Qworty

[The Joy]

I'm just glad that Wikipedia's flaws have been fixed by identifying this one bitter, unknown novelist.

Short of "heavy reform" (a politically-correct way of saying "Tear it down and start all over."), Wikipedia can't be fixed as an actual encyclopedia. Our best hope is to get the public and media to understand Wikipedia and its problems. Public pressure will either force Wikipedia to change or send it to obsolescence. I'm thinking the latter. Once the media gets on Wikipedia like piranhas on a steak, our mission will near its end.

I don't think "Qworty" is gone from Wikipedia. I've dealt with a certain British narcissistic Wikipedian before who has never given up on Wikipedia even when his life went down the loo for his online escapades. These sorts of people never stop unless they are put in strait-jackets and thrown in Bedlam (and if Bedlam does have Internet access, you can bet they'll find a way to edit!).

[lightspeed]

Someone like Qworty has too much of an ego to leave and fade out. He won't even be satisfied by starting another obscure handle, editing and participate in Wikipedia as that has no fun and is too "low level". He's not interested in editing/writing. He loves the power play and manipulation that he gets from Wikipedia. It's all a game for someone who obviously has mental/emotional problems. Normal people don't behave like that.

I'm just glad that Wikipedia's flaws have been fixed by identifying this one bitter, unknown novelist.

Short of "heavy reform" (a politically-correct way of saying "Tear it down and start all over."), Wikipedia can't be fixed as an actual encyclopedia. Our best hope is to get the public and media to understand Wikipedia and its problems. Public pressure will either force Wikipedia to change or send it to obsolescence. I'm thinking the latter. Once the media gets on Wikipedia like piranhas on a steak, our mission will near its end.

I don't think "Qworty" is gone from Wikipedia. I've dealt with a certain British narcissistic Wikipedian before who has never given up on Wikipedia even when his life went down the loo for his online escapades. These sorts of people never stop unless they are put in strait-jackets and thrown in Bedlam (and if Bedlam does have Internet access, you can bet they'll find a way to edit!).

[The Devil's Advocate]

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.

I don't feel like a maroon. Certainly, I am sorely disappointed, albeit not too terribly surprised, that he hasn't been consistent about conflicts of interest when it comes to himself (see Orange Mike). However, his habit of blanking is clearly a standard response and seems little different from the typical deletionist mentality. Also, looking over all the comments from him noted here and what I saw on his talk page, it is pretty clear that the stuff he said about Filipacchi went well beyond the norm and I don't think he was that put off by her op-ed.

Given the nature of these types of public controversies and the already toxic environment of Wikipedia, I don't see any reason to doubt that he received death threats either. The conduct towards him by others was definitely harassment and that Nayman person is clearly continuing it even though he has "won" as it were. Him being such an intemperate personality in the first place probably explains why he went so far over the deep end with some of his remarks in response to said harassment.

[Peter Damian]

From the essay http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555358622 that Young (as Qworty) left on his user page:

But whether you consider a piece of writing to be a fiction or a lie or a hagiography or anything else, it is still only a text. It can’t actually hurt you, unless you decide, by living the affective fallacy, that your negative personal reaction is everybody else’s as well. And so I realized fairly quickly that Wikipedia, like a novel or chess, was a game, this one calling itself an encyclopedia, the way that the board game “Monopoly” might dare to call itself “the business world”—if anyone were foolish enough to believe that. Part of the game goes like this: Wikipedia is "not truth." Wikipedia is only that which is “verifiable.” Wikipedia is only that which is “reliably sourced.” See WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:V and WP:RS. All of this is just another way of saying that Wikipedia, like any other text, is not reality.

Arbitrator ‘Newyorkbrad’ (16:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555560938 says this presents “some interesting food for thought”.

Not really. Yes, a revenge text is nothing else than a text, but it's entirely false to say 'it can't actually hurt you'. What is Young trying to say here? He misrepresents the 'affective fallacy' which is a term that applies to poetry and fiction, not a reference work that is represented as true and carefully sourced.

And it is false to say that Wikipedia is not reality. Of course it is. It is one of the most visited and most widely respected websites on the planet. Of course it is real. Why is a member of the Arbitration Committee apparently defending this nonsense? Why hasn't this egregious and well-evidenced abuse of BLP not been severely punished? Why is the Committee apparently accepting these bizarre claims that revenge editing is 'only a text', that is 'can't actually hurt you' and that is 'not reality'. That appears to be Young's excuse for the vicious and anonymous attacks he has perpetrated for many years.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Why is a member of the Arbitration Committee apparently defending this nonsense? Why hasn't this egregious and well-evidenced abuse of BLP not been severely punished? Why is the Committee apparently accepting these bizarre claims that revenge editing is 'only a text', that is 'can't actually hurt you' and that is 'not reality'.

