Qworty

[Vigilant]

Who is this tool?

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

This editor Qworty is now systematically gutting every article I have edited, including ones that are in no way connected to Starwood. He/she is deleting entire article text without tagging anything, even deleting bibliographies with books by major publishers and proper ISBN numbers as "unsourced".Rosencomet (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds familiar?

And so convivial
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =552988907

Just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. This, combined with the abuse you've spewed on people's talk pages, and your constant edit-warring, and your perpetual disregard for established Wikipedia policies governing content, makes for the clearest indication that you have nothing positive to contribute. [[User:Qworty|Qworty]] ([[User talk:Qworty|talk]]) 03:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to go have a talk with Qworty about taking a good, long break and coming back with a personality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... Archive698

Propose 72 hour block
Canvassing administrators, and grossly misusing BLP unsourced and notability templates on an article with several reliable sources while accusing the editor removing them of vandalism [55] is ridiculous. I gather from the discussion above that this isn't the only case of Qworty's maintenance template misuse, or frivolous vandalism accusations. A short time out will hopefully promote better behavior. Chester Markel (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

JohnDopp?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ony_Cooper

Even when Cooper’s entry was overwhelmingly deemed a "Keep", JohnDopp still laced the talk pages with as many negative things as he could about Mr. Cooper, a last ditch attempt to smear. He did this in tandem with editor “Qworty,” whose writes with a remarkable similarity of syntax to JohnDopp. (When confronted with this fact “Qworty” suddenly went silent.)

Sockpuppet investigation, anyone?

Weeping jeebus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... rek_Abbott

I'm not a Mittens fan myself, but wow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... itt_Romney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ser:Qworty

Nice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... urence_Cox

You are a WP:SPA with a WP:COI. Please read both those policies carefully and in their entirety, and then retire forever from violating them. The reason some editors may have been brusque with you in the past is because you are treating Wikipedia as your personal, free web hosting service, in order to promote your online magazine. This is a violation of our policies. If you want your own website, go out and buy one. Your violations of WP:COI constitute disruption, and make you eligible for an editing block. Qworty (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ual_combat

Comment. Qworty liberally sprays ad homs into the AfD nominations, describing Rosencomet as an 'arbcommed wikispammer' in an apparent attempt to poison the well. In fact the arbcom case proposes only one, quite mild remedy and no sanctions. On the other hand, Rosencomet's string of articles does include some highly marginal figures and (in the past at least) some very inappropriate canvassing. I don't know which to call as the worst offender here but they could certainly do to leave each other alone. (Declaration of interest: I am one of those flaky weirdos Qworty complains about. However I'm also very English and rather abhor the deification of very minor figures from my chosen path. Less is more don't you know, old chap?) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, now.

Now now! You'll see over the past few days I had some discussions with Qworty on his talkpage and with Rosencomet on mine. You'll see from it that I asked Qworty to tone down the rhetoric because it had descended into personal attack, and advised Rosencomet that I thought quite a few of his articles would fail at AfD due to lack of notability. Qworty has moderated his tone and his latest nomination is unproblematic from that perspective. It would, I feel, be unfair to topic ban Qworty now as he does seem to have got the message. What he needs to do now is make sure he doesn't badger everyone at the AfDs in progress and get into trouble that way - I'd recommend he just says his piece and leaves. The admins who work in that area can usually tell what's a primary and what's a secondary source. What Rosencomet needs to do is find some secondary sources that evidence notability, and use inline citations - his articles were written in 2006 when it was still comment to list references without inline citations, a practice that has almost gone out of use, particularly for BLPs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Qworty AFD ban. Trashing articles on notable subject because of personal grudges? We don't need that. --Cyclopiatalk 10:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie seems to have his tongue firmly planted in Qworty's rear. Bet you all a dollar they're on IRC together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... IbankingMM
It's got the whole thing.
An outside expert in finance from a Fortune500 company.

Sirs and Madams, I am a retired corporate finance professional that has noted the shift in the value of the S&P 500 from being derived 80% from tangible assets in the late 1970's, to 80% intangible assets today (now referred to as Intellectual Capital).

Infantile insiders bombarding him with garbage

Once again, here is your "prior notice," all of which was posted long before you got here: WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:PROMO, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SPS, and WP:PRIMARY. Qworty (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The confusion

Quorty. Please make your specific, logical, point-by-point argument for each of you alleged infractions. WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:PROMO, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SPS, and WP:PRIMARY. You make no case for any of them. If this matters enough for you to protest, then do so in detail, point by point, and how it overrides the benefit to Wikipedia users IbankingMM (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Qworty No, I did not spam. There was no personal or commercial interest. You will need to state your case clearly as to why it was "spam". Please be specific. Also, there was no original research WP:OR. Any reasonable person that reviews http://business.queensu.ca/centres/moni ... tation.pdf (and others I can provide as reference)would conclude that my schematic was a reconfiguration for ease of reading and represents nothing other than editing. Please try to not be so harsh in your judgement.

And the inevitable banning/gang rape by the usual suspects

Administrator note: I have indefinitely blocked the accounts for reasons that I have explained on IbankingMM's talk page. --Rschen7754 07:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the way this situation turned out almost makes me glad that I got sick when I did. At any rate, it looks like Ronz and Qworty did a great job tracking down articles that needed attention. I'll leave this list of articles that were socked here, just in case the Major decides to return. OlYeller21Talktome 20:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Just sickening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IbankingMM
Some slightly early grave dancing as it becomes obvious where things are going

