Qworty

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat May 18, 2013 9:45 pm

Thanks. None of the consequences have been that unpleasant. The occasional conversation with someone truly unlikable is just a fact of the internet. I'm really glad that someone appreciates what I've been trying (not very gracefully) to do. One thing that WOULD be unpleasant, however, would be if Qworty were to find out the name or home address of anyone connected with this disgrace. We're dealing with a pathologically vengeful character - in fact, probably a sociopath. So I hope the editors here will have the decency to protect the privacy of everyone involved. The writer for Salon was unbelievably courageous to write that under his real name: I will be amazed if there aren't consequences. NaymanNoland (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nayman, while I appreciate your intentions here and the stress this situation has put you under, your commentary here has started to cross a line. I blocked qworty for his actions; be aware that, should you continue wandering around heaping abuse on him, I will block you, too. Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how the first comment 'crossed the line'?

NaymanNoland · Unread post by **NaymanNoland** » Sat May 18, 2013 9:49 pm

I think you're not suppose to call a sociopath a sociopath? That's over the line?

I've been using Wikipediocracy as a sort of users guide to Wikipedia. There's really NO way to figure out that place from the inside - every editor should be required to come here for basic combat training.

It's just weird to me that only a handful of people over there understand the scope of the Qworty fiasco. You people seem to recognize almost unanimously that this is not just a bump in the road. It's not even restricted to the US: the scandal has crossed the Atlantic, and it's going to get bigger and uglier very soon. All of which bodes well, if it forces Wikipedia to finally ditch this hideous anonymity garbage.

It really is pretty stupid: "We're trying to run an open democracy, so let's welcome every thief and assassin in the country."

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat May 18, 2013 9:55 pm

NaymanNoland wrote:I think you're not suppose to call a sociopath a sociopath? That's over the line?

I've been using Wikipediocracy as a sort of users guide to Wikipedia. There's really NO way to figure out that place from the inside - every editor should be required to come here for basic combat training.

It's just weird to me that only a handful of people over there understand the scope of the Qworty fiasco. You people seem to recognize almost unanimously that this is not just a bump in the road. It's not even restricted to the US: the scandal has crossed the Atlantic, and it's going to get bigger and uglier very soon. All of which bodes well, if it forces Wikipedia to finally ditch this hideous anonymity garbage.

It really is pretty stupid: "We're trying to run an open democracy, so let's welcome every thief and assassin in the country."

I made that point because we have many new viewers here, attracted by the Salon may not be aware of something we know very well, namely that conflict of interest on Wikipedia is always trumped by 'harassment'. That is, if you accuse someone of a conflict of interest on Wikipedia (or of stalking, or whatever) the stalking, or the conflict of harassment is ignored, and it is you who is guilty of 'harassment'.

That is what compounds the anonymity problem. Anonymity is bad enough, but lack of accountability, i.e. the principle that you cannot even challenge someone about the anonymity, compounds it about threefold.

'Ironholds' is an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, by the way.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:01 pm

Peter Damian wrote:Can anyone tell me how the first comment 'crossed the line'?

I'm not suggesting there's any internal logic to this, but I'd say the problem was less with the terms "sociopath" and "pathologically vengeful," and more with the implication that Mr. Young is likely to resort to physical violence as means of retaliation. The physical violence would be a criminal act (whereas merely being a sociopath is not), so suggesting that he would do that might be grounds for a libel case.

In theory, Mr. Young could still attempt to sue Salon.com, Wikipediocracy, and Wikipedia itself for defamation, claiming that the mere fact that User:Qworty "admits" to being Young is not equivalent to Young admitting to being User:Qworty. I don't think his case would hold up in court for reasons described in the Salon article, but he could still try, assuming he has enough money.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:05 pm

Actually this comment here, and the ensuing strange discussion, amply explains why people like Brad (who I believe have their heart in the right place) find difficulty in achieving any reform in Wikipedia.