Well, Brad in his real life and his Wikipedia life is mostly bogged down in the grey, gritty realism of legal monotony. He probably likes being able to indulge in a little existential musing now and then. Makes his time on this Earth seem a tad more interesting for a while.

[Midsize Jake]

Given the nature of these types of public controversies and the already toxic environment of Wikipedia, I don't see any reason to doubt that he received death threats either.

Toxic schmoxic. You're being absurd - the chances that Mr. Qworty received an actual "death threat" at that point, or even any threatening communication at all, are probably in the range of 0.000001 percent to 0.000002 percent.

You're talking about material like this and this - ferchrissakes, man, the guy is pretending to be a woman (unconvincingly, I might add) to bait this person, to mess with his head, and generally try to goad him into a civility violation to get him banned so that he can continue to have his fun with the Filipacchi-related articles. Virtually anything he said during those exchanges has to be seen as extremely, extraordinarily, suspect - especially something as implausible as a "death threat."

Mind you, many of the claims he was making (regarding the sourcing, the guideline-violations, and the fact that only one person was actually messing with the categories) were factually accurate, and by claiming "harassment" and "death threats" (to distract from his activities so that he could more easily get away with them) he was just taking his cues from the standard Wikipedia playbook. But that doesn't make it "okay," I'm afraid.

[Midsize Jake]

Yes, a revenge text is nothing else than a text, but it's entirely false to say 'it can't actually hurt you'. What is Young trying to say here?

There's a Wikipedia article that attempts to explain it, but it's not one of their better efforts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimisati ... chology%29

Perhaps the reason it's such a poorly-built article is because most of the Wikipedians who encounter it, and who might otherwise "improve" it, decide they want no part as soon as they realize there's an actual psychological concept that purports to explain their own self-rationalization for participating there.

He misrepresents the 'affective fallacy' which is a term that applies to poetry and fiction, not a reference work that is represented as true and carefully sourced.

Good catch! I suspect he's trying to suggest that if someone insults you in a Wikipedia article, you should only feel insulted if you believe that anyone else who reads the article will believe the insult is true, but of course "it's just a Wikipedia article" so nobody should really believe it, therefore no harm done! It's all good!

Logic is often not a strong-suit with folks like this, I'm sorry to say.

[The Joy]

What's your game, Little green rosetta (T-C-L)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555618788

Edit:

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

Oh, Qworty and LGR were tag-team partners. Now what will happen?

[Peter Damian]

Why is a member of the Arbitration Committee apparently defending this nonsense? Why hasn't this egregious and well-evidenced abuse of BLP not been severely punished? Why is the Committee apparently accepting these bizarre claims that revenge editing is 'only a text', that is 'can't actually hurt you' and that is 'not reality'.

Well, Brad in his real life and his Wikipedia life is mostly bogged down in the grey, gritty realism of legal monotony. He probably likes being able to indulge in a little existential musing now and then. Makes his time on this Earth seem a tad more interesting for a while.

Well I'm sure he does like a little bit of musing, about how Wikipedia can't really hurt people, because it's only a text and therefore not reality or some other such nonsense. Why is a partner at a New York law firm lending respectability to such a disgusting project? It's people like Brad who are the real evil. They make all these gestures towards improving things, and saying how double standards are really not that bad (see the other thread on Worm-is-turned). But they are just enablers of evil, by pretending that a corrupt and vicious regime can somehow be improved from the inside.

[lilburne]

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.

Hmmm I recall Coffeepusher from my first foray into WP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ntologists

who along with some fuckwit postdlf (T-C-L) seemed to think that any d-list celeb conned by Hubbardistas should be tagged and bagged.

[Peter Damian]

The abuse doled out here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... _Qworty.3F is interesting. ? Qworty seems to have been accepted as one of the body, so anyone who finds that a problem is now the target of attacks. It reminds me of what Larry said long ago.

Far too much credence and respect accorded to people who in other Internet contexts would be labelled "trolls." There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. This drama has played out thousands of times over the years on unmoderated Internet groups, and since about the fall of 2001 on the unmoderated Wikipedia.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25

[Peter Damian]

As though this might have any effect.