You don't have any work on Wikipedia. Let me repeat it: No work on Wikipedia is "yours." Please read WP:OWN, as you seem to have a very bad case of believing that some articles are "yours." Wikipedia is written by WP:CONSENSUS. When I change one of "your" edits, I am under no obligation whatsoever to inform you on your talk page that I have done so. Please see WP:BOLD. With most articles, the edit histories are so long and tangled that it's impossible to tell who made a particular edit to begin with, and it doesn't matter. The only exception is that you deserve to be notified when an article you created is up for deletion, or when your name is being mentioned in a noticeboard discussion, or when you have committed an act so egregious that a warning template must be placed on your personal talk page. (You have already had some of these experiences and I imagine you will eventually have all of them.) Apart from these circumstances, I am not required to tell you diddle-squat when I change one of "your" edits. If you want to know why the edit was made, please read the edit summary that I provided. These are required for everything except minor edits. Furthermore, because I never formally advised you of a revert, you are now falsely accusing me of "vandalism," in violation of WP:CIVIL, and your behavior is beginning to clumsily border on WP:CANVASS and WP:HOUNDING. I realize that you are a newbie and I don't want to WP:BITE, but I advise you to drop all personal resentments right now or you aren't going to last long around here. I recommend that you read WP:DROP and WP:RATSASS. If you are interested in a long career of editing around here, I advise you to expand your activities beyond the articles you personally created, to give up ownership of them, and to stop being a WP:SPA. I realize these policies are a lot to swallow at once, and I know you're new, and I do wish you well in your future editing. You have to realize one important thing: You're not in the real world anymore. You're in the Wiki world. You keep talking about "logic" and "academia" and a bunch of other things that don't apply around here in the ways you think they do. You'd better start learning how Wikipedia works and forget how the "real" world works, or you won't last around here. Nobody here was ganging up on you. It's just that we know the policies and guidelines and you, understandably, do not. Despite what you may believe at the moment, if you adjust and grow, this will be your final set of interactions with most of the editors commenting here. You will go on to other issues and, yes, other battles, and meet some of the other thousands of interesting people who've been editing here for years. Good luck and best wishes to you. Qworty (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The cult of the ignorant. The dictatorship of the secularly powerless.

Repent patriarchal oppressor!

You "get out of this" by reading and following WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:PROMO, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SPS, and WP:PRIMARY. You should also read WP:CIVIL and stop branding everyone who disagrees with you as a vandal. Per the concerns of other editors, you might also have a look at WP:SOCK. My guess is that you're going to be permanently blocked very soon for violation of some combination of these policies. It's not too late to admit your errors, but you seem more intent on just blaming everybody else for what you've done to yourself. You have no respect for Wikipedia policies or your fellow Wikipedians. Users who disrespect policy and fellow users are usually thrown out of here pretty quickly. Qworty (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty similar to this.

Neo: One way or another, I'm getting on this train.

Trainman: You don't get it. I built this place. Down here I make the rules. Down here *I* make the threats.

[the Trainman punches Neo, sending him flying back into the wall]

Trainman: Down here... I'm God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... MM/Archive
No CU even run. Just one of the gang shivving the new kid.

[Vigilant]

Qworty's got a hard on for anyone who knows anything about anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... Subversion

Biting the newbies, but nothing changes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _academics

Just a big dickhead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... aul_Hullah

Strong Delete. Well, I don't think this article meets WP:BIO or WP:BK or WP:MUSIC at all. Apart from those policies, I just don't think that any leading literary critic, short-story writer, poet, or musician needs to make ends meet by going halfway around the world to Japan to teach EFL. Most writers who are successful in literary criticism, fiction, and/or poetry are able to find teaching jobs much closer to home, as are most musicians who want to teach to make ends meet. Also, we are dealing here with a WP:Single-purpose account that also wrote an article about this same guy's non-notable band, Teenage Dog Orgy, which is going down in flames on AfD itself at this very moment. I'm really close to slapping both articles with WP:AUTO and WP:COI tags, though I suppose it's possible that there might be one person in this world, apart from Hullah himself, who is passionately interested in Hullah as a literary critic, poet, short-story writer, musician, EFL instructor, etc. But I think it's highly unlikely. I think what we've got here is a guy who's dabbled in a lot of the arts without really making a mark in any single one of them. It's possible that some kind soul will come along and try to patch together a bunch of questionable sources for this guy as a combined literary critic/short-story writer/poet/musician, but I have to say that notability is not an aggregate of being non-notable in four different fields. He would have to be notable as at least one of those things to be notable at all, and the way I read WP:BIO, WP:BK, and WP:MUSIC, he doesn't satisfy a single guideline we have. Qworty (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Qworty, is it possible to critique an article without being so unbelievably rude about it? Maybe the man fell in love with and married a Japanese woman. Maybe he heard a calling to do something different with his life. Whatever the reason, surely you could have judged the content, rather than disparage the person. --Faith (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is from 2008. This is not a new phenomenon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... las_Payton

Hello Ms. Sala. Please thoroughly read WP:COI. Then read WP:EDITWAR. Then read WP:ADVERT. Then read WP:RS. Then read WP:PEACOCK. Then read WP:SOCK. Then, if you're wondering why you're reading WP:SOCK, read WP:DUCK. Then read WP:OWN. Once you've read all of this, please think carefully about ever edit-warring on this or any other article again. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Qworty (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Faux-Convivial style we saw at NaymanNoland's page.

Now, with Jimbo Juice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... abeth_Chan

Qworty has already been reminded several times not to treat editors who he perceives as having a COI as if they were the antichrist. This post to RPC, someone plainly not editing from a neutral point of view, was unhelpful, and the fact that an article may have been edited by its own subject is NOT a reason for deletion. The AfD was created in good faith by Little green Rosetta, recommend Qworty, RPC and the IP all consider they have said their piece and leave it alone for others to determine notability.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A non stop vitriol machine. I'm impressed by the volume, but she lacks style.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =513809183
A common thread emerging:

That's why it needs to be salted and the user banned. We are not a free hosting service for self-promoters and their acolytes. Qworty (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Frothy spittle mode...engaged!

None of that is sufficient. We can't use the BBC or anybody else interviewing him about meditation or spirituality or vegetarianism or whatever. What we need are SECONDARY sources--a BBC program, for example, that is ABOUT him. The same thing goes for the articles he's published--we can't use any of them for notability purposes here. Now, if OTHER people wrote articles ABOUT him, then you'd have something. You see how it works? It also doesn't matter how many books he has published, because none of them is notable--none of them has any coverage in independent media. Please, once again, see WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Having followers on Facebook or Twitter does not establish Wikipedia notability. Are you starting to get the picture? You have to find reliable sources--WP:RS--that say things ABOUT him. We don't need articles by him--we need articles ABOUT him. We don't need books by him--we need books ABOUT him. Are there any? No? Well, then he isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Do you understand Wikipedia standards? Please start understanding them now. Because all you keep doing is insist and insist and insist that this guy is notable to somebody somewhere, but that's not how notability works on Wikipedia. We have very specific notability standards, and Tony Samara doesn't meet them. Please read WP:N, WP:V, and WP:BIO. And stop fighting with everyone around here. How can you even attempt to form an argument when you don't understand the first thing about Wikipedia notability standards? Beyond that, this is an article that was deleted a couple of times before per WP:CONSENSUS and was then recreated--THAT IS A FORM OF DISRUPTION. You can get blocked and banned for that sort of thing. Why don't you learn something about Wikipedia's rules before you come banging in here and breaking all of them? Qworty (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Y'all ain't from 'round here, is ya?