Hi Brad. I saw the message you left retricting Qworty from BLP edits, but unfortunately you didn't make clear what authority you were acting under. Were you acting as (1) an individual admin taking an action you personally see as necessary, (2) an individual admin expressing the consensus of the community, (3) an individual arb taking an action you see as necessary, (4) an arb expressing the consensus of ArbCom, (5) ??? To clarify, I agree that the action was necessary, but I am troubled that you didn't explain why you have the power to do it, especially considering how careful you are most of the time. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... _Qworty.3F

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:14 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:
NaymanNoland wrote:Btw, when you say that not all of them are "editors" - I guess I don't really know what that term means here. I assume that everyone on this forum is at the very least an editor on Wikipedia? Or a former editor, run out of town on a rail?
Midsize Jake insists he's never edited Wikipedia.

Trust, but verify.

The WPO message board is populated by a mix of active Wikipedians seeking supervision or reform of that multimillion dollar entity, former Wikipedians who left under their own power after becoming disgusted about this or that, and banned or blocked Wikipedians (some of whom continue to participate around their ban or block).

It is silently read by Wikipedians of all stripes. Especially, it would seem, by those who tend to behave almost pathologically on Wikipedia against the very message board which they obsessively read.

Everybody needs a hobby.

RfB

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:16 pm

Untitled20.jpg

NYB says we've all be very bad, and horrid to him and WP, and we won't be forgiven. Or something like that. But no matter ArbCom is investigating Qworty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555701934

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:17 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
Thanks. None of the consequences have been that unpleasant. The occasional conversation with someone truly unlikable is just a fact of the internet. I'm really glad that someone appreciates what I've been trying (not very gracefully) to do. One thing that WOULD be unpleasant, however, would be if Qworty were to find out the name or home address of anyone connected with this disgrace. We're dealing with a pathologically vengeful character - in fact, probably a sociopath. So I hope the editors here will have the decency to protect the privacy of everyone involved. The writer for Salon was unbelievably courageous to write that under his real name: I will be amazed if there aren't consequences. NaymanNoland (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nayman, while I appreciate your intentions here and the stress this situation has put you under, your commentary here has started to cross a line. I blocked qworty for his actions; be aware that, should you continue wandering around heaping abuse on him, I will block you, too. Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me how the first comment 'crossed the line'?

Well, I believe I'm currently banned from all articles about Israel and Palestine on Wikipedia (I say "believe" because the thing was time-limited and may have run out by now). Why? I told a guy that continually asserted an untrue thing that he was either ignorant or a liar. Omg! Personal attacks! I followed that up by calling him a propagandist. Egads! The fellow got permanently banned from all articles about Islam/Muslims in general, "broadly construed" yadda yadda yadda a short time later for... being a propagandist.

Wikipedia is a complicated place.

NaymanNoland · Unread post by **NaymanNoland** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:29 pm

I'm not suggesting there's any internal logic to this, but I'd say the problem was less with the terms "sociopath" and "pathologically vengeful," and more with the implication that Mr. Young is likely to resort to physical violence as means of retaliation. The physical violence would be a criminal act (whereas merely being a sociopath is not), so suggesting that he would do that might be grounds for a libel case.

In theory, Mr. Young could still attempt to sue Salon.com, Wikipediocracy, and Wikipedia itself for defamation, claiming that the mere fact that User:Qworty "admits" to being Young is not equivalent to Young admitting to being User:Qworty. I don't think his case would hold up in court for reasons described in the Salon article, but he could still try, assuming he has enough money.

Well, I wasn't in fact implying physical violence. I do suspect, however, that certain elements of the criminal code do in fact apply to Qworty's behavior: especially recent laws regarding cyberbullying and stalking.

As for Young suing Wikipedia? God that would be lovely. Here you'd have a guy guilty of god knows how many instances of actionable libel, suing for libel. He'd be laughed out of court, then countersued with a chainsaw.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:30 pm

lilburne wrote:NYB says we've all be very bad, and horrid to him and WP, and we won't be forgiven. Or something like that. But no matter ArbCom is investigating Qworty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555701934

I hadn't seen the thread comparing WP to Westboro Baptist Church... I can see why he'd object to something like that, but Mr. Vigilant is obviously one of our more extreme members, and it's not like the thread got any real traction. Does he want us to delete it? Maybe we should.

Anyway, there are clearly two schools of thought when it comes to someone like Newyorkbrad. Some would excoriate him as an enabler who makes things worse by providing Wikipedia with a patina of respectability, whereas others obviously appreciate his efforts to mediate disputes and generally ameliorate various internal problems there, though perhaps not always effectively. Personally, I'd say both views are valid, or at the very least, they're not mutually exclusive.

