Qworty

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Qworty

Unread post by thekohser » Fri May 17, 2013 9:36 pm

One fault with Leonard's article:
It is to Wikipedia’s great credit that not only is every single previous version of every Wikipedia article preserved for all time, but so too are all the versions of all the discussions about those pages.
I would change that to: It is to Wikipedia’s great credit that not only is nearly every single previous version of every Wikipedia article preserved for all time, but so too are nearly all the versions of all the discussions about those pages.

Baby steps. One day, someone can show Leonard how the Wikipedia elite can make certain embarrassing things "disappear" from the Akashic record.

Otherwise, a fabulous article in Salon, and an equally admirable blog post here at Wikipediocracy. We should be very proud of the excellent and difficult work that is accomplished on Wikipediocracy.com.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri May 17, 2013 9:41 pm

I will note that Wikipedians can link to this material on WP without fear of being subjected to so-called "outing" charges owing to Qworty's self-identification as Bob Young on wiki, link provided several times earlier in this thread.

RfB

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Qworty

Unread post by DanMurphy » Fri May 17, 2013 9:48 pm

Dammit, I don't like Tim but this...
This is a really ugly episode whether or not it gets play in the mainstream media. It is yet another example of why Wikipedia's Cult of Anonymity is inherently unsavory and intellectually indefensible, and the way that its continuation undermines the cause of free, accurate, verifiable encyclopedic information...
... is exactly right.

What fundamental change will the Young/Qworty story lead to at Wikipedia? I'm betting absolutely none.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri May 17, 2013 9:52 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Hopefully there will be a few Wikipedians that will go through article histories to investigate and clean up what now seems to be a pattern of bad COI editing by Mr. Young.

RfB
Yup but I think we should go for the ones that are left. The easiest way now seems to be to develop relationships with journalists in the mainstream media who can write about it. This will create the impetus for Wikipedians "to go through article histories to investigate and clean up what now seems to be a pattern of bad COI editing".

Tim, we worked very hard on this story. Why didn't you pick up on this before?
Start reading the thread again from the top...


tim

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri May 17, 2013 9:53 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Dammit, I don't like Tim but this...
This is a really ugly episode whether or not it gets play in the mainstream media. It is yet another example of why Wikipedia's Cult of Anonymity is inherently unsavory and intellectually indefensible, and the way that its continuation undermines the cause of free, accurate, verifiable encyclopedic information...
... is exactly right.

What fundamental change will the Young/Qworty story lead to at Wikipedia? I'm betting absolutely none.
Agreed, but it's another splash of water against a mud wall...

Eventually.........


tim

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Zoloft » Fri May 17, 2013 9:55 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:Dammit, I don't like Tim but this...
This is a really ugly episode whether or not it gets play in the mainstream media. It is yet another example of why Wikipedia's Cult of Anonymity is inherently unsavory and intellectually indefensible, and the way that its continuation undermines the cause of free, accurate, verifiable encyclopedic information...
... is exactly right.

What fundamental change will the Young/Qworty story lead to at Wikipedia? I'm betting absolutely none.
Agreed, but it's another splash of water against a mud wall...

Eventually.........


tim
...the adobe will acquire a nice patina.

Use a fire hose.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri May 17, 2013 10:00 pm

Zoloft wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:What fundamental change will the Young/Qworty story lead to at Wikipedia? I'm betting absolutely none.
Agreed, but it's another splash of water against a mud wall...

Eventually.........

tim
...the adobe will acquire a nice patina.

Use a fire hose.
Projecting water at high velocity would be the mainstream media's job...

RfB

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Ming » Fri May 17, 2013 10:02 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Dammit, I don't like Tim but this...
This is a really ugly episode whether or not it gets play in the mainstream media. It is yet another example of why Wikipedia's Cult of Anonymity is inherently unsavory and intellectually indefensible, and the way that its continuation undermines the cause of free, accurate, verifiable encyclopedic information...
... is exactly right.

What fundamental change will the Young/Qworty story lead to at Wikipedia? I'm betting absolutely none.
Well, the weak point in this is that it cam be cast entirely as a moral failing on Young's part. Really, the only people who have sufficient power to force change here work at Google, and they are extremely unlikely to artificially push Wikipedia as a site to the end of the ranks. To resist the media, all you have to do is outlast their attention span, and on this they are not likely to have much of an attention span.