You can't see it? Well then let me show you. You canvassed here [15] and here [16]. You'd better knock it off before you get into serious trouble. WP editors don't take kindly at all to this sort of manipulation of debates, especially AfD debates. You've already shown that you're a disruptive editor by recreating a previously deleted article, and now by canvassing. You're not a legitimate editor at all. Your edit history shows that you're nothing more than a WP:SPA whose sole purpose is to create WP:SPAM that promotes the business interests of Tony Samara. Qworty (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice. Calls the guy a bum. On wikipedia. In a BLP case. Just, wow.

Comment. Now that he has a wife and child whom he is admittedly trying to support on a paltry 70 euros a week [18], Mr. Bestler, rather than coming here to violate WP:SPAM, WP:OR, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:COI, WP:CANVASSING, WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:AfD. WP:ADVERT, WP:OTHERSTUFF, and WP:RS, in his utter desperation to sell the snake oil Theriaca Elixir to unsuspecting victims on the Internet, would be much better served, I think, were he to secure legitimate employment. Qworty (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Qworty is grade A nuts.
She should be indeffed.

I'm only on the second page of results from Qworty + Noticeboard in wikipedia everything search.
This despicable behavior has been going on forever and, it appears, that Qworty has a bunch of admin friends that cover her ass in real time.

[greybeard]

It's about time someone started a thread on this malicious numbskull. Just reading his current talk page gives me the shivers. He is such a self-aggrandizing, faux-moralizing, pitifully-threatening "I will haunt you to the end of your days" douchebag, he must either be a teenager or a significant sociopath. He needs to be moved out of the business of editing the putative encyclopedia.

[Randy from Boise]

It's about time someone started a thread on this malicious numbskull. Just reading his current talk page gives me the shivers. He is such a self-aggrandizing, faux-moralizing, pitifully-threatening "I will haunt you to the end of your days" douchebag, he must either be a teenager or a significant sociopath. He needs to be moved out of the business of editing the putative encyclopedia.

User name is obviously an adaptation of QWERTY, the first line of letters on a typewriter.

First edit came on March 10, 2007 and was an archiving of a large Talk Page dealing with a California author born in 1960, which is a 100% indicator that this was not his first rodeo. And unless it was a 13 year old (or younger) making this edit, that rules out your "teenager" hypothesis...

Militantly anti-COI editing and does not play well with others, clearly.


RfB

====

Addenda:

His first substantive edit to the bio of the writer in question, Robert Clark Young, from 2007 brings to the table a charge of "conflict of interest" and puts into play an obscure blog post from the "Emerging Writers Network."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =128149647

[Vigilant]

Condescension seems to be the flavor of the day here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... rey_Revell

Amanda doesn't understand how reliable sourcing works. Please read WP:RS thoroughly, Amanda. Okay, so this guy has a song in part of a Hewlett-Packard commercial for an ink-jet printer? That's your argument for musical notability??? LOL. It's a mighty small argument, but okay, I'll engage you in it. Give us the sources--where are the ARTICLES about that song being partially in the commercial? Where are the ARTICLES that tell us how important, significant and influential it is? Oh--there aren't any?? Well guess what, Amanda, that means that, according to official Wikipedia policies, this Revell guy is just not notable. You see, Wikipedia verifiability is all about secondary sourcing, not primary sourcing. I hope you're beginning to understand, although I fear it may be too late, since you're on the verge of getting yourself permanently banned from Wikipedia for making legal threats. You see, that also goes against our policies. You claim to be a law-school graduate and an attorney, so you should know by now how to read and interpret policy. Thank you for your time. Qworty (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the spambots stripped out the YouTube link, per [1]. YouTube is never a reliable source. In any case, the video Amanda offered is not about Revell. Thus, it cannot be used to argue that he is notable. What is it about? A Hewlett-Packard inkjet printer! Thus, even if the video were permitted here, it could be used only to argue that inkjet printing is notable. Which, in fact, it is, as seen from the existence of the following article: Inkjet printing. Are you beginning to understand now, Amanda? Are you still going to sue us when you're the one who confused this guy with a printer? Qworty (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I love the "...and there's nothing you can do about it..." playing to the crowd.

"though Mr. Revell has yet to attain widespread attention . . ." Amanda, please read WP:CRYSTAL. I know that all of the policies being thrown at you here in the AfD and on your talk page will make from some extensive, heavy, and dry reading, but you claim to be legally trained, so it should be a cinch for you. Qworty (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes Qworty goes too far for even the wikipedia old guard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =324657182

Non-notable individual who paid money to notorious vanity press Xlibris so that he could go around posing as an author. This is something anybody with a heartbeat and a checkbook can do. Notability cannot be "self-conferred" by such tactics, as per WP:BOOK and WP:SELFPUB. Apart from this, the only assertions of "notability" are that he was born to a man and a woman, he went to college, and his father was once arrested. I can't believe this article has gone unchallenged for so long. You could write an article like this about anyone pulled randomly out of the phonebook. Much of the vanity book promotion here [1] was done by an account that was permanently blocked for "racist rants, incivility, POV pushing, edit warring, disruption" [2]. Since vanity-press authors are usually the only ones who know about their own books, and certainly the only ones who go to all of the trouble of posting WP articles about themselves in order to promote those books, we undoubtedly have WP:AUTO and WP:COI here as well. Qworty (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see that the Little Green Rosetta has Qworty's back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... oosegaarde

I'm watching. little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd how, unlike Superman and Clark Kent, you ALWAYS see these two together. Is the word meatpuppet?

