Qworty

[Mason]

Addendum: I missed one:

===Alleged romantic involvement with female lobbyist===
{{current-section}}

On [[February 20]] [[2008]], ''[[The New York Times]]'' broke a story involving a possible romantic affair eight years earlier between McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman, both of whom deny the allegations. The relationship allegedly existed during McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. In separate interviews with ''The New York Times'', two former associates of McCain said they warned him that he was risking his campaign and his political career. Both said McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and that he pledged to keep his distance from Iseman. The associates said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.<ref>{{cite web
|date= 2008-02-21
|last= Rutenberg
|first= Jim
|authorlink=
|coauthors= Thompson, Marilyn W.; Kirkpatrick, David D.; Labaton, Stephen
|url= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/po ... in.html?hp
|title= For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk
|publisher= [[The New York Times]]
|accessdate=2008-02-20}}</ref>

A McCain spokesperson characterized the story as a "hit and run smear campaign" and "gutter politics" and went on to say, "It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards [...]"<ref>{{cite web
|date= 2008-02-20
|last= Hazelbaker
|first= Jill
|authorlink= Jill Hazelbaker
|url= http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/New ... d8182a.htm
|title= Press Release: Statement By Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker
|publisher= [[John McCain]]
|accessdate=2008-02-20}}</ref>

So he'll cite the New York Times in order to trash them. McCain appears to have been either collateral damage or part of a two-birds-with-one-stone attack.

Which is strange, because Young says we need to be very careful about BLPs:

Please read [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:RS]]. Blogs are not [[WP:RS]], especially with living people, whose biographies must be handled with extraordinary care & sensitivity.Please find legitimate sourcing.

[Mason]

And not that we needed any further proof that this guy's an asshole, but this edit summary did jump out:

→‎External links: adding appropriate cat, since Barry Hannah is DEAD

[lightspeed]

Now that Qworty is banned. So, what's in stored next? Clean up of all the articles he touched? Anyone knows?

What about Qworty's sheeple team members like Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher, etc? What happens to them? They have been just as abusive as he was.

[jd turk]

Now that Qworty is banned. So, what's in stored next? Clean up of all the articles he touched? Anyone knows?

What about Qworty's team sheeple team members like Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher, etc? What happens to them? They have been just as abusive as he was.

I think the answer to all of your questions is "nothing."

Bad action movies always end with the death of the villain. The bad guy is gone, so that's the end of the story. Cleaning up those articles Qworty took a crap on isn't sexy. Nobody's going to take the time to do it, and if they did, no one would mention it. On to the next conflict, rather than on to the next accomplishment.

[Mason]

Now that Qworty is banned. So, what's in stored next? Clean up of all the articles he touched? Anyone knows?

What about Qworty's team sheeple team members like Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher, etc? What happens to them? They have been just as abusive as he was.

Judging by how these things usually go, they will escape completely unscathed. It took years to do anything about Young, even after convincing evidence of abuse, a conclusive sockpuppet investigation, banning threats by Jimbo (!)... If such an obvious abuser could do his thing for so long, why would his kindred spirits have any less success doing theirs?

[DanMurphy]

Now that Qworty is banned. So, what's in stored next? Clean up of all the articles he touched? Anyone knows?

What about Qworty's team sheeple team members like Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher, etc? What happens to them? They have been just as abusive as he was.

I think the answer to all of your questions is "nothing."

Bad action movies always end with the death of the villain. The bad guy is gone, so that's the end of the story. Cleaning up those articles Qworty took a crap on isn't sexy. Nobody's going to take the time to do it, and if they did, no one would mention it. On to the next conflict, rather than on to the next accomplishment.

Yes. I wrote this in an email to an acquaintance over the weekend:

Notice how the whole system has no humanity for anyone involved:

Act 1. Filipacchi writes an NYT op-ed. "How DARE she!?" "We'll show HER!" "She better keep her grubby hands off OUR article on HER!" "Good on ya, Qworty." etc...

Act. 2. "Ring, ring. Hello, Wikipedia? This is external criticism calling. This does not look very good."

Act. 3. "Qworty has brought shame upon us all! Burn the witch! Ban him! Make sure the ban sticker goes up on his user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qworty). Have a long public discussion sure to pile on his own humiliation (or perhaps even trigger him into lashing out if he's a dangerous type - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =555781718)."

Coda: "Good work everyone. Our system works. Fade to black..."

[greybeard]

The funniest part about this is that without wikipediocracy, this abuse would almost certainly have lasted for at least another 6 years.

We're the catalyst for change.

"Wikipediocracy: improving Wikipedia, one sleazeball at a time"

[Vigilant]

Now that Qworty is banned. So, what's in stored next? Clean up of all the articles he touched? Anyone knows?

What about Qworty's team sheeple team members like Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher, etc? What happens to them? They have been just as abusive as he was.

I think the answer to all of your questions is "nothing."