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Qworty

Unread post by lilburne » Fri May 17, 2013 10:07 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:What fundamental change will the Young/Qworty story lead to at Wikipedia? I'm betting absolutely none.
Agreed, but it's another splash of water against a mud wall...

Eventually.........

tim
...the adobe will acquire a nice patina.

Use a fire hose.
Projecting water at high velocity would be the mainstream media's job...

Well yes. As these articles appear, more and more in the writing game begin to understand that wikipedia isn't the lovely polished thing that they believe it is. Oh they may be a few wrinkles here and there, but mostly its OK. they think. This has the twitter streams flowing, and a few of them will be say hmmmm.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri May 17, 2013 10:10 pm

Ming wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:Dammit, I don't like Tim but this...
This is a really ugly episode whether or not it gets play in the mainstream media. It is yet another example of why Wikipedia's Cult of Anonymity is inherently unsavory and intellectually indefensible, and the way that its continuation undermines the cause of free, accurate, verifiable encyclopedic information...
... is exactly right.

What fundamental change will the Young/Qworty story lead to at Wikipedia? I'm betting absolutely none.
Well, the weak point in this is that it cam be cast entirely as a moral failing on Young's part. Really, the only people who have sufficient power to force change here work at Google, and they are extremely unlikely to artificially push Wikipedia as a site to the end of the ranks. To resist the media, all you have to do is outlast their attention span, and on this they are not likely to have much of an attention span.
No, that's making it seem like things are harder than they actually are.
Sue could say tomorrow, "Here's new policy. Like it or leave it, but this website is ours. Any admin not enforcing the new policies will be summarily defrocked."

They throw up their hands and fanny about because they are incompetent.
It's very clear what needs to happen.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.


User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Qworty

Unread post by DanMurphy » Fri May 17, 2013 10:11 pm


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri May 17, 2013 10:12 pm

Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Qworty

Unread post by lilburne » Fri May 17, 2013 10:14 pm

Nope. He's leaving it as it was so that those now taking a peek can see it for what it is.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri May 17, 2013 10:19 pm

lilburne wrote:
Nope. He's leaving it as it was so that those now taking a peek can see it for what it is.
It's actually the proper way to handle COI editing, as opposed, say, to engaging in revenge editing against a revenge editor...

It is also a bit of a monument to somebody's hypocrisy once the backstory becomes clear...


RfB

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Ming » Fri May 17, 2013 10:28 pm

Meanwhile 28bytes (T-C-L) wants to sweep it all under the rug forever: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Clark Young (T-H-L).

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Qworty

Unread post by lilburne » Fri May 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Ming wrote:Meanwhile 28bytes (T-C-L) wants to sweep it all under the rug forever: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Clark Young (T-H-L).
And NYB is invited to the dance.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Mason
Habitué
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Mason » Fri May 17, 2013 10:41 pm

Ming wrote:Meanwhile 28bytes (T-C-L) wants to sweep it all under the rug forever: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Clark Young (T-H-L).
Seems like he had a change of heart.
The result was Fuck it. If everyone wants an autobiography with a giant tag at the top instead of a short but neutral version, then knock yourselves out. 28bytes (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri May 17, 2013 10:47 pm

lilburne wrote:
Ming wrote:Meanwhile 28bytes (T-C-L) wants to sweep it all under the rug forever: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Clark Young (T-H-L).
And NYB is invited to the dance.
Project Qworty!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... _Qworty.3F

They're going to have to go through every article the Qworty account has touched.
Then, they're going to have to look at every SPA account that edited any of those accounts.
Then, they're going to have to look at the entire BLP set of American authors to see hat else has been trashed.

Or they could just say, "Fuck it" and rewrite a nothing article about a nothing author.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
eppur si muove
Habitué
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:28 pm

Re: Qworty

Unread post by eppur si muove » Fri May 17, 2013 11:23 pm

I assume that in those toilets outside the High Court they are having a fight over who gets to be the CheckUser who blocks all the socks.

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4695
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Qworty

Unread post by tarantino » Fri May 17, 2013 11:51 pm

From Leonard's article:
On Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales’ talk page, some Wikipedia editors argued that Qworty’s actions in the Filipacchi affair were entirely proper.
In that thread, The Devil's Advocate provides a spirited defense for poor, put-upon Qworty.