As for me, I'm not trying to paint targets on my chest, but they've had 8 years now to connect me to a Wikipedia account, and they haven't managed to do it. (There have been one or two impersonator accounts, but that's about it.) I understand why people don't believe me when I say I've never made an edit there, but to use one of my least-favorite contemporary sayings, "it is what it is."

Daniel Brandt · Unread post by **Daniel Brandt** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:44 pm

Peter Damian wrote:Actually this comment here, and the ensuing strange discussion, amply explains why people like Brad (who I believe have their heart in the right place) find difficulty in achieving any reform in Wikipedia.

I don't believe that Brad has his heart in the right place.

Someone with their heart in the right place would be pressuring the Foundation to decree that anyone editing Wikipedia while hiding behind a screen name shall have their editing privileges revoked.

Or a softer position, as a prelude to the above, would be that all screen names will have their IP address appended to their signature on every edit. (That would be a considerable help for "outing" researchers, who should actually be termed "accountability researchers.")

The Foundation would be strengthening their nonprofit, tax-exempt status by doing this, as well as their Section 230 "safe harbor" immunity. They would saying, essentially, that they are not responsible for the content on Wikipedia. But as a socially responsible organization supported by the tax laws, they feel that someone should be accountable. Therefore, anonymity on the part of editors is intolerable.

The Foundation has the power to do this; they own the servers and employ the staff that maintains the servers.

Why hasn't this been done? Because Wikipedia would lose 80 percent of its editors if they did this. The alternative, therefore, is to let Wikipedia sink deeper into something that can only be described as socially irresponsible.

Someday that will begin to hit the Foundation in the only place that matters to them -- their donations. (I can dream, can't I?)

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:51 pm

NaymanNoland wrote:Well, I wasn't in fact implying physical violence. I do suspect, however, that certain elements of the criminal code do in fact apply to Qworty's behavior: especially recent laws regarding cyberbullying and stalking.

Maybe... I'm not sure those recent laws have much "teeth," and if experience is any guide, using them as the basis for a case might require a teenage girl to commit suicide first. But you never know, I guess!

I did notice though, in reference to what you went through, that on Talk:Sondra_Peterson (T-H-L) a section was removed containing this little gem, which I know you'd rather not see ever again, but since it might be revision-deleted I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote it (emphasis mine):

Qworty wrote:That sourcing happened a long time ago, in Internet time--you really should pay more attention to the article, and less to the talk page comments. As for your, mmm, global concerns, I'm sure that Wikipedia will continue to survive and grow and thrive with or without microscopes being applied to either of our healthy egos or souls or various appendages. I think you are a wonderful and beautiful person, and I really like you a lot, and I would never hurt you, but in the real world, if you want to stop me, you really need to come to my house with a gun and empty a few rounds into my head. That is the only way to detach me from the keyboard. Anything short of that is going to fail. I know that our relationship has been fraught with tumultuous drama from the very start, and I'm really grateful for becoming world famous and all because of it, but I think we share deeper values than any of that. So I'm really hoping we'll get to go on that speaking tour someday. I really don't care if the world media covers it. The world media be damned--the eternal verities are much more important than the fickle and temporary spotlight. Qworty (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, in terms of legal ramifications, Mr. Qworty did not specifically threaten you there, but he did introduce the notion of physical violence - indeed, murder - in relation to this dispute, as a kind of "shot across the bow," an intimidation tactic to show how incredibly scary he is, so that you and anyone else involved would stop disagreeing with his edits.

That sort of intimidation tactic used to be... well, not common back in the old pre-2005 days of Wikipedia, but let's just say "not unheard of." We had thought those tactics to be mostly extinct, and after seeing it, it surprised me quite a bit that Mr. Qworty wasn't immediately blocked after posting it - but he wasn't, not even for 48 hours. That suggested to me that he was being protected, even at the point where he was embarrassing WP in the national media. The non-conspiracy explanation might be that all the current admins have long forgotten (or never knew about) those kinds of tactics, and didn't recognize the post for what it was... but given how long Mr. Qworty was able to get away with all this, you have to wonder.