Can you guess what I found?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... inted_Time

I'm probably a bit close to some of these issues to form a neutral view, so I though I'd mention it here. In general I've noticed that comments by Qworty in AfD debates can be uncivil, especially in regards to self-published authors. This seems to have come to a bit of a head at this AfD, but there are other examples floating around. While Qworty does good work, I'm concerned that some remarks unfairly characterize other editors, and may warrant a suggestion to tone comments down a tad from someone who can take a more neutral perspective. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the worst cases of vanity wikispamming I’ve ever seen. The user created a page for a non-notable book published by a notorious vanity press [1]. The book itself abysmally fails WP:BK, being completely lacking in WP:RS to establish notability of any kind. Google throws up nothing but wikimirrors, blogs, forums, sales portals[2], and an Amazon page that, at this very moment, shows the book being outsold by 4,436,932 other books. There are no independent published reviews, no features pieces, nothing in the legitimate book-review media about this vanity book. And the bad news doesn’t stop there. I must report that the same user who created this article has been busy spam-linking it around Wikipedia. For example, look at these blatant and ugly diffs: [3][4]. The user also created Marianna Singleton, the main character of the vanity-press novel, and then used it as a redirect to the article about the novel itself. This is the case of a vanity-press novel that came out nearly a year ago, immediately bombed, and then showed up here in somebody’s attempt to use Wikipedia as a spamming platform. I say delete. I say salt. And I say permanently block. Qworty (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Qworty (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What. A. Dick.
Of course, poor User:Bilby is a non-ORC commoner. He gets no help from the ineptly named Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance board.

But...Qworty deigns to show up on his talk page and give him a tongue lashing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... blisher.22

Their core business model is cheating people for "services" that individuals could more cheaply pay for on their own, e.g. charging people four times what a copyright costs. Qworty (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes you wonder if Qworty is a failed, wannabe author who got taken to the cleaners by a vanity publisher and, herself, has a severe COI.

[Vigilant]

Hmmmm...
I saw the oldest contribution thing and went digging into the contributors around that time.

Qworty account's first edits:
09:27, 11 March 2007 (diff | hist) . . (+96)‎ . . N User:Qworty ‎ (←Created page with 'This looks like a good place to sink into an easy chair and put one's feet up on an ottoman!')
08:59, 11 March 2007 (diff | hist) . . (+819)‎ . . Talk:Robert Clark Young ‎ (MA/MFA)
17:46, 10 March 2007 (diff | hist) . . (+37,227)‎ . . N Talk:Robert Clark Young/Archive 1 ‎ (archiving)
17:43, 10 March 2007 (diff | hist) . . (-37,196)‎ . . Talk:Robert Clark Young ‎ (archiving)

Definitely a returning player who probably has something to hide in their, probably, sordid past.

We have in our stable the following players from the Talk:Robert Clark Young page with substantial edits prior to Qworty getting involved:
Berenise (T-C-L)
John_Bryson (T-C-L)
SouthernNights (T-C-L)
Shoehorn (T-C-L)

Sound like anyone we know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=78355260

==R.C. Young talk page==

The talk page is not the place to debate the living-person's Wikipedia policy. I realize that you disagree with this policy, which is your right; in that case, please find the appropriate page to debate it and attempt to have it changed.

Also, you must assume good faith in all of your work on Wikipedia.

Finally, I am ''not'' Mr. Young. Attempting to unmask Wikipedia editors and/or falsely claim that editors are particular people is an extremely serious violation of Wikipedia policies.

Thus, you are now in violation of three separate, highly important, ''official'' Wikipedia policies. If you do not agree with these policies, then by all means do everything in your power to change them through the proper routes, rather than merely continuing to violate them. [[User:John Bryson|John Bryson]] 19:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=78354019
Some inflammatory edit summaries

Again, this is official Wikipedia policy: "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page."

Interesting link that was being removed
http://michellerichmond.com/sanserif/20 ... ty-bitter/

A Wikipedia entry on Young notes an essay he published in the Black Warrior Review in 1992 which “is notable for the wry jabs it takes at many of the established writers of the era.” (Young admits to having penned the weirdly glowing Wikipedia entry himself.) Apparently,Young has made a habit of booing other writers with far shinier credentials than his own. In that light, his unfounded attack against Sewanee and the rest isn’t the least bit surprising.

How ... serendipitous...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=30052038

I just read that Robert Clark Young has bragged about writing this article about himself [1] Personally, I find this offensive and want people to be aware of this fact. That said, the author does deserve a Wikipedia article. I'm going to edit the article to remove the more POV elements which Clark entered in. --Alabamaboy 22:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

From the main page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... 165.40.213
All Robert Clark Young
Geolocate
http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/209.165.40.213
Taft Jr. College

The more I dig, the more it stays bizarre.

Now, who does this sound like?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=78465310

==R.C. Young talk page==

Thank you for your comments and invitation to respond. One of the prime reasons people don't trust Wikipedia is that it rarely enforces its own self-regulating policies. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Young has ever edited Wikipedia or ever visited here. A woman on a blog (an unreliable source by Wikipedia's own official policies) fabricated this allegation, which is the sole source of the negative information. The Living Person's Biography policy clearly states that all poorly sourced negative information must IMMEDIATELY be removed from talk pages and articles. Period. The other information being deleted regards a particularly ugly incident in which a Wikipedia administrator attempted to 1) blackmail a user (against Wikipedia policies) and 2) attempted (falsely) to "unmask" a user (also strictly against Wikipedia policies).

The page in question violates all of the following FIVE OFFICIAL policies:

1) Good faith is not assumed
2) BLP policy is not followed
3) A blog with false information is used as a source
4) An editor is blackmailed by an administrator
5) An administrator falsely charges that an editor is Mr. Young

Thus, the material you keep adding back in contains ''no less than five'' violations of official Wikipedia policies. How can this possibly be justified?

Do these policies mean nothing? Do you understand why so many editors have left Wikipedia, why no college or university admits Wikipedia as a reliable source, why Wikipedia's reputation among the general public keeps plummetting?

It's because Wikipedia sets up all of these elaborate policies to protect living people, ''and then five of them are violated over and over and over again.''

I am assuming good faith here and working from the assumption that you are a fair-minded person who wasn't aware of what was going on with the talk page in question. Please help to ensure that it follows these five official Wikipedia policies. Thank you.[[User:John Bryson|John Bryson]] 08:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice the inline CAPITALIZATIONS, the over the top rhetoric, the implication that the editor doesn't understand and needs to learn what wikipedia is all about. Then the snide finish.

I think we've got a winner here.

[Randy from Boise]

One thing I noticed right away is that the lengthy-but-obscure Emerging Writers Network essay < http://emergingwriters.typepad.com/emer ... rough.html> is correctly attributed to the site's owner, Dan Wickett, in the first substantial post to the Robert Clark Young (T-H-L) article, even though the blogpost is itself unsigned.