The editor in question was being viciously hounded by several persons who were turned on to this editor as a consequence of Miss Filipacchi's baseless claims of "revenge editing" when that editor made an effort to fix a lot of promotional editing that came to light after Miss Filipacchi's op-ed. You should also know the editor has stated that he or she was receiving death threats as a consequence of Miss Filipacchi's accusations. Naturally, Wikipedia acts the way much of society acts when people react poorly to harassment, by condemning the victim for reacting and ignoring the conduct provoking it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
[/center]

A few editors on-wiki who are either fans or associates of Filipacchi began hounding Qworty in response to Filipacchi's allegations in the press.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
[/center]

Color me a whole lot of not fucking surprised that some of you care more about "appearances" and "PR" for this site then you do about the damn people editing here. Were some of the things Qworty said inappropriate? Of course, but there is a context here that the media are ignoring or not giving much consideration. If any of these other editors Filipacchi has now called out should get harassed because of her misguided accusations, then I guess they better not get too agitated about it, because everyone here is just going to pounce on them for acting poorly when we need to keep up appearances for the press.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
[/center]

He should feel like a maroon right now.

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Qworty

Unread post by lilburne » Fri May 17, 2013 11:56 pm

eppur si muove wrote:I assume that in those toilets outside the High Court they are having a fight over who gets to be the CheckUser who blocks all the socks.
Untitled19.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Sweet Revenge
Gregarious
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Sweet Revenge » Sat May 18, 2013 12:12 am

tarantino wrote: He should feel like a maroon right now.
Anyway, he doesn't feel like a gladiator.
Hmph, an editor without a vendetta should be the one examining his contributions and rallying people to the cause. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a blood sport.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|<font color="vermillion">'''The Devil's Advocate'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|<font color="burntorange">tlk.</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/The Devil's Advocate|<font color="red">cntrb.</font>]]</sub> 23:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:axemurderer:

lightspeed
Contributor
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:12 pm

Re: Qworty

Unread post by lightspeed » Sat May 18, 2013 12:17 am

To give you context as to why Qworty wrote this. I objected heavily to Qworty's deletionism of an article I worked on. Qworty brought in his back up friends Little Green Rosetta and Coffeepusher to support all his deletes. Qworty has a history of deletionism as can be validated by other authors whose articles he has destroyed. When I reverted his edits, I called him a content vandal. He then posted edit war warnings on my talk page.

I returned the favor by cutting/pasting his edit war warnings back on his page. He got very pissed that someone would dare to call him a vandal and indulging in edit wars. Thus he said I was spewing lies. He then started with verbal abuse and warnings that he would get me banned and blocked. I told him I did not care, nor was I concerned about such warnings from him. Though I enjoy Wikipedia, I don't live in it unlike him. Such threats don't scare me. I told him to get a life as he obviously had none and was so pitiful that he had to indulge in power games on Wikipedia to get his kicks.

Unlike Qworty, I have no axe to grind with anyone. My interests are sincere on Wikipedia. I don't partake in edit wars, don't have any political interest in the dirty crap that Qworty and pals indulge in. I was merely interested in editing/authoring an article of an artist I admired and nothing more. I was interested in contributing as much information as I could find to help make the article as good as possible. No other interest beyond that. When Qworty decided to delete and fight with me, I asked him to go research, discover and come back with contributions to the article. Obviously this was not something he had any interest in because his interest was never in the article's content.

For some bizarre reason, Qworty had decided he was going to make that article be his power playground. Never mind that it wasn't of someone that he even knew or had an interest in or that the person was world famous or anything. It was good enough to play on especially since there was an author who was keenly working on it and most importantly, dared to stand up to him and object to his temper tantrums. Qworty worked very hard to make me the bad guy and unfortunately because Wikipedia says that if 2-3 others agree with that one author, you are over-ruled. And since Qworty knows all the dirty behind the scenes games, he knew how to work the system to make me look like a bad guy who insisted on having his way.

So overnight, from someone who had no political interest in Wikipedia, from a low-level author (someone who only contributes occasionally) and someone who for years have always positively contributed to the Wikipedia project, I became a villain, a nasty author and the kind they would prefer to not have and prefer to hate.