I do think it's crucial to note that this is not just another ordinary day on the internet, however. I'm sure spats and COIs and stuff are legion here, but this is an entirely different matter: it's huge. And it's very strange to me how few people have even noticed what's involved here: literally YEARS of vandalism and libel, aimed at some of America's most important literary figures. Barry Hannah, for instance, is not a minor writer, and - because of Qworty's revenge plot - the most-read factual source on earth falsely attributes Hannah's death to alcoholism. This isn't an everyday Wikipedia hiccup; it's an international disgrace. And the repercussions are not going to be minor. Perhaps this is good: if anything can finally reform this poisonous culture of anonymity, it will be the Qworty scandal. BLP should be protected from stalkers like Young. NaymanNoland (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ect_Qworty

[edit] Another thread from people who actually do seem to understand.

Qworty pretended to be a woman, he made up death threats that he never received, he engaged in revenge editing on his enemies and added false claims to their bios, he edited his own biographical article, even with sock puppets, and he's...still not blocked?? What the hell?? Are our admins all invertebrates? What the hell is going on here? Crazed, BLP-violating nutcases are running wild, sock puppets are on the lose, fake claims and fake references are everywhere, and not a single admin can put their hot pocket down for a moment, roll out of their chair, turn off their video game, and deal with the problem? Then exactly why do we have admins? I'm asking a serious question. If admins aren't going to deal with our most pressing problems, then why do we have them? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ser:Qworty

[Notvelty]

As though this might have any effect.

I do think it's crucial to note that this is not just another ordinary day on the internet, however. I'm sure spats and COIs and stuff are legion here, but this is an entirely different matter: it's huge. And it's very strange to me how few people have even noticed what's involved here: literally YEARS of vandalism and libel, aimed at some of America's most important literary figures. Barry Hannah, for instance, is not a minor writer, and - because of Qworty's revenge plot - the most-read factual source on earth falsely attributes Hannah's death to alcoholism. This isn't an everyday Wikipedia hiccup; it's an international disgrace. And the repercussions are not going to be minor. Perhaps this is good: if anything can finally reform this poisonous culture of anonymity, it will be the Qworty scandal. BLP should be protected from stalkers like Young. NaymanNoland (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ect_Qworty

[edit] Another thread from people who actually do seem to understand.

Qworty pretended to be a woman, he made up death threats that he never received, he engaged in revenge editing on his enemies and added false claims to their bios, he edited his own biographical article, even with sock puppets, and he's...still not blocked?? What the hell?? Are our admins all invertebrates? What the hell is going on here? Crazed, BLP-violating nutcases are running wild, sock puppets are on the lose, fake claims and fake references are everywhere, and not a single admin can put their hot pocket down for a moment, roll out of their chair, turn off their video game, and deal with the problem? Then exactly why do we have admins? I'm asking a serious question. If admins aren't going to deal with our most pressing problems, then why do we have them? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ser:Qworty

Quite. And the same question could be asked about why TDA is still here. If we're going to entertain children pretending to sophistry.. what's that point?

Notvelty.

[Daniel Brandt]

Why is a partner at a New York law firm lending respectability to such a disgusting project? It's people like Brad who are the real evil. They make all these gestures towards improving things, and saying how double standards are really not that bad (see the other thread on Worm-is-turned). But they are just enablers of evil, by pretending that a corrupt and vicious regime can somehow be improved from the inside.

This is exactly right.

I played the major role in outing Brad in 2008, and in response he semi-retired from Wikipedia for a couple of months. But then I relented a bit, and he came back. My mistake for relenting; I apologize to everyone.

Wikipedia has not changed at all since 2005-2007, when I was most active on this issue. Yesterday I restored my old hivemind page for the record, which has not been online for the last 15 months.

[eppur si muove]

Why is a partner at a New York law firm lending respectability to such a disgusting project? It's people like Brad who are the real evil. They make all these gestures towards improving things, and saying how double standards are really not that bad (see the other thread on Worm-is-turned). But they are just enablers of evil, by pretending that a corrupt and vicious regime can somehow be improved from the inside.

This is exactly right.

I played the major role in outing Brad in 2008, and in response he semi-retired from Wikipedia for a couple of months. But then I relented a bit, and he came back. My mistake for relenting; I apologize to everyone.

Wikipedia has not changed at all since 2005-2007, when I was most active on this issue. Yesterday I restored my old hivemind page for the record, which has not been online for the last 15 months.

Are even a quarter of those people still active?