Bad action movies always end with the death of the villain. The bad guy is gone, so that's the end of the story. Cleaning up those articles Qworty took a crap on isn't sexy. Nobody's going to take the time to do it, and if they did, no one would mention it. On to the next conflict, rather than on to the next accomplishment.

Now, now, now.

We know that's not true.

There's a shindig already going on over at Qworty's pages. You can get in some mighty fine grave dancing if you hurry, but there's not much left of his wiki corpse.

Next up, we've got some bloviating to do about the wiki way working and how bad people are always caught and "shhhhh, don't look at that other site". Some of it's started, but there's plenty of prime speaking slots still open.

After the bloviating, there'll be some settling of scores amongst the in crowd.

After that, project Qworty will die a quiet, unmourned death in the wikidesert.

All of those poor bastards who fell under Qworty's malign gaze will have to watch as their articles languish in the hot wikisun.

Don't be so down, there's always plenty of food for us wikivultures.

[dogbiscuit]

Now that Qworty is banned. So, what's in stored next? Clean up of all the articles he touched? Anyone knows?

What about Qworty's team sheeple team members like Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher, etc? What happens to them? They have been just as abusive as he was.

I think the answer to all of your questions is "nothing."

Bad action movies always end with the death of the villain. The bad guy is gone, so that's the end of the story. Cleaning up those articles Qworty took a crap on isn't sexy. Nobody's going to take the time to do it, and if they did, no one would mention it. On to the next conflict, rather than on to the next accomplishment.

Like a Bruce Willis movie, we don't have to worry about all the sheeple extras who happened to get blown away by the bad guys (a quick concerned frown from our hero and we move on), Bruce does not need to worry about Law and Order because they are bad guys so he can kill them with impunity ("Let's go kill some motherfuckers!") and at the end, surrounded by death and destruction, the minor flesh wounds that kill the bad guys are brushed off by the hero. All the unhelpful cops, CIA, FBI, politicians that Get In The Way of "killing the motherfuckers!" carry on as if nothing happened, perhaps some blaming the hero for embarrassing them (see also Dirty Harry).

It is perhaps not surprising given their profile that Wikipedians take their idealistic moral stance from Die Hard and Dirty Harry.

[lightspeed]

Qworty brought his gang with him on every article (and editor) he screwed with. Now that he's banned, if people or someone went back to cleaning up articles, do you think it would it trigger for Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher to come by to screw with the articles or the editor again? I realize we're all guessing here but for the sake of discussion...what do you think?

I think the answer to all of your questions is "nothing."

Bad action movies always end with the death of the villain. The bad guy is gone, so that's the end of the story. Cleaning up those articles Qworty took a crap on isn't sexy. Nobody's going to take the time to do it, and if they did, no one would mention it. On to the next conflict, rather than on to the next accomplishment.

[Vigilant]

Qworty brought his gang with him on every article (and editor) he screwed with. Now that he's banned, if people or someone went back to cleaning up articles, do you think it would it trigger for Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher to come by to screw with the articles or the editor again? I realize we're all guessing here but for the sake of discussion...what do you think?

No.

There's too much attention for that to happen. You can watch LGR abandon RCY in real time over past couple of days.

What's worse is that they'll just move on to other articles.

[jd turk]

Qworty brought his gang with him on every article (and editor) he screwed with. Now that he's banned, if people or someone went back to cleaning up articles, do you think it would it trigger for Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher to come by to screw with the articles or the editor again? I realize we're all guessing here but for the sake of discussion...what do you think?

I think that's actually been cleaned up. This site has cast enough scrutiny on the whole affair if those editors want to continue to obstruct the articles, they'd get called out. If those editors were smart, they'd take any articles they edited with Qworty off their watch lists, and just pretend the whole thing never happened. There's no punishment coming or even real scrutiny, as long as no one ever has to bring up the "Qw" word again.

Either that, or they'd start farming some sockpuppets to do the dirty work for them somewhere down the line. But that's the sign of the truly insane, and we don't have to worry about those people on Wikipedia, he said laughing to himself.

[Midsize Jake]

Qworty brought his gang with him on every article (and editor) he screwed with.

You'll have to forgive me, but this just isn't true; Qworty had other collaborators at various times, but they weren't really "his gang," at least not until recently.

Qworty didn't encounter Coffeepusher (T-C-L) until he decided to help him delete an article on screenwriter Andrew Helm in early April of this year. Little green rosetta (T-C-L) didn't really get involved in Qworty-related shenanigans until after that; prior to this, LGR had been messing around mostly in articles involving LGBT issues (mostly on the ideologically conservative side).

Mind you, both of these users are officious, arrogant jagoffs, but if you're going to fault them for that, you have to fault about 90 percent of Wikipedia's active user base. Admittedly, I actually do fault about 90 percent of Wikipedia's active user base for this, but I also know I'm not going to change a culture with that kind of supermajority by targeting just two or three people.