It's a part of what seems to have been a heated polemic over the pulping of a book of short stories by U of Georgia Press by a writer named Brad Vice amidst vague or explicit allegations of plagiarism — a story in which Young became a player by publishing a piece in the "New York Press" late in 2005.

Qworty definitely has very deep roots in the Young Writers Scene.

Brad Vice (T-H-L) has a WP page... He was born late in 1973 according to the WP piece. The article is fully protected, editable only by administrators.

The two editors with more than 5 edits to that piece are SouthernNights (T-C-L) and a Birmingham, AL IP editor, 209.159.35.82. SouthernNights was also one of the top editors of the R.C. Young piece.

Qworty and SouthernNights do not seem to be the same person.

RfB

[Vigilant]

209.159.35.82 (T-C-L)

http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/209.159.35.82

Given that the IP resolves to Alabama, I'd guess this is AlabamaBoy's IP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history
AlabamaBoy's user page and talk page are protected by SouthernNights for privacy concerns?!

Here's another interesting IP; All Robert Clark Young, All the time.
75.60.98.66 (T-C-L)
Resolves to San Diego.

Here's a snapshot of the talk page that I think nails Qworty as User:John_Bryson
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=84023856
The strident tone, the inline bolding and CAPS

Fucking bizarre.

[Sweet Revenge]

209.159.35.82 (T-C-L)

http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/209.159.35.82

Given that the IP resolves to Alabama, I'd guess this is AlabamaBoy's IP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history
AlabamaBoy's user page and talk page are protected by SouthernNights for privacy concerns?!

Alabamaboy seems to be SouthernNights. The edits in the talk page archive of Robert Clark Young that are signed Alabamaboy are attributed to SouthernNights in the talk page history.

[Vigilant]

209.159.35.82 (T-C-L)

http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/209.159.35.82

Given that the IP resolves to Alabama, I'd guess this is AlabamaBoy's IP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history
AlabamaBoy's user page and talk page are protected by SouthernNights for privacy concerns?!

Alabamaboy seems to be SouthernNights. The edits in the talk page archive of Robert Clark Young that are signed Alabamaboy are attributed to SouthernNights in the talk page history.

You're right about Alabamaboy and SourthernNights. It looks like a rename before that was easily done.

Here's an early edit by Qworty that made me laugh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =114272334
Do we have a plumpy in our sights?

Also seems like Qworty has gotten wind that something is up. Editing has stopped today after a bazillion edits per day for a while.

[mac]

Some of Qworty's behavior was discussed here.

[Vigilant]

Uh oh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =553100634

Looks like qworty is no longer of the body over this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =552997379

Templating the regulars is condescending or so I hear.
Qworty inserting snarky naughtiness into an article is suddenly a big deal?

I wonder if the reign of terror is coming to an end or if the inimitable Qworty will attempt to burrow out of sight until the hurricane passes. Never fear, little qworty. I will wait for the tide to recede and dig you up like the slimy invertebrate you are.

There are years and years of history for me to dig through.
You have been a naughty editor over your duration on wikipedia.
You, like Edmund BlackAdder, have been thoroughly naaaaasty for some time.

Time to lance the boil.

[SB_Johnny]

I think you should submit a blog post, Vigilant, since you seem to have done the research .

[Cla68]

The smug, condescending attitude that Qworty displays is common among activist editors in Wikipedia.

[Ghost In The Machine]

Indeed.
Please tell us, father, why is this dysfunctional fuckwit different from all the others?

[mac]

Indeed.
Please tell us, father, why is this dysfunctional fuckwit different from all the others?

This one was mentioned by Salon.com in an article on "revenge editing".

[Ghost In The Machine]

That's niz.
I was quoted in an LA Times article back in 07.

It will be 99.9% forgotten in a week or less.
But blog it...whathell.

[greybeard]

[Mod note: everything after post 39693 was split to this thread:New Wikipedia Articles: Threat or Menace?]

[iii]

The smug, condescending attitude that Qworty displays is common among activist editors in Wikipedia.

It's common among all editors at Wikipedia who have even a small amount of visibility. I find it to be especially common among those who are self-appointed to go looking for "activist editors". I'm sure I have it in spades.

It's the format that brings it out. Wikipedia is won by behaving in that fashion. If there were effective systems in place to prevent it, you'd see the kind of attitude disappear.

[greybeard]

The smug, condescending attitude that Qworty displays is common among activist editors in Wikipedia.

It's the format that brings it out. Wikipedia is won by behaving in that fashion. If there were effective systems in place to prevent it, you'd see the kind of attitude disappear.

This deserves more exploration. For the longest time, the epitome of the successful POV-pusher on Wikipedia was SlimVirgin (T-C-L). Her style was much less brazen that Qworty's, and certainly not so "in your face". Admittedly, the circumstance was somewhat different, as she was a very powerful admin, but in comparison to the likes of Qworty she spoke softly and carried a big ban-hammer. She was an excellent venue-shopper, something Qworty does seem to do, but he does it is a much shriller way. Slim would most often win by simply wearing her opponents down through sheer volume of edits, through successful manipulation of the Wiki-rules and policies, and by outright banning.

Qworty makes Slim's manipulation look delicate and almost genteel. He is brash and threatening, and while he also uses the Wiki-rulebook, he seems to use it as a cudgel.

[Vigilant]

The smug, condescending attitude that Qworty displays is common among activist editors in Wikipedia.

It's the format that brings it out. Wikipedia is won by behaving in that fashion. If there were effective systems in place to prevent it, you'd see the kind of attitude disappear.

This deserves more exploration. For the longest time, the epitome of the successful POV-pusher on Wikipedia was SlimVirgin (T-C-L). Her style was much less brazen that Qworty's, and certainly not so "in your face". Admittedly, the circumstance was somewhat different, as she was a very powerful admin, but in comparison to the likes of Qworty she spoke softly and carried a big ban-hammer. She was an excellent venue-shopper, something Qworty does seem to do, but he does it is a much shriller way. Slim would most often win by simply wearing her opponents down through sheer volume of edits, through successful manipulation of the Wiki-rules and policies, and by outright banning.

Qworty makes Slim's manipulation look delicate and almost genteel. He is brash and threatening, and while he also uses the Wiki-rulebook, he seems to use it as a cudgel.