[Peter Damian]

Why is a partner at a New York law firm lending respectability to such a disgusting project? It's people like Brad who are the real evil. They make all these gestures towards improving things, and saying how double standards are really not that bad (see the other thread on Worm-is-turned). But they are just enablers of evil, by pretending that a corrupt and vicious regime can somehow be improved from the inside.

This is exactly right.

I played the major role in outing Brad in 2008, and in response he semi-retired from Wikipedia for a couple of months. But then I relented a bit, and he came back. My mistake for relenting; I apologize to everyone.

Wikipedia has not changed at all since 2005-2007, when I was most active on this issue. Yesterday I restored my old hivemind page for the record, which has not been online for the last 15 months.

The IRC chat at the end of that page is very good value, if 'good' is really the word.

[thekohser]

The story is spreading.

"Revenge is best served on Wikipedia", Policy Mic, Kyle Zhu.

Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales has himself stated that the accuracy of the Wikipedia pages is the greatest challenge but only offered sending "a fricking email" as a solution. Until Wikipedia changes its operating practices, it will continue to be seen as an inaccurate and unreliable source of information subject to the whims of any editor.

[Peter Damian]

The story is spreading.

"Revenge is best served on Wikipedia", Policy Mic, Kyle Zhu.

Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales has himself stated that the accuracy of the Wikipedia pages is the greatest challenge but only offered sending "a fricking email" as a solution. Until Wikipedia changes its operating practices, it will continue to be seen as an inaccurate and unreliable source of information subject to the whims of any editor.

Impossible. The UK Charity Commission has accepted http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/u ... ission.pdf that such [malicious] material cannot now be added to the biography of a living person without either very reliable sourcing or being rapidly removed.

[Randy from Boise]

Short of "heavy reform" (a politically-correct way of saying "Tear it down and start all over."), Wikipedia can't be fixed as an actual encyclopedia. Our best hope is to get the public and media to understand Wikipedia and its problems. Public pressure will either force Wikipedia to change or send it to obsolescence. I'm thinking the latter. Once the media gets on Wikipedia like piranhas on a steak, our mission will near its end.

The old "reform vs. revolution" question again...

a. Wikipedia already is "an actual encyclopedia," for millions of people every day. It's also some reasonable facsimile of a compendium of sports statistics, a movie guidebook, and a biographical dictionary. It is not going away because it is massive, reasonably comprehensive, highly useful, and free.

b. Public pressure will not send WP into obsolescence, but it is certainly of use in slowly shaping the culture of the place.

c. The media will never go piranha on WP because journalists above all others make use of its information daily. They DO have a strong caste interest in making sure that information is actually coherent, true, and easily verifiable — which makes them a reliable ally when abusive incidents like the Qworty affair arise. But they aren't about to destroy one of their most useful tools of the trade.

RfB

[mac]

Obligatory AN/I thread.

[Vigilant]

What's your game, Little green rosetta (T-C-L)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555618788

Edit:

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

Oh, Qworty and LGR were tag-team partners. Now what will happen?

LGR needs a thread of her own.
There's no way they should ever be involved in BLP again.

She's continuing the crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555661474
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555663156
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555617346

etc, etc

She needs to go to ANI and be, at the very least, IB'd from BLP

[Peter Damian]

a. Wikipedia already is "an actual encyclopedia," for millions of people every day.
RfB

This is a classic example of stating the problem rather than solving it.

[Peter Damian]

What's your game, Little green rosetta (T-C-L)?

Probably does deserve a separate thread.

Hi Little green rosetta. I'm just curious, have you had a Wikipedia account before? I'm pretty impressed with the projects and editing that you've been doing as a new editor. Did you used to be an IP editor? If so, welcome to Wikipedia as an official first time editor! SarahStierch (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I've had accounts here before, but I ended up losing interest after a few weeks, so I mostly edited via ip. This is the first time I've created a new account in a few years and the new tools that are available during creation caught my notice, so I've been enjoying them. I also noticed the tea house and only looked at it today. What prompted my question is some biting sarcasm on talk pages, with even more biting edit summaries. Sarcastic edit summaries have always annoyed me. I was (and still am) interested on seeing how the newbies are taught to deal with this dark underbelly of Wikipedia. Little green rosetta (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =507530741

[Peter Damian]

Have we looked at JohnDopp (T-C-L) yet?