As an aside, if Andrew Helm is in fact Taram (T-C-L), he may actually be slightly more narcissistic than Mr. Young/Qworty, though thankfully not as vindictive.

[The Devil's Advocate]

No, you're overstating the case regarding Eddievega (T-C-L). This was Eddievega's first appearance on the scene. He didn't just "show up" - Qworty had twice removed a bunch of links to positive reviews (with sources) of Filipacchi's work, Vega objected, and Qworty replied with the usual acronyms ("see WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID" - his usual MO). That was April 26; on April 28, having seen the second Filipacchi Wikipedia Sexism op-ed column, he posted his first angry diatribe about Filipacchi, in response to some hand-wringing by Milowent (T-C-L). It was not a "mild comment" at all, at least not by Wikipedia standards.

What Eddievega (T-C-L) actually did then, which you're referring to as an "attack," was try to add a "ConnectedContributor" template to the Filipacchi article, naming both Qworty and himself as being too closely "connected" to the subject to be unbiased. Qworty then proceeded to revert him multiple times, claiming he had no connection to her at all (though by then his activities, though not his account name, had been mentioned by Filipacchi in her second op-ed[/url]). He then created this SPI page on Eddievega, and when that failed to get him the result he wanted, that's when he really started to "flip out." If Mr. Vega subsequently "berated" him, is that so surprising, given that Qworty had essentially accused him of cheating? And the others weren't "endorsing" Vega's so-called "attacks," they were just refusing to block him on Qworty's say-so.

So while there's a valid point to be made about the appropriateness of the "ConnectedContributor" template, and whether or not it was placed deliberately to provoke him, to suggest that Eddievega is directly to blame for Qworty's subsequent behavior is completely absurd. He couldn't stand to not get his way, simple as that. We see it all the time on WP... this was just more of a high-profile case.

I was not going to comment further on this point, but we need to keep the facts straight. There seem to be some additional details I missed, but you have missed some still. I was not talking about the ConnectedContributor edit-war when I talked about attacks, though it was a contributing factor.

It seems the way it happened after the earlier encounters you mention is that after the second op-ed was published Qworty then went to the articles on some of her novels and did the same thing. At this point Vega started a section on the Filipacchi article talk page entitled "Wikipedia Continues Attack on Amanda Filipacchi" talking about the second op-ed saying Qworty's edits "deepened the impression" that Wikipedia was "at war on women writers" and he posted the same section on three other talk pages. It was after this and after noticing Vega's previous self-promotional editing at the Murdaland article that Qworty added a ConnectedContributor link for Vega to the Filipacchi talk page. After all that is when Qworty made the comment about Filipacchi having gall for criticizing the edits to her page when it had been a fluff piece for years and not understanding how Wikipedia works. Vega responded by adding a ConnectedContributor link for Qworty as well and added to his comment to go after Qworty for the comment about Filipacchi. He followed this up with a comment at Qworty's talk page saying he should stop editing the article.

Vega and Qworty then edit-warred over the connected contributor tag, with one of Vega's reverts being made as an IP, and Vega cried censorship over Qworty's edits to the Filipacchi article. During all this a newly registered account, who was undoubtedly not a new editor suddenly appeared to reply to Vega. Qworty filed the SPI naming the new account and IP. Vega, who apparently had not seen the SPI yet as he was not notified and doesn't mention it, repeatedly shouts censorship at the talk page. At this point SlimVirgin and Cullen jumped in at Qworty's talk page to agree with Vega's earlier suggestion, based solely on the appearance it gives for him to be editing those articles when the press are watching. That is when the truly angry rants about the New York Times and Filipacchi began and Nayman became involved, causing the situation to rapidly deteriorate.

Getting everything on the record I should also note that after the second op-ed the Facebook page for Vega's Noir Nation posted about it, talking about her "noble fight" against "clueless and sexist editors", and linked to the talk page in a comment at a time when Qworty had only edited the page on Miss Filipacchi and not related articles.

Now, I hope all that helps people to understand my position.

[Midsize Jake]

Much better!

...At this point SlimVirgin and Cullen jumped in at Qworty's talk page to agree with Vega's earlier suggestion, based solely on the appearance it gives for him to be editing those articles when the press are watching. That is when the truly angry rants about the New York Times and Filipacchi began and Nayman became involved, causing the situation to rapidly deteriorate.

Okay then. But while this is the truly angry rant, it was not the first. Hopefully we can agree on that much, at least...?

Actually, the first of those links is yet another good example of how the "Assume Good Faith" tule causes WPers to shoot themselves in the foot. Slimvirgin should have blocked Qworty for at least 48 hours upon seeing that response, but it contained a bald-faced lie:

But you needn't worry about me, no sirree. I will certainly do as the Holy New York Times says and shut up now. Just as I and millions of others obediently shut up when they were spreading their lies about Saddam having WMD.