NaymanNoland · Unread post by **NaymanNoland** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:51 pm

Yes, that is inadequate, because the beneficiaries of the Cult of Anonymity can now chuck you in the 90% Off discount bin, shrieking "Hypocrite! Hypocrite!"

Look, I can't argue: you're absolutely right. I just happen to have an aversion, in this instance, to having a knife slipped between my ribs. Honestly, would YOU want Robert Clark Young stalking you and your family? I have seriously considered outing myself - my family in fact has been instrumental in convincing me not to. I can't afford the misery that this would entail, in THIS circumstance.

As I say: I can't really argue. It's a pathetic argument. The sad paradox here, unfortunately, is that it's a valid argument.

NaymanNoland · Unread post by **NaymanNoland** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:54 pm

And, yes, that quotation from the adorable Qworty kind of drives home my concern. No, I don't think he in fact would resort to physical violence. But he'd do just about anything short of that to achieve revenge. We've SEEN this.

NaymanNoland · Unread post by **NaymanNoland** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:59 pm

So, at the moment I'm another pink-eyed rabbit quivering in the shadow of anonymity. It disgusts me no end, I assure you.

I will say this: I've examined Wikipedia's current codes pretty carefully, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not in violation of anything crucial. Yes, I'm about as a civil as an industrial carving knife, but that I'm trying to tame. My greatest sin is an egregious COI: the fact is that I despise Qworty, and my loathing is growing daily. But I've behaved pretty well even there: when that dislike tipped over into serious nausea, I stopped editing Young's autobiography.

I'm sure I could identify twelve or thirteen other conflicts of interest, but none would rise to the level of Wikipedia-strength COI. Moreover, this to me is obvious: almost EVERYONE at Wikipedia has a conflict of interest. You're writing about an issue? Chances are you know something about that issue. Hence, chances are that you're kind of close to that topic in some way. Which usually translates into a conflict of interest.

The answer: embrace conflict of interest as a necessity, and ditch anonymity - that way everyone knows when the COI is damaging the content of the encyclopedia.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat May 18, 2013 11:01 pm

Daniel Brandt wrote:
Or a softer position, as a prelude to the above, would be that all screen names will have their IP address appended to their signature on every edit.

Very interesting idea.

I suspect that one of the more vocal bases of support for the current system are those who make use of multiple accounts. Instant IP addies tagged on would render these nearly valueless. Can you imagine dropping three "Keeps" in an AfD debate with different names, same IP addie???

I like it.

RfB

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sat May 18, 2013 11:42 pm

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qworty (T-H-L)

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun May 19, 2013 12:41 am

NaymanNoland wrote: I will say this: I've examined Wikipedia's current codes pretty carefully, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not in violation of anything crucial. Yes, I'm about as a civil as an industrial carving knife, but that I'm trying to tame. My greatest sin is an egregious COI: the fact is that I despise Qworty, and my loathing is growing daily. But I've behaved pretty well even there: when that dislike tipped over into serious nausea, I stopped editing Young's autobiography.

Yes, you do need to stand back from that biography, for sure. You've done good work helping to get this story to break by keeping eyes focused on the issue. Now relax and let it go...

tim

NaymanNoland · Unread post by **NaymanNoland** » Sun May 19, 2013 12:58 am

Yeah. I never in fact intended to get involved in anything this fraught. Believe it or not, I joined Wikipedia to write about my favorite things - and seething literary envy is not one of them.

I'm going back to writing about exotic wildlife, glam rock, and Nazi cellists: things that matter.

Versus · Unread post by **Versus** » Sun May 19, 2013 1:19 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =361207852

"In the late 1980s, author Robert Clark Young prevailed upon his father, an employee of the California Department of Motor Vehicles, to look up Pynchon's driving record, using Pynchon's full name and known birth date. The results showed that Pynchon was living at the time in Aptos, California, and was driving a 1974 Datsun (Young 1992). The cancelled license subsequently found its way into the hands of at least two academics publishing scholarly work on Pynchon."