I bring to the noticeboard a complaint about the conduct of JohnDopp (and also that of his alter ego, “Qworty”) and ask that he be refused further access to the Wikipedia entry for Canadian novelist Douglas Anthony Cooper.
JohnDopp has repeatedly vandalized and tagged this entry; and certainly not because he can’t stand writers being compared to Milan Kundera or Italo Calvino.
[…]
Even when Cooper’s entry was overwhelmingly deemed a "Keep", JohnDopp still laced the talk pages with as many negative things as he could about Mr. Cooper, a last ditch attempt to smear. He did this in tandem with editor “Qworty,” whose writes with a remarkable similarity of syntax to JohnDopp. (When confronted with this fact “Qworty” suddenly went silent.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ony_Cooper

I am not Qworty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), nor do I have any association or contact with Qworty outside of Wikipedia.

Must be Qworty then.

[edit] AFAICS it seems to be a war between Moricolilatham (T-C-L), who is probably a sock of writer Douglas Anthony Cooper creating a Wikipedia vanity page for himself and his books, and JohnDopp, who is probably a sock of Robert Clark Young, who wants to keep all vanity articles off Wikipedia except his own.

So how can we trust anything at all on Wikipedia?

[Midsize Jake]

This is a classic example of stating the problem rather than solving it.

True, but more to the point, it's a misdirection. Mr. Joy wrote that Wikipedia "can't be fixed as an actual encyclopedia," and the response from Mr. Randy was "oh, but it is an actual encyclopedia," without addressing the point that it can't be fixed as such.

The intended implication is that Wikipedia perhaps can be fixed as, say, a trivia compendium or an all-encompassing catalog of some sort, but because it puts on airs and claims to have inherent educational and cultural value in itself, it sets itself up for failure - at least in a qualitative sense - because by design, it can never really achieve that.

Sorry to pontificate, but I guess that's just what I do these days.

[HRIP7]

Have we looked at JohnDopp (T-C-L) yet?

I bring to the noticeboard a complaint about the conduct of JohnDopp (and also that of his alter ego, “Qworty”) and ask that he be refused further access to the Wikipedia entry for Canadian novelist Douglas Anthony Cooper.
JohnDopp has repeatedly vandalized and tagged this entry; and certainly not because he can’t stand writers being compared to Milan Kundera or Italo Calvino.
[…]
Even when Cooper’s entry was overwhelmingly deemed a "Keep", JohnDopp still laced the talk pages with as many negative things as he could about Mr. Cooper, a last ditch attempt to smear. He did this in tandem with editor “Qworty,” whose writes with a remarkable similarity of syntax to JohnDopp. (When confronted with this fact “Qworty” suddenly went silent.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ony_Cooper

I am not Qworty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), nor do I have any association or contact with Qworty outside of Wikipedia.

Must be Qworty then.

There was also the Geri Litton checkuser investigation, in which Qworty was found by Jpgordon (T-C-L) to be socking. Yet nothing happened to Qworty (at least nothing that is visible today).

It looks like Wikipedia's admins could have stopped this six years ago, but didn't.

[Peter Damian]

Mr. Joy wrote that Wikipedia "can't be fixed as an actual encyclopedia," and the response from Mr. Randy was "oh, but it is an actual encyclopedia," without addressing the point that it can't be fixed as such.

Actually Randy said "Wikipedia is "an actual encyclopedia," for millions of people every day". The scare quotes suggest that he doesn't himself believe that it is an actual encyclopedia, correct, and his point is that while it isn't, unfortunately many people do believe that. That is to state the problem. How do we resolve it? Getting articles into the mainstream press is a good start.

[Vigilant]

There was also the Geri Litton checkuser investigation, in which Qworty was found by Jpgordon (T-C-L) to be socking. Yet nothing happened to Qworty (at least nothing that is visible today).

It looks like Wikipedia's admins could have stopped this six years ago, but didn't.

Un-fucking-believable.

Is anyone else struck by the utter lack of action on the part of wikipedia admins/arbcom/bcrats over this affair?

LGR is free to keep on keeping on, Qworty is unblocked, no SPIs...

Are they afraid to do what needs to be done, what's right, because it came from wikipediocracy?

[tarantino]

What's your game, Little green rosetta (T-C-L)?

Probably does deserve a separate thread.

Hi Little green rosetta. I'm just curious, have you had a Wikipedia account before? I'm pretty impressed with the projects and editing that you've been doing as a new editor. Did you used to be an IP editor? If so, welcome to Wikipedia as an official first time editor! SarahStierch (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I've had accounts here before, but I ended up losing interest after a few weeks, so I mostly edited via ip. This is the first time I've created a new account in a few years and the new tools that are available during creation caught my notice, so I've been enjoying them. I also noticed the tea house and only looked at it today. What prompted my question is some biting sarcasm on talk pages, with even more biting edit summaries. Sarcastic edit summaries have always annoyed me. I was (and still am) interested on seeing how the newbies are taught to deal with this dark underbelly of Wikipedia. Little green rosetta (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =507530741

Little green rosetta (the epilogue song of the rock opera Joe's Garage) is almost certainly a guy, and a Frank Zappa fan. His alternate account is A cosmic utensil (T-C-L).