Putting aside the orders-of-magnitude difference between a debate over criticism of Wikipedia's record of sexism and the casus belli for a war leading to deaths of tens of thousands of people, all he really had to do there was be good to his word, and he'd probably still be happily editing away as we speak. (Or type, I should say.) Alas, Ms. Slimmy had to "AGF" and accept this claim, so an opportunity to avert disaster was itself averted.

(Btw, I should add that Mr. Qworty/Young was, and is, right to still be angry about the New York Times' role in spreading the false claims of the Bush II Administration regarding Saddam Hussein's war-making capabilities. I know I am!)

One last thing: If only by omission, you seem to be minimizing your own culpability in encouraging him with the previous entry on his talk page. Narcissists will often back down if criticism of them is unanimous, but often all it takes is one supportive comment and they'll ride that train for all it's worth. Sure, you might claim "I didn't know he was a narcissist," but in point of fact, practically all Wikipedians are narcissists. And ignorance of the laws of psychology is no excuse!

Getting everything on the record I should also note that after the second op-ed the Facebook page for Vega's Noir Nation posted about it, talking about her "noble fight" against "clueless and sexist editors", and linked to the talk page in a comment at a time when Qworty had only edited the page on Miss Filipacchi and not related articles.

Ah, so that's who he is! Good to know. Thanks - at least now I can see why he'd be persona non grata in Qwortyland from the get-go.

Now, I hope all that helps people to understand my position.

I'm not sure "understand" is the word I'd use... maybe "visualize." Understanding will be harder.

[HRIP7]

Now that Qworty is banned. So, what's in stored next? Clean up of all the articles he touched? Anyone knows?

What about Qworty's team sheeple team members like Little Green Rosetta, Coffeepusher, etc? What happens to them? They have been just as abusive as he was.

I think the answer to all of your questions is "nothing."

Bad action movies always end with the death of the villain. The bad guy is gone, so that's the end of the story. Cleaning up those articles Qworty took a crap on isn't sexy. Nobody's going to take the time to do it, and if they did, no one would mention it. On to the next conflict, rather than on to the next accomplishment.

This.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Okay then. But while this is the truly angry rant, it was not the first. Hopefully we can agree on that much, at least...?

I certainly agree, though I would say the first comment is a more typical reaction in those types of situations. Hell, Milowent, the editor he is talking to, has had more bizarre outbursts then that under far less pressure over things far more trivial.

One last thing: If only by omission, you seem to be minimizing your own culpability in encouraging him with the previous entry on his talk page. Narcissists will often back down if criticism of them is unanimous, but often all it takes is one supportive comment and they'll ride that train for all it's worth. Sure, you might claim "I didn't know he was a narcissist," but in point of fact, practically all Wikipedians are narcissists. And ignorance of the laws of psychology is no excuse!

Plenty of other editors don't react the way he did. As I said earlier, everything he had been doing up until that point was little different from what we see in other COI hardliners and deletionists.

[lilburne]

Plenty of other editors don't react the way he did. As I said earlier, everything he had been doing up until that point was little different from what we see in other COI hardliners and deletionists.

Plenty do react that way. Fae, Russavia, Silver Seren, Demiwhatsit, Prioryman, throughout the projects they react badly to off site criticism. Wales was bitching about Morris the other week. Poke any of them and they come out snarling.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Ironholds stepped in to stop the grave-dancing on Qworty's user page and gave a most apt justification. A fine job there sir.

[NaymanNoland]

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

EDIT: Apart from everything else, this would function as a nice Qworty trap. Anyone who obstructed positive edits on Brad Vice would reveal themselves as either Young or one of his minions.

[jd turk]

Ironholds stepped in to stop the grave-dancing on Qworty's user page and gave a most apt justification. A fine job there sir.

SB Johnny has now locked Qworty's talk page, but not the user page, which doesn't seem to make any sense at all. "That ends the discussion, kids, go forth and make sweeping changes without bothering to explain yourselves!"

I absolutely love it when an admin comes by and unilaterally closes a discussion and tells everybody to get back to work building an encyclopedia, like he's some kind of Construction Site Foreman and we're a bunch'a lollygagging goldbricks.

[The Joy]

Ironholds stepped in to stop the grave-dancing on Qworty's user page and gave a most apt justification. A fine job there sir.

SB Johnny has now locked Qworty's talk page, but not the user page, which doesn't seem to make any sense at all. "That ends the discussion, kids, go forth and make sweeping changes without bothering to explain yourselves!"

I absolutely love it when an admin comes by and unilaterally closes a discussion and tells everybody to get back to work building an encyclopedia, like he's some kind of Construction Site Foreman and we're a bunch'a lollygagging goldbricks.

I wish he would do the same to Cla68 (T-C-L)'s talk page. I'm tired of seeing people beating a dead horse.