I have serious doubts over Qworty's claim it was "legal" to do so.

greyed.out.fields · Unread post by **greyed.out.fields** » Sun May 19, 2013 1:49 am

mac wrote:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qworty (T-H-L)

Wikipedia:ANI#User:Qworty (T-H-L)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun May 19, 2013 3:33 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
lilburne wrote:NYB says we've all be very bad, and horrid to him and WP, and we won't be forgiven. Or something like that. But no matter ArbCom is investigating Qworty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555701934
I hadn't seen the thread comparing WP to Westboro Baptist Church... I can see why he'd object to something like that, but Mr. Vigilant is obviously one of our more extreme members, and it's not like the thread got any real traction. Does he want us to delete it? Maybe we should.

Hey Jake,
How about you eat shit?

If you don't like the analogy, point out where I'm wrong on this count instead of trying to delete something that someone who hardly ever participates here anyway finds offensive in some nondescript manner.

If Brad's sensitive nature will no longer allow him to participate here because I said something mean about wikipedia, then I'm fairly certain it's for the best that wikipediocracy and Brad part ways. It's not like he's ever said, "Oh, you've called wikipediocracy members trolls and idiots and malcontents here on wikipedia, I am resigning my adminship in protest over this outrageous slander!!"

He's a hypocrite.

I love how Qworty gets outed as a serial defamer by wikipediocracy and salon and Brad's BEST ANSWER is to restrict Qworty to a BLP parole... and even that gets questioned on procedural grounds.

You cannot make this shit up.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sun May 19, 2013 4:11 am

Vigilant wrote:
Midsize Jake wrote:Hey Jake,
How about you eat shit?

If you know what I just ate for dinner, you wouldn't have to make that suggestion...

If you don't like the analogy, point out where I'm wrong on this count instead of trying to delete something that someone who hardly ever participates here anyway finds offensive in some nondescript manner.

I actually do like the analogy, I just don't think it helps for it to be out there for the public to see it. There's such a huge difference in degree of intent, and the nature of the targets involved, it's perfectly understandable that they're offended. We're trying to change, and in so doing attack, Wikipedia; they see us as their enemies because many of us actually are. Whereas, hardly anybody targeted by the WBC (gays, soldiers, atheists, what-have-you) is doing whatever it is they're doing specifically because they want to destroy the WBC.

Meanwhile, you actually missed two additional similarities, which are that (1) both organizations cynically take advantage of loopholes and poor wording in American law to keep doing what they do and avoid any financial responsibility for it, and that (2) most of the people who run Wikipedia, not to mention most of the people who participate in it, are so blindered by their own rhetoric about their belief system that they don't know how much damage they're doing, and how irresponsible they are for doing it. So hey, put that in your pipe and smoke it, I guess.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun May 19, 2013 4:17 am

I actually do like the analogy, I just don't think it helps for it to be out there for the public to see it. There's such a huge difference in degree of intent, and the nature of the targets involved, it's perfectly understandable that they're offended. We're trying to change, and in so doing attack, Wikipedia; they see us as their enemies because many of us actually are. Whereas, hardly anybody targeted by the WBC (gays, soldiers, atheists, what-have-you) is doing whatever it is they're doing specifically because they want to destroy the WBC.

That's not how the WBC sees it.
Gay people, people who are gay enablers, soldiers who fight for a country that doesn't execute gays and their enablers are all attacking what's good and right about the US and the WBC.

Wikipedia, at least the most vocal parts of it (including Jimbo), sees us in much the same light.
We are the undesirables. We are the unmentionables. We are trying to destroy them.

It's all bullshit, we just don't want them destroying everyone who is unlucky enough to warrant the interest of some basement dwelling teenager, or mad, demented novelist, and end up with vile biography that they cannot expunge, no matter what they do.

And I would take exception that I am all that extreme.
My positions are very close to the mainstream.

I just choose to use a more coarse method of communicating my position than others here.