That name is from the lyrics of another Zappa song, Packard Goose.

If you're in the audience and like what we do
(da da-da da-da)
Well, we want you to know that we like you all too
But as for the sucker who will write the review
If his mind is prehensile
(Mind is prehensile)
He'll put down his pencil
(Put down his pencil)
And have himself a squat
On the Cosmic Utensil
(Cosmic Utensil)
Oh, give it all you got
On the Cosmic Utensil
(Cosmic Utensil)
Sit 'n spin until you rot
On the Cosmic Utensil
(Cosmic Utensil)
He really needs to squat
On the Cosmic Utensil

[Midsize Jake]

Must be Qworty then.

[edit] AFAICS it seems to be a war between Moricolilatham (T-C-L), who is probably a sock of writer Douglas Anthony Cooper creating a Wikipedia vanity page for himself and his books, and JohnDopp, who is probably a sock of Robert Clark Young, who wants to keep all vanity articles off Wikipedia except his own.

No, I don't think so. JohnDopp (T-C-L) is clearly focused on one issue (animal rights/cruelty) and there's practically no overlap. Cooper is just another barely-"notable" BLP victim, who justifiably preferred to have his article deleted rather than constantly attacked by people trying to put negative information in it to suit their various personal and professional agendas.

More importantly, if we're going to look at everybody on WP who behaves like this and say, "that must be Qworty," we're playing into their hands, minimizing the problem, and thus doing everyone a disservice. There are a whole bunch of Qwortys on Wikipedia (though maybe not quite as nasty in terms of behavior). They're not going away without a HUGE fight. That's why you're not likely to see Qworty punished or sanctioned, at least not in the absence of further press coverage... so many of them are over there doing it, they'd have a civil war on their hands.

[Peter Damian]

That's why you're not likely to see Qworty punished or sanctioned

Cough. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555665768

Young's article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clark_Young now reads, in its entirety

Robert Clark Young is an American author who has been accused by Salon.com reporter Andrew Leonard of pseudonymously editing Wikipedia entries on persons he was in conflict with in a biased and negative way.

He is also in a stupid category called 'Wikipedia personalities'.

[DanMurphy]

That's why you're not likely to see Qworty punished or sanctioned

Cough. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555665768

Oh, it's all just too delicious.

[Peter Damian]

And it turns out that it was the community that unmasked him.

As the result of scrutiny by Wikipedia editors following his participation in the Filipacchi fiasco, the editor's real-life identity has been revealed in the media and acknowledged on-wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ser:Qworty

Gasp. It couldn't have been anything to do with this forum, as we are a well-known nest of trolls.

[mac]

He is also in a stupid category called 'Wikipedia personalities'.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

[lilburne]

And it turns out that it was the community that unmasked him.

As the result of scrutiny by Wikipedia editors following his participation in the Filipacchi fiasco, the editor's real-life identity has been revealed in the media and acknowledged on-wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ser:Qworty

Gasp. It couldn't have been anything to do with this forum, as we are a well-known nest of trolls.

I've asked for clarification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555679420

[DanMurphy]

The entirety of the Young article is now just a sentence (and an incorrect sentence at that).

Robert Clark Young is an American author who has been accused by Salon.com reporter Andrew Leonard of pseudonymously editing Wikipedia entries on persons he was in conflict with in a biased and negative way

Well, they'll enjoy dragging the virtual corpse of Qworty through the streets for a few days at least. Anyone want to start a pool on when the "banninated!" tag goes on his user page?

[greybeard]

What is it about Wikipedia sockpuppet masters and photos involving sandwiches?

[lilburne]

That's why you're not likely to see Qworty punished or sanctioned

Cough. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555665768

Oh, it's all just too delicious.

Oh ironholds aka Oliver "in around 1345 under Richard II" Keys is so decisive.

[Midsize Jake]

Cough. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555665768

Okay, I see that, and if I'm wrong, I'll admit that I'm wrong. But it's still early in the process, and a lot of hard-liners probably aren't even aware of this situation yet. We all know that blocks can be overturned, sometimes weeks or months after the fact.