[thekohser]

Ironholds stepped in to stop the grave-dancing on Qworty's user page and gave a most apt justification. A fine job there sir.

We treat people with equality and we treat people with consideration.

I'm sorry, I think I'm lost. This is Wikipedia we're talking about here?

[SB_Johnny]

Ironholds stepped in to stop the grave-dancing on Qworty's user page and gave a most apt justification. A fine job there sir.

SB Johnny has now locked Qworty's talk page, but not the user page, which doesn't seem to make any sense at all. "That ends the discussion, kids, go forth and make sweeping changes without bothering to explain yourselves!"

I absolutely love it when an admin comes by and unilaterally closes a discussion and tells everybody to get back to work building an encyclopedia, like he's some kind of Construction Site Foreman and we're a bunch'a lollygagging goldbricks.

I wish he would do the same to Cla68 (T-C-L)'s talk page. I'm tired of seeing people beating a dead horse.

Yeah, but I think Cla likes watching them agonize endlessly. I'm not sure Mr. Qworty has a similar taste for that particular sort of theater.

[The Joy]

Ironholds stepped in to stop the grave-dancing on Qworty's user page and gave a most apt justification. A fine job there sir.

SB Johnny has now locked Qworty's talk page, but not the user page, which doesn't seem to make any sense at all. "That ends the discussion, kids, go forth and make sweeping changes without bothering to explain yourselves!"

I absolutely love it when an admin comes by and unilaterally closes a discussion and tells everybody to get back to work building an encyclopedia, like he's some kind of Construction Site Foreman and we're a bunch'a lollygagging goldbricks.

I wish he would do the same to Cla68 (T-C-L)'s talk page. I'm tired of seeing people beating a dead horse.

Yeah, but I think Cla likes watching them agonize endlessly. I'm not sure Mr. Qworty has a similar taste for that particular sort of theater.

See you at the AN/I Theater!

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

[SB_Johnny]

Ironholds stepped in to stop the grave-dancing on Qworty's user page and gave a most apt justification. A fine job there sir.

SB Johnny has now locked Qworty's talk page, but not the user page, which doesn't seem to make any sense at all. "That ends the discussion, kids, go forth and make sweeping changes without bothering to explain yourselves!"

I absolutely love it when an admin comes by and unilaterally closes a discussion and tells everybody to get back to work building an encyclopedia, like he's some kind of Construction Site Foreman and we're a bunch'a lollygagging goldbricks.

I wish he would do the same to Cla68 (T-C-L)'s talk page. I'm tired of seeing people beating a dead horse.

Yeah, but I think Cla likes watching them agonize endlessly. I'm not sure Mr. Qworty has a similar taste for that particular sort of theater.

See you at the AN/I Theater!

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

Should make interesting reading with my morning coffee.

[The Joy]

People are now going after Mr. Young on Amazon. See the newest reviews on his books.

http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Clark-Youn ... sr=1-2-ent

This scandal is going to hit him hard in his wallet, isn't it?

[jd turk]

People are now going after Mr. Young on Amazon. See the newest reviews on his books.

http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Clark-Youn ... sr=1-2-ent

This scandal is going to hit him hard in his wallet, isn't it?

I'd be surprised if anything was hitting him in his wallet one way or the other. One book, four e-books, doesn't seem to be much interest in any of them. Before the three negative reviews, it was almost seven years since anyone reviewed his novel.

[Midsize Jake]

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

He had to move to Bratislava, Slovakia to get a teaching gig, no? I mean, Bratislava's a lovely town, don't get me wrong, but if that was his best option...

That article should be deleted, end of story.

They won't do it though, because they won't care about what they've done to him, or allowed to be done to him. They'll say the "plagiarism controversy" is notable in itself, even though it was clearly trumped-up (note that I'm not saying it was "made up" or "fabricated" - it did happen, it was just trumped up). Somebody will probably suggest doing the right thing, at least. I just don't think they'll actually do it.

Of course, earlier I wrote that they wouldn't ban Qworty, and it looks like they're doing that, so what do I know. Take what I predict with a grain of salt.

[Randy from Boise]

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

So explain your firm conviction here. I take it you read his (one) book and decided that it was good? Because you sure didn't find that out anywhere else. I looked for reviews, and found precisely two: both trade reviews, and both negative. Kirkus and Publishers Weekly.

I can't find a single non-trade review, in a single publication. Nothing. Never mind the NY Times, or the Washington Post - there's nothing in the tiniest third-tier newspaper. Zilch. Try it yourself - do a Google search on this string: "one of the guys" "review" "robert clark young". (Amazon couldn't find anything either - they quote Kirkus and PW.)

What you CAN find, in abundance, is Robert Clark Young's raging about other writers. He hates them. He slanders them in all sorts of second- and third-tier publications: rags like the NY Press. He ruins lives.