I am SO GLAD Andrew Leonard wrote his article about Qworty today and exposed this slime bag for the crap that he is. I'm sure there are many other Wikipedia authors who are like me, who just wanted to contribute positively whom Qworty attempted to step on and squash. Obviously this Qworty nut has mental and emotional problems that are unaddressed and Wikipedia is his playground to abuse others. It's a damn shame that Wikipedia allows this kind of abuse.
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)
[Edited by Greybeard to insert linebreaks only]
Last edited by lightspeed on Sat May 18, 2013 2:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Qworty

Unread post by DanMurphy » Sat May 18, 2013 12:22 am

lilburne wrote:
eppur si muove wrote:I assume that in those toilets outside the High Court they are having a fight over who gets to be the CheckUser who blocks all the socks.
Untitled19.jpg
lilburne you are a comic genius. I don't give that up easily. Love the pictorial satire.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Zoloft » Sat May 18, 2013 1:15 am

I'm gonna have to collect those comics and link them on the front page. Maybe the footer...

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat May 18, 2013 1:41 am

So, why isn't this guy permabanned yet?
I'm not seeing an ANI thread, no ARBCOM case.

A couple of people doing edging work around some of the articles he's created as puff pieces.

When does JUSTICE come crashing down on Qworty's head?

Image


Image
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

jd turk
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia Review Member: jd turk

Re: Qworty

Unread post by jd turk » Sat May 18, 2013 1:55 am

Vigilant wrote:So, why isn't this guy permabanned yet?
I'm not seeing an ANI thread, no ARBCOM case.

A couple of people doing edging work around some of the articles he's created as puff pieces.

When does JUSTICE come crashing down on Qworty's head?
There's no justice. This human footnote of a writer might eventually wind up being banned from The Body, but he's gotten his wishes to become briefly famous. He's outsmarted the smarts. There's no bad press for some people, only attention.

I'll bet he's here now, in fact.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Sat May 18, 2013 2:04 am

Vigilant wrote:So, why isn't this guy permabanned yet?
I'm not seeing an ANI thread, no ARBCOM case.
They might still do that, but don't hold your breath. He still has supporters, and Wikipedians are not known for being sincerely apologetic, especially in situations like this. A lot of them will see this situation simply as one where an established member of the Kommuniti was cruelly forced to identify himself by heartless Wikipedia-haters, and nothing else.

And another thing: Mr. Young did them an enormous favor by identifying himself. Imagine the drama that would be going on there now if User:Qworty were still trying to convince people that the whole thing is a "big lie" perpetrated by enemies trying to "out" him, and of course to (using standard WP phraseology) "stalk, harass, and threaten me and my family." By identifying himself he's allowed them to either ignore the immediate situation completely, or otherwise take their time in cleaning up the mess.

lightspeed
Contributor
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:12 pm

Re: Qworty

Unread post by lightspeed » Sat May 18, 2013 2:05 am

Given Qworty's ego, I am inclined to believe you are right that he is here lurking.
jd turk wrote:I'll bet he's here now, in fact.
Last edited by lightspeed on Sat May 18, 2013 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat May 18, 2013 2:10 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
Vigilant wrote:So, why isn't this guy permabanned yet?
I'm not seeing an ANI thread, no ARBCOM case.
They might still do that, but don't hold your breath. He still has supporters, and Wikipedians are not known for being sincerely apologetic, especially in situations like this. A lot of them will see this situation simply as one where an established member of the Kommuniti was cruelly forced to identify himself by heartless Wikipedia-haters, and nothing else.
How is it possible that she's still an admin after that?

I'm going to have to start keeping track.
Image
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat May 18, 2013 2:14 am

I'm really not seeing any mention of the revenge editing spree on wikipedia in RCY's article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555587062

It's well sourced from Salon.com
Someone should add a wikipedia controversy section.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

jd turk
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia Review Member: jd turk

Re: Qworty

Unread post by jd turk » Sat May 18, 2013 2:19 am

Vigilant wrote:How is it possible that she's still an admin after that?
Admins: Don't apologize, you're never wrong.

lightspeed
Contributor
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:12 pm

Re: Qworty

Unread post by lightspeed » Sat May 18, 2013 2:22 am

Qworty should get permabanned but I doubt he will be because he has many supporters/sympathizers. He knows how to corral people to his corner to make his case. Also, remember that this is a person who seems to have no life and lives day and night on Wikipedia. He knows the ins and outs of the Wikipedia world very well. He knows how to work that system to get what he wants. That's how bullies exist.