NaymanNoland · Unread post by **NaymanNoland** » Sun May 19, 2013 4:21 am

So, I've been reading through the ANI stuff devoted to banning Qworty from the company of civilized humans. Mostly a sane group of voices, even if some have come a bit late to the party. The one who came latest to the party is kind of amusing: yes, little green rosetta decided finally to toss his/her friends Qworty under the bus. My guess is that the conversation went something like this: "Bob, since you've already been tossed under the bus, do you mind if I toss you under the bus? I can't really afford to be associated with you any longer, given how close I am to being tossed under the bus myself. Actually, I'm not really asking for your permission. Bye now." (tosses Qworty under bus)

Hard to decide whether this next one is even less impressive, or somehow redeemed by the fact that it isn't a complete betrayal of a friend, however loathsome that friend might be:

"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

As I say, this response is somewhere between noble and pathetic. Yes, part of the ban is punitive. That's what happens to people who do egregious shit that requires punishment. Because otherwise the community will be drowned in egregious shit. And no, you probably don't want to trust any "indication" on the part of a serial liar.

I mean, loyalty is always sort of admirable - even here. But spare me.

(Edit: just noticed that Zoloft took note of that TDA quotation earlier in this thread. Sorry to be redundant. But interesting that the words jumped out at two separate people as being kind of beyond the pale.)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun May 19, 2013 4:27 am

Interesting the Jimbo is just too darn busy to reply on his talk page during such a big blowup.

Seems remarkably similar to Sue Gardner's absence during the Child Protection plea.

Guys,
It can't just be about collecting your paychecks and honoraria, you have to actually do something at some point.
For the love of god, if these aren't the points where you step in, they I have no idea when you actually would.

Shit or get off the pot.

NaymanNoland · Unread post by **NaymanNoland** » Sun May 19, 2013 4:29 am

Wikipedia, at least the most vocal parts of it (including Jimbo), sees us in much the same light.
We are the undesirables. We are the unmentionables. We are trying to destroy them.

Vigilant, is this really true of Wikipediocracy in general? I for instance think pretty highly of Wikipedia, but I have no problem contributing to a satellite forum of hardcore critics.

Do they really see this satellite as the Death Star? That strikes me as a bit strange. Paranoid, even. Is it because editors are sometimes outed here? Or is it simply because of the unyielding criticism...

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun May 19, 2013 5:20 am

NaymanNoland wrote:
Wikipedia, at least the most vocal parts of it (including Jimbo), sees us in much the same light.
We are the undesirables. We are the unmentionables. We are trying to destroy them.
Vigilant, is this really true of Wikipediocracy in general? I for instance think pretty highly of Wikipedia, but I have no problem contributing to a satellite forum of hardcore critics.

Do they really see this satellite as the Death Star? That strikes me as a bit strange. Paranoid, even. Is it because editors are sometimes outed here? Or is it simply because of the unyielding criticism...

There are a range of views at WPO just like there are a range of views at WP.

I used to call the people who wanted to blow up Wikipedia and piss on the grave in the morning "jihadists." I've come around to think they're more akin to "revolutionaries"; with others like me and I assume you "reformers." It's basically a new take on the old debate of the radical movement on how to eliminate capitalism — through armed struggle (communists) or working within the system (socialists).

Wikipedians range from a small minority of wackies who believe (in spite of all evidence to the contrary) WPO is a monolithic entity conducting a "stealth jihad" to those who appreciate some things about the site but really dislike others (inflammatory rhetoric, outing) to those who enjoy reading the site but don't want to get do-do on their shoes by posting on it to those who understand the value of an opposition press in keeping the regime on the straight and narrow...

RfB

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sun May 19, 2013 5:40 am

Zoloft wrote:
TDA at ANI wrote: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.

He said he wasn't going to edit anymore anyway, and because of Brad he would not be permitted to say anything involving named living people. In my opinion, having been pilloried in the press, harassed on-wiki, outed, and losing nearly all sympathy in the community because of his actions, he should be allowed the chance to bow out gracefully, or walk away in disgrace if you prefer. That site-ban push does little more than serve to rub salt in the wound so people can add a tag of shame to his page and these things rarely just end there.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sun May 19, 2013 5:54 am

The Joy wrote:I'm waiting for Silver Seren, Prioryman, and Russavia to challenge it on the grounds that it is a site that "engages in outing/doxing Wikipedians" and "outed/doxed Robert Young Clark as Qworty." Double the stupidity, double the fun!