All of which accords with what I've been saying from the start: he's notable not as a writer, but as a trasher of writers. Whether he does it through subverting Wikipedia, or public slander, or private backstabbing - this is the sole thing that grants him anything like notability.

And yes, it is a kind of notability: it might even deserve a couple of sentences in Wikipedia. If you argue that it deserves anything more than this, however, I have only one question: What precisely is your relationship to Robert Clark Young?

NN, it seems to me you are conflating "importance" with "sourceability."

In Wikipedia terms, "notability" means "sourceability" — it denotes a biography or topic for which there exist multiple, published, substantive sources from which an article can be written in a "verifiable" manner.

Notability as used on Wikipedia has nothing much to do with "importance." To be sure, there is supposed to be some assertion of importance at some level for every piece at WP. "Bob Young is a novelist who is best known as a principal figure in a series of literary controversies..." would be a technically correct phrasing in the lead for WP purposes. He might be the most horrible fucking writer in the world, reviewed by zero publications ever. But he has a certain claim to significance at some level as a figure in a series of at least three controversies covered in the mainstream press, and he has notability in WP terms for having been the subject of substantial published coverage multiple times.

RfB

[HRIP7]

"Bob Young is a novelist who is best known as a principle figure in a series of literary controversies..." would be a technically correct phrasing in the lead for WP purposes.

No, it wouldn't. (Just saving Greg a post here.)

[EricBarbour]

People are now going after Mr. Young on Amazon. See the newest reviews on his books.

http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Clark-Youn ... sr=1-2-ent

I'd just like to know how to provably report a book author to Amazon, for suspicion of sockpuppeting his own reviews.
Apparently a few people have hit the "Report Abuse" button, and failed to even get a response. Not like it's all that rare, either:

http://bestfantasybooks.com/blog/robert ... the-world/
http://bestfantasybooks.com/blog/dont-t ... eyre-fake/
http://kdp.amazon.com/community/thread. ... dID=160410
http://www.newser.com/story/159807/amaz ... views.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0 ... 54713.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/suwcharmana ... tten-core/

[Randy from Boise]

"Bob Young is a novelist who is best known as a principle figure in a series of literary controversies..." would be a technically correct phrasing in the lead for WP purposes.

No, it wouldn't. (Just saving Greg a post here.)

Oops.

.......principal......

RfB

[lightspeed]

With this ban on the user account, Qworty/Robert Clark Young will easily make another account and come back to WP under another user name. He'll wreak havoc for a long time hidden under this shroud and maybe he might be discovered, or may be not for some years. He'll gain new fans/sympathizers/followers. He'll be a little more careful about deleting/slashing content and be "good" for some months until all this dies down aka "forgotten". Meanwhile the victims of RCY will pile up some more on WP. Agreed? I may be very skeptical but I seriously doubt some user name/account ban will deter RCY. He's hooked on WP. It feeds him and he feeds it.

[EricBarbour]

Currently, it reads:

The following internal links are provided for the benefit of all,
including those who have read the Salon.com article by reporter Andrew Leonard.
They show how Wikipedia works to correct abuse.[citation needed]

And removed by Ironholds.

[NaymanNoland]

Notability as used on Wikipedia has nothing much to do with "importance." To be sure, there is supposed to be some assertion of importance at some level for every piece at WP. "Bob Young is a novelist who is best known as a principal figure in a series of literary controversies..." would be a technically correct phrasing in the lead for WP purposes. He might be the most horrible fucking writer in the world, reviewed by zero publications ever. But he has a certain claim to significance at some level as a figure in a series of at least three controversies covered in the mainstream press, and he has notability in WP terms for having been the subject of substantial published coverage multiple times.

Right. Which all goes back to the now widely-acknowledged fact that he is notable as a trasher of writers, not as a writer. His entry should express that, no?

[DanMurphy]

Follow up from Leonard, rather wry at the end.

[Alison]

People are now going after Mr. Young on Amazon. See the newest reviews on his books.

http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Clark-Youn ... sr=1-2-ent

A scathing one was written by this guy. Anyone we know?

[Peter Damian]

Follow up from Leonard, rather wry at the end.

Wikipedia editors are also not allowed to cite Wikipedia itself as a source. Therefore, as I was informed by one editor, the article about Robert Clark Young cannot include a reference to the investigation into his alleged sock-puppetry, unless a non-Wikipedia source reports it.

Consider it reported.

[The Devil's Advocate]

There is one part that kinda stuck out:

Scott Mathews, a musician and producer with a long and distinguished record of achievement, told me that he had tangled for months with Qworty, who had obsessively removed content from his Wikipedia page in a display of “pure hate raining on my hit parade.”

Seems Mr. Mathews is admitting to being Littleritual (T-C-L). Thing about this is now every COI editor Qworty ever "tangled" with is going to be coming out of the woodwork to claim that their page was also "vandalized" or "revenge-edited" by him, even those that appear to be a few fruit loops short of a balanced breakfast.