Then there's also the fact that Wikipedia is run by volunteers who may not be as organized as you want them to be in such matters. These gaps are what has helped a bully like Qworty thrive and will continue to give him refuge now. He has amassed himself many sympathizer sheeple who would come to his side politically. People such as Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher (to name a couple whom I know). I saw them in full action against me. One whistle and like sheep, they came to his aide.

A sane system/community of people would have long disallowed such a person to exist or at least disallowed to be raised to the stature Qworty has/had enjoyed on Wikipedia. They do not see that what he has done causes so much damage and harm to the Wikipedia project at large. And let's face it, most users of Wikipedia do not know of such political going-ons. I wouldn't either if it weren't for my "luck" in bumping into this nasty vile person.

After Andrew Leonard's Salon piece, someone or a group should be starting some permaban procedure against him. I hope it is done and that some justice sees the light of day. A vile bully like him should not be let off scot free. For me, I am still rejoicing that Mr Leonard wrote his article and exposed this nasty vile slime today.
jd turk wrote:
Vigilant wrote:So, why isn't this guy permabanned yet?
I'm not seeing an ANI thread, no ARBCOM case.

A couple of people doing edging work around some of the articles he's created as puff pieces.

When does JUSTICE come crashing down on Qworty's head?
There's no justice. This human footnote of a writer might eventually wind up being banned from The Body, but he's gotten his wishes to become briefly famous. He's outsmarted the smarts. There's no bad press for some people, only attention.

I'll bet he's here now, in fact.
[edited by Greybeard to insert linebreaks only]
Last edited by lightspeed on Sat May 18, 2013 2:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat May 18, 2013 2:22 am

jd turk wrote:
Vigilant wrote:How is it possible that she's still an admin after that?
Admins: Don't apologize, you're never wrong.
Oh, no.
LGR is too polite and mature for any nastiness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555568311
Trolls will kindly fuck off my page. Guess which category I would put you in? [[User:Little_green_rosetta]] 21:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
What sort of category would LGR fit into?
Hypocrite?
Foul mouthed fishwife?
Delusional fool?

Why not all?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

jd turk
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia Review Member: jd turk

Re: Qworty

Unread post by jd turk » Sat May 18, 2013 2:27 am

Vigilant wrote:
jd turk wrote:
Vigilant wrote:How is it possible that she's still an admin after that?
Admins: Don't apologize, you're never wrong.
Oh, no.
LGR is too polite and mature for any nastiness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555568311
Trolls will kindly fuck off my page. Guess which category I would put you in? [[User:Little_green_rosetta]] 21:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
What sort of category would LGR fit into?
Hypocrite?
Foul mouthed fishwife?
Delusional fool?

Why not all?
It's a perfect example of the admin culture. And using LGR as an example, instead of coming out and saying "This guy fooled all of us," she just digs in, gets angry and profane, and provides an "Example A:" for every stereotype about WP admins.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Zoloft » Sat May 18, 2013 2:31 am

Welcome lightspeed. Please paragraph.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat May 18, 2013 2:34 am

jd turk wrote:It's a perfect example of the admin culture. And using LGR as an example, instead of coming out and saying "This guy fooled all of us," she just digs in, gets angry and profane, and provides an "Example A:" for every stereotype about WP admins.
This diff blows my mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555567953
You might want to up your dosage, as I made no apology. Wikipedia has far too many BLP subjects inserting unsourced PR material into "their" own articles. I stand by those editors that follow our core policies on sourcing and NPOV.[[User:Little green rosetta]] 21:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Reeeaaallllly?
Robert Clark Young followed our core policies on sourcing and NPOV?
Reeeaaallllly?

By the way, nice personal attacks in the edit summaries.
21:08, 17 May 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+343)‎ . . User talk:Little green rosetta ‎ (→‎Qworty... apology accepted: 100mg)
21:01, 17 May 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+496)‎ . . User talk:Little green rosetta ‎ (→‎Qworty... apology accepted: SSRI)
Quality will out.