Qworty doesn't have a deep network of co-conspirators.
They're a lone wolf dickhead on a mission against people who get published, but don't deserve it.

[iii]

Qworty makes Slim's manipulation look delicate and almost genteel. He is brash and threatening, and while he also uses the Wiki-rulebook, he seems to use it as a cudgel.

In sum, the styles may differ but the substance is the same. Game-playing is how you win because there is no other way to ensure that a particular version (read your version) will be the version of Wikipedia read by the vast internet audience. Bwahahaha!

[tarantino]

It is odd that for someone who's been around for six years, he has done nothing to create a log except for his account creation. He also doesn't use that account to edit any other project, except one edit to meta:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians/Members. It's probably a role account of another user who's been around much longer. Another example of such an account is Mean as custard (T-C-L), which is used to remove external links, adverts and "promotional material".

[Cla68]

The smug, condescending attitude that Qworty displays is common among activist editors in Wikipedia.

It's common among all editors at Wikipedia who have even a small amount of visibility. I find it to be especially common among those who are self-appointed to go looking for "activist editors". I'm sure I have it in spades.

It's the format that brings it out. Wikipedia is won by behaving in that fashion. If there were effective systems in place to prevent it, you'd see the kind of attitude disappear.

Smugness and arrogance is common with agenda-driven editors because, I think, those drawn to violate WP's NPOV policy trying to achieve some goal are people with certain character flaws. Narcissism being one of them. Qworty's behavior most reminds me of the atheist activists who control the Intelligent Design and other "religious science" type articles. Most of those guys are completely insufferable.

[EricBarbour]

It's probably a role account of another user who's been around much longer.

Basically what I've been saying for months. He has a few supporters, who pull dirty tricks when other backs are turned.

The AFDs for Andrew Helm and Roberta Brown are typical, and comical. Qworty fought someone called Taram to a standstill, an SPI was opened against Taram, and an obscure SPI regular called Hst20 (T-C-L) went around afterwards and put strikeout tags around all of the comments by Taram, and his socks.

It's stupid, cruel, unnecessary. But that's how autobiographies and COI editing are "dealt with" -- not by the "official procedure". Qworty has simply found himself a little corner where he can jam knives into people's backs, and the "system" will support him.

iii, I was referring to the Intelligent Design and theistic science articles, not climate change. As far as I know, besides Dave Souza, none of those editors were involved in the climate change case. Furthermore, none of the climate change editors, including Dave Souza, made any kind of personal statements about me on-wiki that I'm aware of (along the lines of, "I resent Cla68's imperious attitude"). So, again, how do you know what they think?

Please, gents, if you must argue off the topic, at least start another thread.
Edit: I done split it --Zoloft

[Vigilant]

Qworty tasting the genteel strap of NewYorkBrad
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =553465260

== [[User talk:Tews]] ==

Please [[WP:AGF|assume the good faith]] of your fellow editors, especially [[WP:BITE|relatively new editors]], and especially concerning issues such as image permissions where the rules and templates are complicated. Where an editor, such as Tews, indicates that he has recently sent an e-mail containing an image permission, he should be taken at his word, at least for a reasonable period of time. Alternatively, you can post a query confirming to whom the e-mail was sent, as I have just done, or you can remind the editor that he needs to post additional information on the file page. I think the tone of your comment to Tews and your reference to his being blocked were inappropriate. Once again I ask you to reconsider your approach if you are going to deal with these types of issues on the project. Thank you. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't let his tone fool you Qworty, you're about an hour from an indef.

And on Tews (T-C-L) talk page.

Robert Joseph Greene

Please follow policy here or you may be blocked. Take this warning seriously. Qworty (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The threat of blocking is unwarranted, but please clarify whom you've sent the e-mail to. Is it the official copyright-notification OTRS address? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Brad starting to get unhappy...
Qwoty starting to look for a new nym.

It's strange that Qworty just cannot seem to keep his e-peen in his pants.

[IRWolfie-]

IRWolfie seems to have his tongue firmly planted in Qworty's rear. Bet you all a dollar they're on IRC together.

I bet that they aren't.

[Moonage Daydream]

IRWolfie seems to have his tongue firmly planted in Qworty's rear. Bet you all a dollar they're on IRC together.

I bet that they aren't.

I think someone owes us all a dollar.

[Vigilant]

IRWolfie seems to have his tongue firmly planted in Qworty's rear. Bet you all a dollar they're on IRC together.

I bet that they aren't.

How novel to have you here.

One question, "Why do you support Qworty in their never ending attitude issues?"

[EricBarbour]

IRWolfie seems to have his tongue firmly planted in Qworty's rear. Bet you all a dollar they're on IRC together.

I bet that they aren't.

How novel to have you here.
One question, "Why do you support Qworty in their never ending attitude issues?"

Yes, please feel free to explain why you like Qworty so much.

[IRWolfie-]

IRWolfie seems to have his tongue firmly planted in Qworty's rear. Bet you all a dollar they're on IRC together.

I bet that they aren't.

How novel to have you here.

One question, "Why do you support Qworty in their never ending attitude issues?"

I do?

[Tarc]

IRWolfie seems to have his tongue firmly planted in Qworty's rear. Bet you all a dollar they're on IRC together.

I bet that they aren't.

How novel to have you here.

One question, "Why do you support Qworty in their never ending attitude issues?"

I do?

Nice bit of tag-teaming here, with a followup here, for starters.

[Vigilant]

IRWolfie seems to have his tongue firmly planted in Qworty's rear. Bet you all a dollar they're on IRC together.

I bet that they aren't.

How novel to have you here.

One question, "Why do you support Qworty in their never ending attitude issues?"

I do?

You two are bad little peas in a pod.
Where you see one, you'll soon see the other.

[IRWolfie-]

Nice bit of tag-teaming here, with a followup here, for starters.

You've a strange definition of tag teaming. How many threads at COI was Qworty involved with in that archive? I've interacted with Qworty, but to a fairly limited extent editor interactions . I have stronger interactions with you Tarc: editor interactions.

This is taking random encounters and imagining a conspiracy around it.

[Hex]

Bet you all a dollar they're on IRC together.

Why don't you just go there and look?

