current blog entry. I don't know if "Murphy" is your real name, but if not, your Murphy writer-persona-sock-person is a rockstar.

(Lose the hyphen in "postmodern".)

NaymanNoland

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a pun." - Mao

NaymanNoland

Okay, first step in undoing Qworty's vandalism: I've edited the entry on Brad Vice to make it at least somewhat neutral. Turns out this guy is in fact an important writer - some serious people came to his defense after the (probably bogus) plagiarism charge, and his work is apparently very highly th...

NaymanNoland

Sweet Revenge, I wonder whether you've revisited your notion that these people are just ordinary Internet creeps. I mean it's nice to contain multitudes and all, but I'm not sure that even Whitman would have felt comfortable containing a homophobic, violently racist stalker. We can disagree about th...

NaymanNoland

Brilliant work.

I feel blessed: the two ugliest people I've encountered since joining Wikipedia have been squashed like bugs, all in less than a week.

(I guess I should offer up something to Baal in gratitude. Maybe a roast suckling pig, on a bed of crispy socks?)

NaymanNoland

Stepping in again: under WP inclusion rules Young doesn't need to be notable (sourceable) as a writer. He merely needs to be notable (sourceable) period. He is. Randy, nobody's questioning this. Nobody. The guy's now a world-famous vandal: agreed. The question - yet again - is why some disingenuous...

NaymanNoland

It would be one thing - and especially cruel - if Qworty had spent all of his time on writers who were only on the edge of notability: more notable than him, but struggling in the shadows. What's more damaging from a scholarly point of view, however, is that he went after writers whose notability is...

NaymanNoland

That was in fact my immediate diagnosis, when I first signed up: the place is just seething with Freudian projection.

NaymanNoland

Actually, that's kind of impressive: looks as if he crawled out of the basement of a Dashiell Hammett novel.

NaymanNoland

Hey, Vigilant, I'm a (reluctant) fan. Even if you RUINED MY LIFE. Meanwhile, I think I should continue to ask this of TDA until we get a satisfactory answer: You never answered my question, TDA: what precisely conveys notability upon this guy as a writer? Two negative trade reviews? Anything else?

NaymanNoland

For those too lazy to click, the comment of TDA's that struck this guy as mind-boggling was: "He is notable as a writer. The coverage of the Wikipedia stuff is actually not that significant relatively speaking." And yeah, it's mind-boggling. You never answered my question, TDA: what precisely convey...

NaymanNoland

So, Devil's Advocate, seems the world at large also finds your Qworty-love absolutely incomprehensible: https://twitter.com/jeremyduns/status/336387553752129536/photo/1 Note the caption: "Some Wikipedia editors' response to the Young/Qworty story show the deeper problems with the site..." (In fact, ...

NaymanNoland

Oh, and dig this highly neutral advice, all about good faith and shit. My first contact with little green rosetta: "I was going to template you to WP:AGF with Qworty, but decided to leave a more personal message. In any case, there are many many people watching the Filpacachi (sic) articles so pleas...

NaymanNoland

Are we absolutely sure that little green rosetta is not Qworty himself? I just stumbled over this early interaction with him, after he colluded to have me blocked: "Now there are many problems with some of your edits, but nothing that can't be fixed. We are willing to work with you to improve these ...

NaymanNoland

Notability as used on Wikipedia has nothing much to do with "importance." To be sure, there is supposed to be some assertion of importance at some level for every piece at WP. "Bob Young is a novelist who is best known as a principal figure in a series of literary controversies..." would be a techn...

NaymanNoland

So, I really think the first step in Project Qworty is to address the entry on Brad Vice. I know nothing about this guy, and I've never read his work, but I get the overwhelming sense that he was completely destroyed, body and soul and career, by the vengeful Robert Clark Young. I'm going to look in...

NaymanNoland

While we're getting all Homeric and stuff, it strikes me that one of the things in short supply on Wikipedia is that crucial ancient virtue: hospitality. Nothing renders you a doomed fuck in Homer or the Old Testament so much as inhospitality to the stranger. This is one of those things that should ...

NaymanNoland

Styx. Impressive. I see you're something of a scholar. I too have studied the musical excesses of the seventies.

NaymanNoland

Vigilant. Dude. Your antics sent me up the river. I SUFFERED for you. I'll bear the stripes to my grave.

(Actually, I guess you're right: thanks.)

NaymanNoland

I'm seriously impressed with user Tvoz. When little green rosetta conducted his one-man sockpuppet investigation of me, concluding -- based on "behavioral and technical evidence" that I definitely WAS Vigilant, no fucking question, this Tvoz stepped in with some fine words of mortification: "Wow. Ju...

NaymanNoland

This gets a whole lot worse when you note this very civil passive-aggressive post to my talk page AFTER that exchange: Hello, I'm Little green rosetta. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Robert Clark Young, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a...

NaymanNoland

Hm. Reading over this a few hours later - after revisiting some of this troll's ugliness over there - I can see how I look evasive. It was NOT an effort to save LGR's hide. Can someone maybe move the outing discussion over to the relevant topic? Rosetta really is vile. And I quote my final exchange ...

NaymanNoland

Yeah, it's getting digressive. But just to stress: I'm not being evasive at all - if you see that, you're misunderstanding me.