Let me be more blunt.
You're trash Little Green Rosetta.
Last edited by Vigilant on Sat May 18, 2013 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

lightspeed
Contributor
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:12 pm

Re: Qworty

Unread post by lightspeed » Sat May 18, 2013 2:35 am

Little Green Rosetta will never admit to her wrongdoings in being a partner-in-crime and Qworty's attack dog. It goes against the psyche of such people. If they are the kind of person who would admit they're wrong, one might argue they wouldn't be the type who would follow blindly and be someone's attack dog. Wikipedia should de-admin LGR for she's obviously abused her position.
jd turk wrote: It's a perfect example of the admin culture. And using LGR as an example, instead of coming out and saying "This guy fooled all of us," she just digs in, gets angry and profane, and provides an "Example A:" for every stereotype about WP admins.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Sat May 18, 2013 2:40 am

jd turk wrote:
Vigilant wrote:How is it possible that she's still an admin after that?
Admins: Don't apologize, you're never wrong.
Who's an admin? Little green rosetta (T-C-L)? He/she is not an admin, though he/she clearly would like to be one someday.

This brings up an interesting side-note, involving the ways by which these kinds of disputes get started. In this case, my guess is that Qworty, Little green rosetta, and Coffeepusher (T-C-L) had formed a small team, if you will, who made a habit of running searches on recently modified articles for "peacock terms" - as described in the "Words to Watch" page. In the case of Mr/Ms. Lightspeed here, they found that someone had recently added the word "renowned" to an article on the recently-deceased transgendered performer Erica Andrews (T-H-L), and Mr./Ms. Rosetta went to the article and removed it. Mr./Ms. Lightspeed put the word back, and this started an edit war, which Mr./Ms. Lightspeed had no chance of winning because he/she was not part of a similarly-composed team. Three against one, so Mr./Ms. Lightspeed lost, and after he/she tried to even the odds by using an alternate account or (perhaps) two, he/she ultimately got driven off the website. (It also didn't help that Mr./Ms. Lightspeed is exceptionally stingy with paragraph breaks.)

Now, a reasonable person might ask, "why did the late Erica Andrews warrant such a lengthy, heavily-detailed, resume-like Wikipedia article?" And of course, the reasonable answer would be to agree that she did not. Mr.Ms. Lightspeed here was a presumably a friend or associate of Ms. Andrews and was using the Wikipedia article as a kind of memorial. Wikipedians don't like this sort of thing, because it leads to accusations (from people like us) like, "Why does Erica Andrews merit 6 pages of text when several American Presidents don't even get half that?"

This is what I mean when I say that the Kommuniti will attempt to minimize this situation and, if possible, forego any kind of sanction against User:Qworty as long as they can manage it. Everything now depends on whether or not the story gets picked up by other media outlets - if it does, Qworty will almost certainly be banned, not that that means much of anything. If it doesn't, I wouldn't expect any kind of block or ban - merely the sort of "restrictions" suggested by Mr. Newyorkbrad earlier today, and that's that.

jd turk
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia Review Member: jd turk

Re: Qworty

Unread post by jd turk » Sat May 18, 2013 2:49 am

Midsize Jake wrote:Who's an admin? Little green rosetta (T-C-L)? He/she is not an admin, though he/she clearly would like to be one someday.
Doink. You are correct, sir, apologies. Although she certainly has the angry admin cadence down, you're right.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Qworty

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sat May 18, 2013 2:53 am

Vigilant wrote:What sort of category would LGR fit into?
Hypocrite?
Foul mouthed fishwife?
Delusional fool?
"She", which I doubt anyway, is unquestionably a sock. Showed up in August 2012 and promptly started grinding vandalism.
Could be Young himself, hard to tell. Really hates Iman Crosson (T-H-L), for whatever reason (which was admittedly a
blatant piece of COI editing, courtesy of RCraig09 (T-C-L)).

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Qworty

Unread post by The Joy » Sat May 18, 2013 2:57 am

Vigilant wrote:So, why isn't this guy permabanned yet?
I'm not seeing an ANI thread, no ARBCOM case.

A couple of people doing edging work around some of the articles he's created as puff pieces.

When does JUSTICE come crashing down on Qworty's head?
Wikipediocracy IS justice!