18:27 [Users #wikipedia-en]
18:27 [@ChanServ        ] [ IRWolfie-       ] [ Peter-C        ]
18:27 [ _anona          ] [ Isarra          ] [ Pharos         ]
18:27 [ _if             ] [ IShadowed       ] [ phuzion        ]
18:27 [ a930913         ] [ ItzExor         ] [ pion           ]
18:27 [ AaronBale       ] [ Izawayz         ] [ quanticle      ]
18:27 [ AaronSchulz     ] [ Jacnoc          ] [ QueenOfFrance  ]
18:27 [ addshore        ] [ James_F|Away    ] [ Rcsprinter     ]
18:27 [ AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH] [ Jamesofur       ] [ RD             ]
18:27 [ albel727        ] [ JasonDC|BNC     ] [ Reedy          ]
18:27 [ AlertEye        ] [ Jasper_Deng_away] [ reminiscence   ]
18:27 [ AlexJFox        ] [ jayne           ] [ Rihan          ]
18:27 [ Amqui           ] [ jbroome         ] [ Rock_drum      ]
18:27 [ AntiSpamMeta    ] [ JD|cloud        ] [ russavia       ]
18:27 [ APexilI         ] [ jeffreyio       ] [ RX80           ]
18:27 [ Aranda56        ] [ jeremyb_        ] [ sam            ]
18:27 [ armufox         ] [ Jeske_Couriano  ] [ sarahlicity    ]
18:27 [ aude            ] [ JL|AWAY         ] [ Sarcasm        ]
18:27 [ AzaToth         ] [ JoFo            ] [ Savage_CL      ]
18:27 [ balrog          ] [ jonathan`       ] [ Scott_Martin   ]
18:27 [ Barras          ] [ jorm            ] [ ScottSteiner   ]
18:27 [ Bendersgame     ] [ JW|Away         ] [ sdamashek|away ]
18:27 [ Betacommand     ] [ KimiNewt        ] [ Seahorse       ]
18:27 [ BlastHardcheese ] [ Kinny           ] [ SerajewelKS    ]
18:27 [ Bronze          ] [ kloeri          ] [ Shirik         ]
18:27 [ Bsadowski1      ] [ koishi          ] [ Simon-         ]
18:27 [ camerin         ] [ kondi           ] [ slakr          ]
18:27 [ Catie           ] [ KP13            ] [ slakr-mo1l     ]
18:27 [ CerebrumBot     ] [ Krenair         ] [ Snowolf        ]
18:27 [ Chris_G         ] [ kunwon1         ] [ SoapX          ]
18:27 [ closedmouth     ] [ kuzetsa         ] [ Spitfire       ]
18:27 [ Computron_      ] [ kylu            ] [ spyro          ]
18:27 [ Con             ] [ lahwran         ] [ StevenW        ]
18:27 [ contempt        ] [ legoktm         ] [ stwalkerster   ]
18:27 [ Corey           ] [ lfaraone        ] [ sucheta        ]
18:27 [ Cyde            ] [ Logan_          ] [ Susan          ]
18:27 [ d_              ] [ LoganCloud      ] [ TAP|away       ]
18:27 [ Dave2           ] [ Loki            ] [ Tasmania-      ]
18:27 [ Dcoetzee        ] [ LtNOWIS         ] [ TBloemink      ]
18:27 [ Doug_Weller     ] [ lukas|away      ] [ TB|Cloud       ]
18:27 [ dtm             ] [ Lydia_WMDE      ] [ teshiron       ]
18:27 [ dungodung|away  ] [ M132T003C       ] [ TheChance      ]
18:27 [ edward          ] [ M4r51n          ] [ Thehelpfulone  ]
18:27 [ eeekster        ] [ Malvolio        ] [ TheLordOfTime  ]
18:27 [ eir             ] [ Maple__         ] [ Theopolisme    ]
18:27 [ Elfix           ] [ marienz         ] [ ToAruShiroiNeko]
18:27 [ elkng           ] [ mariorz         ] [ ToBeFree       ]
18:27 [ enhydra         ] [ marktraceur     ] [ tomaw          ]
18:27 [ euphoria        ] [ MartijnH        ] [ tommorris      ]
18:27 [ evilgohan2      ] [ Maryana         ] [ Trashlord      ]
18:27 [ Fae             ] [ mattbuck        ] [ tttb           ]
18:27 [ Falcorian       ] [ Mike_H          ] [ tzatziki       ]
18:27 [ FastLizard4|zZzZ] [ mindspillage    ] [ Venusaur       ]
18:27 [ Fluffernutter   ] [ minerale        ] [ Vito           ]
18:27 [ Fluff|sleep     ] [ MJ94            ] [ VunKruz        ]
18:27 [ foks            ] [ Moe_Epsilon     ] [ vvv_           ]
18:27 [ Fox2k12         ] [ Mono            ] [ Wiki13         ]
18:27 [ franny          ] [ mrmist          ] [ Willdude123_   ]
18:27 [ Garnig          ] [ muahaha         ] [ wywin          ]
18:27 [ greenrosetta    ] [ mutley89        ] [ xid            ]
18:27 [ Guest35119      ] [ Nietzsche       ] [ XJR-9          ]
18:27 [ guillom         ] [ niko            ] [ Y_Ichiro       ]
18:27 [ HarryS          ] [ niska           ] [ yano           ]
18:27 [ Headbomb        ] [ nonsenseferret  ] [ Yetanotherx    ]
18:27 [ heatherw        ] [ notapuff        ] [ YE|AFK         ]
18:27 [ heinrich5991    ] [ NotASpy         ] [ YuviPanda      ]
18:27 [ hexmode         ] [ Olipro          ] [ Zed`           ]
18:27 [ idoru           ] [ Ositopooh       ] [ Zhaofeng_Li    ]
18:27 [ ikonia          ] [ osxdude         ] [ Zidonuke       ]
18:27 [ Internet13      ] [ pakaran         ] [ zz_nas         ]
18:27 [ Ironholds       ] [ petan           ]
18:27 -!- Irssi: #wikipedia-en: Total of 209 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices,
          208 normal]

[Vigilant]

Maybe because of things like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IRWolfie-#AFD

[IRWolfie-]

Maybe because of things like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IRWolfie-#AFD

He commented on my talkpage agreeing with me about an AfD we both voted in but which was closed inappropriately. Am I somehow in a secret cabal with everyone who comments on my talk page and who agrees with me? As I said, I have interacted with this editor, just not much. You show the 3 or 4 interactions out of my thousands of edits as if they mean something.