I was one of the first to insist that this trog get torn to shreds, and I'm still very much in the trog-shred camp. Just defining terms, that's all.

NaymanNoland

And yeah, the word "monster" is probably over the top. And yes, we're all sinners. But there are greater and lesser sinners in this world. And this guy wins some kind of prize.

NaymanNoland

Naw. It's Beckett. (Who's way more depressing than Whitman.)

Sweet Revenge: Why do you wonder whether I'm being sincere?

NaymanNoland

No, I didn't mean you. I was just bridling at the "concern troll" allegation. (I've been dealing with a notorious concern troll elsewhere: she's pretty repulsive.) I'm not being un-chill, actually. As I said from the outset: I know that my position on this is not likely to be hugely popular. But you...

NaymanNoland

Concern troll?

Screw that. Concern trolling indicates that I'm somehow being insincere. You may not agree with me, but I am not trolling: I believe this, I assure you.

NaymanNoland

Okay, fair enough. But I hope you have a line. Because it's pretty radical - and unkind - to simply out people on Wikipedia because you think Wikipedia should not be anonymous. It's okay to be a nudist. It's okay to insist that the whole world be nudists. But when a posse of nudists runs through Tim...

NaymanNoland

Note that this is a pretty stringent standard. It's much more than just being a dickhead. Lots of people are dickheads. From your perspective, my taking this position may very well make me a dickhead. With Young, however, it's not a matter of perspective. The fact is that nobody sane could possibly ...

NaymanNoland

It is radical, because it's simply punishment. And, for some people, pretty serious punishment. Yes, Wikipedia should ban anonymity. But the social contract at the moment does not state that. People join with the understanding that they will be working in that way: pseudonymously. Should they someti...

NaymanNoland

It's not just the mess. It's the astonishing degree of hypocrisy - a mess left by a truly vicious person. My post above, about how Young's book was never reviewed? I wasn't saying that to be cruel. I took my cue from this: "What we need are SECONDARY sources--a BBC program, for example, that is ABOU...

NaymanNoland

(Note that I can believe this and STILL be fervently in support of ditching Wikipedia's anonymity policy.)

NaymanNoland

Eh. I know that this opinion isn't popular here, but I think you can deal with a menace like LGF without outing him completely. Especially his geographic location. Outing is radical. Until you know that he's a monster on the level of Qworty, I think it's unfair. It has to be the kind of hypocrisy th...

NaymanNoland

Much of your defense of Young, TDA, seems to depend upon your conviction that he's a notable author. Hence, the rest of this is irrelevant - an unfortunate sideshow. He's a notable author, even if he's a creep, right? Fine, that's a legitimate reason to have a bio in Wikipedia. Lots of writers are a...

NaymanNoland

TDA, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to correct here in the timeline. Qworty wasn't screeching about unworthiness at precisely the same time that he was editing everything remotely connected to the woman to prove that she was without merit? I guess you may be right - the worst of the verbal...

NaymanNoland

Hang on. "Not vengeful"? Even edits to "related articles"? Let's see now... While Qworty was busy screeching about how the woman was completely without merit, he was busy trying to edit her mother's article to indicate that her mother was completely without merit, her father's article to indicate th...

NaymanNoland

Think about that for a minute... that people independent of Wikipedia could discuss Wikipedia on their own website might violate a Wikipedia policy seems a bit absurd, doesn't it? Absurd, no question. But does it technically contravene policy? I'm talking about people who are not fully independent ...

NaymanNoland

Okay now, this is a real discovery. Pretty damn interesting. The current wisdom is that this vandalism really should have been noticed and taken seriously some time in the last seven years. That's what everyone's lamenting, right? Sorry, folks. Seems the media was aware of John Clark Young's Wikiped...

NaymanNoland

Interesting. Some sinews clearly jerk in the opposite direction, and right now they're winning this tug-of-war.

But we're definitely going to witness vengeance if we stick around?

NaymanNoland

I was wondering about the WP:CANVASSING charge. Yes, people get together here to talk about stuff that happens on Wikipedia; and yes, some of them then return to Wikipedia to take action inspired by these conversations. That might constitute canvassing, I suppose. Except that it's all happening very...

NaymanNoland

In case you wondered whether LGR is still carrying water for Qworty. Here she is, despite her tepid statement of support for the ban: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Clark_Young&diff=555693856&oldid=555692910 That would be a barnstar to Obiwankenobi for his defense of "fairness...

NaymanNoland

Can't believe I've been staring at this irony all along, without noticing. The following sentence was inserted by Qworty, and has never been removed from Young's autobiography: "Recurring themes in Young's fiction include the relation between alcoholism, the abuse of power, and institutional dysfunc...

NaymanNoland

So you wonder why people don't want to "apply the rules" to Mr. Young's biography? They cannot. They must take revenge, if only to show, pour encourager les autres, the next ten or hundred editors like Qworty not to upset the body politic. Just to clarify this: by "they must take revenge" do you me...

NaymanNoland

I can't actually determine your tone here. I guess what I expect - obviously with stunning naiveté - is that Wikipedia, as a system, would apply the same set of rules to every entry. That vandals and geniuses would be weighed in the same way, and treated accordingly: as vandals (tiny entries), or ge...

Search found 63 matches