Image
QWORTY is vanquished! Who's next?!
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
greybeard
Habitué
Posts: 1364
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:21 pm

Re: Qworty

Unread post by greybeard » Sat May 18, 2013 3:06 am

[Mod note: I inserted linebreaks into two of Lightspeed's posts above. -- g]

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Qworty

Unread post by DanMurphy » Sat May 18, 2013 3:10 am

The Joy wrote:
Vigilant wrote:So, why isn't this guy permabanned yet?
I'm not seeing an ANI thread, no ARBCOM case.

A couple of people doing edging work around some of the articles he's created as puff pieces.

When does JUSTICE come crashing down on Qworty's head?
Wikipediocracy IS justice!

Image
QWORTY is vanquished! Who's next?!
I'm just glad that Wikipedia's flaws have been fixed by identifying this one bitter, unknown novelist.

jd turk
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia Review Member: jd turk

Re: Qworty

Unread post by jd turk » Sat May 18, 2013 3:11 am

lightspeed wrote:Little Green Rosetta will never admit to her wrongdoings in being a partner-in-crime and Qworty's attack dog.
This is mildly interesting. Even today LGR seemed to be trying to scrub things with her last edit before the "apology" go-round on her talk page.

lightspeed
Contributor
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:12 pm

Re: Qworty

Unread post by lightspeed » Sat May 18, 2013 3:27 am

I was one of the lead authors on the article on Ms Andrews. Isn't Wikipedia's main objective for authors to perform research and contribute with as much info they can discover - provided that such info is relevant to the article? To compare Ms Andrews' article to an American president's article is beyond ridiculous. I would argue that if any Wikipedian has research info that is pertinent to any American president, they should contribute to the article and make it as rich as possible.

I knew a lot of info on Ms Andrews because I did do a lot of offline and online research with the intention to contribute to the article. Whether I knew Ms Andrews or not personally was irrelevant. I wasn't revealing personal secrets about her. Many people knew Ms Andrews in real life but they did not contribute. I intended for her Wikipedia article to be as accurate and detailed as possible. Quite apparently we came to a situation where Qworty and his attack dogs decided they were going to be the judge of what warrants as content merit on a person/subject they knew nothing about. I would think any ethical author would refrain from editing a subject that they know nothing about. I don't touch many Wikipedia articles because I don't know the subject matter and would never force my opinions on others. I would leave it to people who do know the subject to feel if content should be included or excluded.

The question remains - why did Qworty and his attack dogs (Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher) decide to take interest in what would be considered an insignificant person of interest to them? Why did they decide to use Ms Andrews' article as a platform to leverage a major fight with me? Regardless of whether I was overzealous with information or not, it did not warrant being so hostile, so nasty and vile to me or to damage the article through deletionism. The article was not of someone world famous with major controversy surrounding their life and would attract millions of eyeballs and warrant a major content war between editors.

I'll give you an example of deletionism gone wild by Qworty, Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher. I had listed a detailed list of the major national and international drag pageant titles that Ms Andrews had won. ALL of these titles are validated, cited/sourced in newspapers, a printed book, by the drag title producers' sites. Therefore this is info that should accompany her article. It was part of her career achievements. Other entertainers have detailed listings of their discography/filmography or whatever portfolio work they have achieved. An bio Wikipedia article about an entertainer should include such detailed info. That is my personal opinion. In one edit, Qworty deleted ALL of these titles. I argued saying that is outrageous because Ms Andrews' Wikipedia article would be stripped bare with nothing left of her accomplishments. But where Qworty was concerned, facts do not matter.

My request for collaboration also did not matter. All that mattered was that Qworty could claim the article for his power game. When I tried to add info back, Qworty and friends would revert my edits and then claim I was in an edit war with them. I would understand if I were placing erroneous info and lies on a page to disparage someone. I never did that. I was more than cautious of conflicts of interest and in my total respect of information correctness, I tried to research as much as I could.

Midsize Jake wrote:
jd turk wrote:
Vigilant wrote:How is it possible that she's still an admin after that?
Admins: Don't apologize, you're never wrong.
Who's an admin? Little green rosetta (T-C-L)? He/she is not an admin, though he/she clearly would like to be one someday.