It doesn't invalidate the larger, more important point. Incidents like this prove once again, for the umpteenth time, that they still haven't secured their own borders. People have been doing this stuff for years now, and they'll keep doing it - look at how far one of them had to go before he even got noticed, much less stopped. (In fact, at one point he was noticed, and the admins did nothing!) Worse still, they've had the solutions in front of them for 7 years - opt-out for people of "marginal notability," default-to-delete consensus interpretations in BLP AfD's, and even the "dead tree rule" - all of these would have helped people like Douglas Anthony Cooper and Brad Vice when they needed help most. But noooo, they won't have any of it, because... uh... "WP:NOTCENSORED!" They delete articles all the time, calling them "vanity cruft" or "spam" or whatever, and nobody calls it "censorship." But if you ask them to delete something, it's "OMG fascists!" "Information must be free!"

And then they wonder why so may people outside of their insulated Kommuniti despise them so much. It would be funny if it weren't so hilarious.

[greybeard]

That's why you're not likely to see Qworty punished or sanctioned

Cough. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555665768

Oh, it's all just too delicious.

But Ironholds failed to list the real reason for the ban ... "bringing discredit upon Wikipedia and its denizens" ... the ultimate bannable offense. The ranks of the Wikipedia nomenklatura are chock-full of serial liars, current and former puppet-masters, POV-pushers, revenge editors, BLP manipulators, and other characters. The only shame in it is being caught in such a way as to expose Wikipedia to (justified) ridicule.

[DanMurphy]

That's why you're not likely to see Qworty punished or sanctioned

Cough. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555665768

Oh, it's all just too delicious.

But Ironholds failed to list the real reason for the ban ... "bringing discredit upon Wikipedia and its denizens" ... the ultimate bannable offense. The ranks of the Wikipedia nomenklatura are chock-full of serial liars, current and former puppet-masters, POV-pushers, revenge editors, BLP manipulators, and other characters. The only shame in it is being caught in such a way as to expose Wikipedia to (justified) ridicule.

This is the key point. Young's awful behavior was known for a long time. His lies about death threats from Filipacchi's minions (or whatever the precise language he used was) were transparent and defamatory. Nothing he did was sufficient to get rid of him until it was written about outside of Wikipedia.

[Poetlister]

I'm just glad that Wikipedia's flaws have been fixed by identifying this one bitter, unknown novelist.

How is he unknown?

[thekohser]

I'm just glad that Wikipedia's flaws have been fixed by identifying this one bitter, unknown novelist.

How is he unknown?

Because prior to yesterday, less than 0.001% of the planet's population had ever heard of the guy or were familiar with any of his work. Today, we're probably up to 0.004%.

[Randy from Boise]

I'm just glad that Wikipedia's flaws have been fixed by identifying this one bitter, unknown novelist.

How is he unknown?

Because prior to yesterday, less than 0.001% of the planet's population had ever heard of the guy or were familiar with any of his work. Today, we're probably up to 0.004%.

He was actually the subject of a minor media firestorm in 2000/01 over NEA funding. So it might be 0.00175% and 0.00475%, respectively.

RfB



ADDENDA: I don't know that I've ever passed along one of my really great "tells" about human nature here... Beware of men who obviously use hair dye, they are always pretending to be something they're not. Applies especially to politicians.

[The Devil's Advocate]

As though this might have any effect.

I do think it's crucial to note that this is not just another ordinary day on the internet, however. I'm sure spats and COIs and stuff are legion here, but this is an entirely different matter: it's huge. And it's very strange to me how few people have even noticed what's involved here: literally YEARS of vandalism and libel, aimed at some of America's most important literary figures. Barry Hannah, for instance, is not a minor writer, and - because of Qworty's revenge plot - the most-read factual source on earth falsely attributes Hannah's death to alcoholism. This isn't an everyday Wikipedia hiccup; it's an international disgrace. And the repercussions are not going to be minor. Perhaps this is good: if anything can finally reform this poisonous culture of anonymity, it will be the Qworty scandal. BLP should be protected from stalkers like Young. NaymanNoland (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ect_Qworty

[edit] Another thread from people who actually do seem to understand.

Qworty pretended to be a woman, he made up death threats that he never received, he engaged in revenge editing on his enemies and added false claims to their bios, he edited his own biographical article, even with sock puppets, and he's...still not blocked?? What the hell?? Are our admins all invertebrates? What the hell is going on here? Crazed, BLP-violating nutcases are running wild, sock puppets are on the lose, fake claims and fake references are everywhere, and not a single admin can put their hot pocket down for a moment, roll out of their chair, turn off their video game, and deal with the problem? Then exactly why do we have admins? I'm asking a serious question. If admins aren't going to deal with our most pressing problems, then why do we have them? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ser:Qworty

Lol, everything Viriditas says when criticizing Wikipedia is best prefaced with "Unless they agree with my political views" because that would be a more accurate representation. He was on the same side as Qworty in vociferously objecting to eliminating the attack BLP on Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (T-H-L).