[Vigilant]

There is one part that kinda stuck out:

Scott Mathews, a musician and producer with a long and distinguished record of achievement, told me that he had tangled for months with Qworty, who had obsessively removed content from his Wikipedia page in a display of “pure hate raining on my hit parade.”

Seems Mr. Mathews is admitting to being Littleritual (T-C-L). Thing about this is now every COI editor Qworty ever "tangled" with is going to be coming out of the woodwork to claim that their page was also "vandalized" or "revenge-edited" by him, even those that appear to be a few fruit loops short of a balanced breakfast.

It's only right that they should all have a mandatory screening.
It's akin to finding out that the police lab has been falsifying DNA matches.

It doesn't mean the person wasn't guilty. It means you can't know.
Qworty shat on so many articles as himself and with his socks, which we will never find all of, that anything he might have brushed up against might as well be deleted and written from scratch.

[lightspeed]

I'm surprised LGR and Coffeepusher did not join Qworty on this Scott Mathews article.

There is one part that kinda stuck out:

Scott Mathews, a musician and producer with a long and distinguished record of achievement, told me that he had tangled for months with Qworty, who had obsessively removed content from his Wikipedia page in a display of “pure hate raining on my hit parade.”

Seems Mr. Mathews is admitting to being Littleritual (T-C-L). Thing about this is now every COI editor Qworty ever "tangled" with is going to be coming out of the woodwork to claim that their page was also "vandalized" or "revenge-edited" by him, even those that appear to be a few fruit loops short of a balanced breakfast.

It's only right that they should all have a mandatory screening.
It's akin to finding out that the police lab has been falsifying DNA matches.

It doesn't mean the person wasn't guilty. It means you can't know.
Qworty shat on so many articles as himself and with his socks, which we will never find all of, that anything he might have brushed up against might as well be deleted and written from scratch.

[NaymanNoland]

So, Devil's Advocate, seems the world at large also finds your Qworty-love absolutely incomprehensible:

https://twitter.com/jeremyduns/status/3 ... 36/photo/1

Note the caption: "Some Wikipedia editors' response to the Young/Qworty story show the deeper problems with the site..."

(In fact, it's worth doing a Twitter search on "Qworty".)

[NaymanNoland]

For those too lazy to click, the comment of TDA's that struck this guy as mind-boggling was: "He is notable as a writer. The coverage of the Wikipedia stuff is actually not that significant relatively speaking."

And yeah, it's mind-boggling. You never answered my question, TDA: what precisely conveys notability upon this guy as a writer? Two negative trade reviews? Anything else?

[HRIP7]

Overall, discussions on Jimbo's talk page have been surprisingly muted (excepting the flurry of activity from Wikid77, who seems to have a serious crush on Jimbo). Some stand-out comments:

While libel and responsibility are complex legal issues, I agree with the basic sentiment that Wikipedia and its editors exist in a curious limbo, where the project is seen as vitally important to society as a whole, and yet the typical checks and balances we require of central social institutions do not exist, or at least do not have the procedural clarity and strength we typically ask of them. This is a deeply important matter and we should all take it to heart and work to come up with more responsible ways of dealing with many kinds of problems that have come up recently. That we can read several people defending anything about the processes by which Qworty was allowed to keep operating on this site only digs the hole deeper. This is serious trouble for Wikipedia's reputation, by no means the first trouble we've encountered lately, and we cannot afford to have more incidents like it--reading some of the UK Parliament "Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions" proceedings, it is now conceivable that governments may start to get involved with this project at a regulatory or statutory level, and we should do whatever we can to put our own house in order to make that as unlikely as it would be unwelcome. Wichitalineman (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The claim of stalking has certainly been used as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. (Fae comes to mind.) But if WP is going to look after its own house rather than rely on people going to Wikipediocracy and/or the press, then this so-called stalking has to become accepted custom and practice here. As it is, not only do we have someone banned for linking a Wikipediocracy blog that names one of the Commons admins who Jimbo regularly clashes with here, but people are even suggesting that saying that Qworty=Young can still be seen as outing here. Indeed if Young had not decided to out himself here under pressure from Salon, multiple users in this thread would be subject to blocking for outing the squirt. For this site to live up to its obligations as the dominant English-language reference source, then we need a radical re-alignment so that our responsibilities towards our readers and the subjects of our articles are put at least on a par with those to our contributors, and active gaming of policy by contributors in order to avoid scrutiny should become a blockable offence.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We have policies and institutions to handle these sort of situations, insufficient and flawed though they may be. Jimmy Wales has enough on his plate not to be expected to run around as judge, jury, and executioner. Moreover, none of us should WANT a system in which one individual has such power. The failure to stop Qworty from malicious editing is a failure of all of us. And this failure was exacerbated by Wikipedia's unhealthy worship of editing secrecy and its failure to install mechanisms to halt the ability of one person to start and use multiple accounts. Along the latter line, one good idea I heard recently was that WMF should unilaterally begin including IP addresses in the signature of each post at WP. This would serve as a red flag on multiple accounts being used in close proximity to one another by a single editor. In the long run, Wikipedia needs real name registration and sign-in-to-edit mechanisms to further limit the use of multiple accounts and to make sure that content can be attributed to a real life individual — which would incidentally slice vandalism massively. Carrite (talk) (Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA) 06:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That is certainly one step in the right direction. However, I think a broader issue is that the rules have been created by editors for editors and they therefore receive more consideration than either the readers of our articles, who want balanced and accurate information, or the subjects of our articles, who do not want to be libeled or to be represented unfairly. Consideration for Qworty in his capacity as an editor has meant that our readers and the people he hates were ill-served. Of course, now he has been declared a non-person, he will himself be receiving the same loving care which his enemies did from him. Commons is particularly extreme in looking at ways to ban those who expose multiple copyright breaches by members of the in-crowd and in banning the whistleblowers, but the whole span of Wikimedia projects need a whistleblowers' charter that protects those who seek to protect stakeholders outwith the editor/admin core. --Peter cohen (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I do (want a system where one individual has such power). Essentially 100% of other successful organizations that produce reference works have such a person. They are called Editor-in-Chief. Having one here would not impinge on the community aspects of creating content and deciding most issues. Jimbo decided not to have one, so for better or worse we don't and won't. Instead he have a rather nebulous and very vexing and labor-intensive system. We have to make it work as best we can I guess. We need to accept that situations like this will likely arise, again and probably forever. It doesn't mean the Wikipedia as a whole doesn't work, though.
Requiring editors to use or link to their real identities would mean the immediate exit of me and many editors like me. I have standing in the community, vulnerabilities, dependents, and so on. I can't get into a real-life pissing match with someone who lives in his mom's basement and has nothing to lose. Phone calls to my employer and so forth are not part of any deal I want to be a part of. Requiring editor identification would basically allow the participation of two groups: the truly strong (who have resources to engage lawyers and PR men, tenure or independent means or other secure income or position, many friends, a secure public reputation, and whatnot) and the truly weak (who have little to lose, no reputation to tarnish, no assets to seize, no job of any importance to lose, and whatnot). Many many everyday people like me would go, and that at once. Whether that'd be worth I don't know. I don't think so. Herostratus (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

And the deafening silence of Jimbo Wales while he edits elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =556075298

Good thing he's got this covered.

[The Devil's Advocate]

So, Devil's Advocate, seems the world at large also finds your Qworty-love absolutely incomprehensible:

https://twitter.com/jeremyduns/status/3 ... 36/photo/1

Note the caption: "Some Wikipedia editors' response to the Young/Qworty story show the deeper problems with the site..."

(In fact, it's worth doing a Twitter search on "Qworty".)

Lol, Mr. Duns chose exactly the wrong comment to make his point. I am actually kind of outraged that he didn't use something from me that was more juicy.

P.S. I see Mr. Vega's "VegaWire Media" account retweeted it. Hi-fucking-larious.

[N4H]

This is my first post. And you know what I would like to say in my first post? Devil's Advocate: You are an awful, awful creature, almost as bad as Qworty. In fact, you are obviously extremely close to Qworty. You probably take instructions from Qworty in everything you say. You, and Qworty, and certain others (like Little Green Rosetta), are the biggest problem with Wikipedia's image. Do you not realize that? You are completely ruining Wikipedia.

Vigilant--that was a great response you made to Devil's Advocate.

[Vigilant]

This is my first post. And you know what I would like to say in my first post? Devil's Advocate: You are an awful, awful creature, almost as bad as Qworty. In fact, you are obviously extremely close to Qworty. You probably take instructions from Qworty in everything you say. You, and Qworty, and certain others (like Little Green Rosetta), are the biggest problem with Wikipedia's image. Do you not realize that? You are completely ruining Wikipedia.

Vigilant--that was a great response you made to Devil's Advocate.

A...FAN!
*swoon*

[Sweet Revenge]

And the deafening silence of Jimbo Wales while he edits elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =556075298

Good thing he's got this covered.

Nero comes to mind.

The old and wealthy freedmen who had helped him first to his adoption and later to the throne, and aided him by their advice, he killed by poison, administered partly in their food and partly in their drink.

That would be Larry Sanger.

Viewing the conflagration from the tower of Maecenas and exulting, as he said, in "the beauty of the flames," he sang the whole of the "Sack of Ilium," in his regular stage costume. Furthermore, to gain from this calamity too all the spoil and booty possible, while promising the removal of the debris and dead bodies free of cost he allowed no one to approach the ruins of his own property; and from the contributions which he not only received, but even demanded, he nearly bankrupted the provinces and exhausted the resources of individuals.

That would be now.