[mac]

Bet you all a dollar they're on IRC together.

Why don't you just go there and look?

18:27 [Users #wikipedia-en]<snip /names list>

Thanks. I hadn't noticed my logbot had disconnected.

[Vocal]

[ NotASpy ]

[Midsize Jake]

He commented on my talkpage agreeing with me about an AfD we both voted in but which was closed inappropriately. Am I somehow in a secret cabal with everyone who comments on my talk page and who agrees with me? As I said, I have interacted with this editor, just not much. You show the 3 or 4 interactions out of my thousands of edits as if they mean something.

Having looked at this more closely, I'm afraid I have to agree with you.

In each of these cases, both Mr. Qworty and Mr. IRWolfie were absolutely right in suggesting that the articles in question should be deleted, and it's not especially unusual for people who get involved in AfDs like this to show up on each other's talk pages - especially when the AfDs themselves are subject to the sort of activity that's being alleged (i.e., marginal writers and other folks nobody has heard of using multiple accounts, canvassing, etc., to keep articles that promote themselves and give themselves the illusion of "notability" despite having done nothing to actually deserve it).

If anything, it's unfortunate that so few people get involved in trying to keep this stuff out of WP - especially the BLPs, since it lowers the "notability bar" for everyone else. That, in turn, makes it harder still to remove attack and revenge BLPs, which there are still waaaay too many of.

I guess you could argue that Mr. Qworty's incredibly abrasive and obnoxious manners and interaction-behaviors are largely due to frustration with this process, and indeed many other WP processes... in fact, just about all WP processes I can think of could easily turn someone into an extremely objectionable person, as has been suggested by so many cases in the past. The objectionable behavior itself is then used against him/her in various disputes, of course, making those who would oppose vanity-spam and other crap content easily dismissed as "cranks," and ultimately enshrining the crap content for having survived one or more prior AfD attempts.

Still, to be fair to WP in this particular case, I suspect Mr. Qworty was like that long before he started his first user account. Wikipedia may have made him worse than he was before, but that kind of arrogance and officiousness is usually something you have to be born with.

[Randy from Boise]

He commented on my talkpage agreeing with me about an AfD we both voted in but which was closed inappropriately. Am I somehow in a secret cabal with everyone who comments on my talk page and who agrees with me? As I said, I have interacted with this editor, just not much. You show the 3 or 4 interactions out of my thousands of edits as if they mean something.

Having looked at this more closely, I'm afraid I have to agree with you.

In each of these cases, both Mr. Qworty and Mr. IRWolfie were absolutely right in suggesting that the articles in question should be deleted, and it's not especially unusual for people who get involved in AfDs like this to show up on each other's talk pages - especially when the AfDs themselves are subject to the sort of activity that's being alleged (i.e., marginal writers and other folks nobody has heard of using multiple accounts, canvassing, etc., to keep articles that promote themselves and give themselves the illusion of "notability" despite having done nothing to actually deserve it).

If anything, it's unfortunate that so few people get involved in trying to keep this stuff out of WP - especially the BLPs, since it lowers the "notability bar" for everyone else. That, in turn, makes it harder still to remove attack and revenge BLPs, which there are still waaaay too many of.

I guess you could argue that Mr. Qworty's incredibly abrasive and obnoxious manners and interaction-behaviors are largely due to frustration with this process, and indeed many other WP processes... in fact, just about all WP processes I can think of could easily turn someone into an extremely objectionable person, as has been suggested by so many cases in the past. The objectionable behavior itself is then used against him/her in various disputes, of course, making those who would oppose vanity-spam and other crap content easily dismissed as "cranks," and ultimately enshrining the crap content for having survived one or more prior AfD attempts.

Still, to be fair to WP in this particular case, I suspect Mr. Qworty was like that long before he started his first user account. Wikipedia may have made him worse than he was before, but that kind of arrogance and officiousness is usually something you have to be born with.

In my estimation Qworty is a deletionist, and a grumpy one, with a vendetta against marginal literary figures.

I don't think that is a good thing, certainly. But he's not really a bad actor either -- just a bit of a prick.

RfB

[Midsize Jake]

In my estimation Qworty is a deletionist, and a grumpy one, with a vendetta against marginal literary figures.RfB

Bah. The terms "deletionist" and "inclusionist" are meaningless on Wikipedia, as much as they are anywhere else. What Qworty is, based on what I'm seeing, is a stalking horse. He's an ugly little nasty "troll" for Wikipedians to point to and say "this is the sort of horrible person who wants to delete our precious articles." If he didn't exist, they'd be forced to invent him... come to think of it, I'm not sure they didn't invent him.

[Tarc]

In my estimation Qworty is a deletionist, and a grumpy one, with a vendetta against marginal literary figures.

I don't think that is a good thing, certainly. But he's not really a bad actor either -- just a bit of a prick.

RfB

A bit?

*'''Delete.''' Ghettoizes blues-rock performers in much the same way that, oh, I don't know, a category on Women Novelists might ghettoize female writers. [[User:Qworty|Qworty]] ([[User talk:Qworty|talk]]) 00:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is from an AfD for List of blues rock performers (T-H-L)

[Vigilant]

Breaking the fourth wall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555358622

[EricBarbour]

Breaking the fourth wall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555358622

That pretty much settles it--someone leaked our private discussions about his activities.

[Midsize Jake]

Breaking the fourth wall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555358622

Judging by that, maybe folks should be a bit more worried about the fifth wall, if you know what I'm sayin'.

Well, I'm sure he's a perfectly nice guy if you meet him in person...

[Sweet Revenge]

Qworty (T-C-L) seems to have outed his own self as Robert Clark Young (T-H-L) right here.

[DanMurphy]

Qworty (T-C-L) seems to have outed his own self as Robert Clark Young (T-H-L) right here.

Yes, the list of Young's sockpuppets is about to become quite lengthy, I expect.

[Midsize Jake]

Qworty (T-C-L) seems to have outed his own self as Robert Clark Young (T-H-L) right here.

Well, you know what they say - behind every Wikipedia account that's been running a one-man crusade for years against NNPs violating WP:AUTO and WP:COI, there's an NNP who for years has been violating WP:AUTO and WP:COI.

That doesn't mean he was wrong about the NNP's he was crusading against, though... I mean, for what it's worth, anyway.