[Zoloft]

As though this might have any effect.

I do think it's crucial to note that this is not just another ordinary day on the internet, however. I'm sure spats and COIs and stuff are legion here, but this is an entirely different matter: it's huge. And it's very strange to me how few people have even noticed what's involved here: literally YEARS of vandalism and libel, aimed at some of America's most important literary figures. Barry Hannah, for instance, is not a minor writer, and - because of Qworty's revenge plot - the most-read factual source on earth falsely attributes Hannah's death to alcoholism. This isn't an everyday Wikipedia hiccup; it's an international disgrace. And the repercussions are not going to be minor. Perhaps this is good: if anything can finally reform this poisonous culture of anonymity, it will be the Qworty scandal. BLP should be protected from stalkers like Young. NaymanNoland (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ect_Qworty

[edit] Another thread from people who actually do seem to understand.

Qworty pretended to be a woman, he made up death threats that he never received, he engaged in revenge editing on his enemies and added false claims to their bios, he edited his own biographical article, even with sock puppets, and he's...still not blocked?? What the hell?? Are our admins all invertebrates? What the hell is going on here? Crazed, BLP-violating nutcases are running wild, sock puppets are on the lose, fake claims and fake references are everywhere, and not a single admin can put their hot pocket down for a moment, roll out of their chair, turn off their video game, and deal with the problem? Then exactly why do we have admins? I'm asking a serious question. If admins aren't going to deal with our most pressing problems, then why do we have them? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ser:Qworty

Lol, everything Viriditas says when criticizing Wikipedia is best prefaced with "Unless they agree with my political views" because that would be a more accurate representation. He was on the same side as Qworty in vociferously objecting to eliminating the attack BLP on Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (T-H-L).

Oppose block and site-ban This is purely a punitive measure as Brad already left a comment saying Qworty would be on an indefinite BLP restriction if he continues editing, and Qworty has indicated that he would not.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 11:28 am, Today (UTC−7)

This seems a bit indefensible.

[Midsize Jake]

Lol, everything Viriditas says when criticizing Wikipedia is best prefaced with "Unless they agree with my political views" because that would be a more accurate representation. He was on the same side as Qworty in vociferously objecting to eliminating the attack BLP on Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (T-H-L).

So was everybody else, and all of them were right, too. Nakoula is one of those rare cases where an "attack BLP" is actually warranted, given that having an article about him is in the public interest, and you couldn't write such an article without it looking like an attack. It doesn't invalidate what Mr. Viriditas just wrote, even if he did want that article kept for "political" reasons.

[NaymanNoland]

Hi all. Nice to be here. I really appreciate what you've been doing to bring this disgusting situation to light: I understand that the hardcore sleuthwork was done by a handful of editors here?

And I also appreciate that you've bent over backwards to preserve my privacy. I feel like an asshole using proxies and throwaway email accounts, especially because I virulently oppose Wikipedia's anonymity policy. But this is one of the ugly things about that policy: it forces lots of editors to be hypocrites, or at least sneaks. (Here I'm being both, and arguably a coward as well.) What's at stake here is kind of important, however: I can't afford to invite a vengeful sociopath into my living room. I use that word literally - I genuinely believe that we're dealing with a sociopath: most stalkers this relentless suffer to some degree from Antisocial Personality Disorder. And the sheer lengths that Young has gone to avenge himself upon Barry Hannah is just scary.

Anyway, thanks. Let's hope that this fiasco has positive repercussions.

[Midsize Jake]

Hi all. Nice to be here. I really appreciate what you've been doing to bring this disgusting situation to light: I understand that the hardcore sleuthwork was done by a handful of editors here?

Not all of us/them are "editors"... still, welcome to Wikipediocracy!

What's at stake here is kind of important, however: I can't afford to invite a vengeful sociopath into my living room. I use that word literally - I genuinely believe that we're dealing with a sociopath...

Oh, come on. I invite a vengeful sociopath into my living room every day - I call her "Fluffy," and woe is me if I don't get her the right brand of tunafish.

[NaymanNoland]

When felines get access to Wikipedia, we're all toast. (You think Qworty's a talented stalker...)