This brings up an interesting side-note, involving the ways by which these kinds of disputes get started. In this case, my guess is that Qworty, Little green rosetta, and Coffeepusher (T-C-L) had formed a small team, if you will, who made a habit of running searches on recently modified articles for "peacock terms" - as described in the "Words to Watch" page. In the case of Mr/Ms. Lightspeed here, they found that someone had recently added the word "renowned" to an article on the recently-deceased transgendered performer Erica Andrews (T-H-L), and Mr./Ms. Rosetta went to the article and removed it. Mr./Ms. Lightspeed put the word back, and this started an edit war, which Mr./Ms. Lightspeed had no chance of winning because he/she was not part of a similarly-composed team. Three against one, so Mr./Ms. Lightspeed lost, and after he/she tried to even the odds by using an alternate account or (perhaps) two, he/she ultimately got driven off the website. (It also didn't help that Mr./Ms. Lightspeed is exceptionally stingy with paragraph breaks.)

Now, a reasonable person might ask, "why did the late Erica Andrews warrant such a lengthy, heavily-detailed, resume-like Wikipedia article?" And of course, the reasonable answer would be to agree that she did not. Mr.Ms. Lightspeed here was a presumably a friend or associate of Ms. Andrews and was using the Wikipedia article as a kind of memorial. Wikipedians don't like this sort of thing, because it leads to accusations (from people like us) like, "Why does Erica Andrews merit 6 pages of text when several American Presidents don't even get half that?"

This is what I mean when I say that the Kommuniti will attempt to minimize this situation and, if possible, forego any kind of sanction against User:Qworty as long as they can manage it. Everything now depends on whether or not the story gets picked up by other media outlets - if it does, Qworty will almost certainly be banned, not that that means much of anything. If it doesn't, I wouldn't expect any kind of block or ban - merely the sort of "restrictions" suggested by Mr. Newyorkbrad earlier today, and that's that.
Last edited by lightspeed on Sat May 18, 2013 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat May 18, 2013 3:35 am

The second coming of Abd.

Lightspeed, please try to be concise.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

lightspeed
Contributor
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:12 pm

Re: Qworty

Unread post by lightspeed » Sat May 18, 2013 3:39 am

Will do. :-) Sorry, know I may be ranting/venting. I was/am so livid at the situation.
Vigilant wrote:The second coming of Abd.

Lightspeed, please try to be concise.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Qworty

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Sat May 18, 2013 3:43 am

lightspeed wrote:The argument I have is, isn't Wikipedia's main objective for authors to perform research and contribute to an article with as much information they can discover or uncover - with the context that such information is relevant to the article/subject matter.
No, not really. That isn't even their stated objective, much less their actual objective.

Think of it this way: The way to make a board game, such as Monopoly, Risk, or Life, more fun is not to make the board larger, or make the squares on the board larger or more elaborate. That might actually make the game less fun. What makes the game more fun is finding other players who behave in ways that make you happy that you're beating them.

What happened to you on Wikipedia, after you added that word "renowned," was create a magnet for a certain type of person - a person who doesn't like seeing other people lionized or praised while they are not being lionized or praised. You might have thought these people were homophobes, targeting the Erica Andrews article because she was LGBT, but I wouldn't make that assumption. They do this for fun, and the topic isn't necessarily all that important to them. These people are sharks, and you literally poured blood into the water.

In Qworty's case, IMO it became addictive after a while - he started out by doing it to people he knew and disliked, but found out that he enjoyed it so much that he ran out of targets and started attacking people like Erica Andrews and Amanda Filipacchi, people he probably had never heard of before. He was just getting a "fix" in those cases.
To compare Ms Andrews' article to an American president's article is beyond ridiculous.
Good thing I didn't do that, then! :)
Regardless of whether I was overzealous with information or not, it did not warrant being so hostile, so nasty and vile to me or to damage the article through deletionism.
You have to read up on the subject of narcissism and antisocial personalities to properly understand that. You can start with the Wikipedia articles on the subject, but as always, they should be treated as only a "starting point." :lookdownnose:

(Edit) Btw, you should also try to stop thinking of these processes in Wikipedian terms, such as "deletionism." What you experienced was not "deletionism," even in their conception of the term. In point of fact, there is really no such thing as "deletionism" in any practical sense on Wikipedia. It's a red herring, and it exists mostly to confuse and distract people like yourself into thinking there's some sort of overarching ideological basis for what goes on there, when there really isn't.

Post Reply