I think we are maybe one or two controversies away still. There was a brief mention with regards to Gibraltarpedia (really more tangential to Kolbe's comments on that controversy) and someone noted, inaccurately, the mention in the Bicholim hoax and then this latest article. Not quite enough for the Wikipedia standard.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sun May 19, 2013 6:05 am

From the screenshot:

(cur | prev) 05:30, 19 May 2013‎ Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk | contribs)‎ . . (311 bytes) (+311)‎ . . (Fair use to illustrate article on this website only; not otherwise obtainable. {{Keep local|reason=Commons is a cesspool of pornography and may be shut down by the FBI any day and WP should keep a copy of this so we'll still have one when that happens}})

I like this contributor.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sun May 19, 2013 6:15 am

mac wrote:From the screenshot:

(cur | prev) 05:30, 19 May 2013‎ Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk | contribs)‎ . . (311 bytes) (+311)‎ . . (Fair use to illustrate article on this website only; not otherwise obtainable. {{Keep local|reason=Commons is a cesspool of pornography and may be shut down by the FBI any day and WP should keep a copy of this so we'll still have one when that happens}})
I like this contributor.

+14.3

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun May 19, 2013 6:45 am

Viriditas is PISSED OFF, and rightly so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555727044

See the end of the page.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun May 19, 2013 7:13 am

NaymanNoland wrote:Fascinating.

You're not suggesting that lifting the veil of anonymity would have to be retroactive, though? Surely it wouldn't. They could just keep the current content, and augment it with stuff written by identifiable editors.

One thing that might help would be to erase the entire history of Wikipedia, so that there really was a clean slate: nothing but content. Then start logging the history afresh, with properly named editors. That way there wouldn't be the tendency to go back into the dark ages of anonymity, daily, to unearth damage done by the Qwortys and the rosettas.

True anonymity isn't necessary. If RYC had to declare his real identity to WMF he'd have been far more cautious about editing COI stuff. The same goes for Hari. It won't stop the dedicated content trolls but at least they'll know that if someone complains they only need to get a court order for WP to divulge their real ID. Then to everyone else RYC could be Qworty. The difference being that if someone saw the puff pieces or negative content going in they could challenge whether there was a direct COI or not.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sun May 19, 2013 7:20 am

Vigilant wrote:Viriditas is PISSED OFF, and rightly so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555727044

See the end of the page.

If you mean his comment towards me, then he is not "rightly" mad about that at all. Maybe he didn't see this link to his edit in my previous post.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sun May 19, 2013 7:25 am

I'm really starting to think it was a mistake not to ask for moderator rights on this site... Could someone split this stuff off, please? It's getting a bit silly.

Vigilant wrote:Viriditas is PISSED OFF, and rightly so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555727044

See the end of the page.

Okay, so Viriditas is saying that his rejection of the "absurd merge proposal," which would have subsumed the article about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula into the article on Nakoula's hatefest Youtube video, The Innocence of Muslims, meant that he did want to delete the Nakoula article? I mean, yeah, obviously Mr. Devil's-Advocate is just stirring up shite for no reason, presumably because he doesn't like Mr. Viriditas, but this could be a misinterpretation on his part - possibly deliberate, but not necessarily. Either way, it sounds to me like both of these guys need to take a step back or three.

And why is Viriditas blocked, anyway? I see the template on top of the talk page, but it smells like BS to me.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun May 19, 2013 7:43 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Viriditas is PISSED OFF, and rightly so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555727044

See the end of the page.
If you mean his comment towards me, then he is not "rightly" mad about that at all. Maybe he didn't see this link to his edit in my previous post.

Not everything is about you.
I meant his righteous anger about the lack of admin action over the years and now.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sun May 19, 2013 7:59 am

Vigilant wrote:I meant his righteous anger about the lack of admin action over the years and now.

Ok, you said "the end of the page" so I mistakenly thought you were referring to that comment. Sorry.

P.S. Jake, you can see a previous discussion concerning Viriditas here.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Sun May 19, 2013 8:08 am

Well done to all concerned for bringing this to light.

I assume the right thing now would be for every one of Qworty's edits to be checked for abuse. Or are you confident you've unearthed everything? And has anyone published a list of likely socks?

(I haven't read this thread yet.)

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun May 19, 2013 8:17 am

Brad:

The first words of my directive to Qworty on his talkpage yesterday were: "Your thoughts on your userpage and above present some interesting food for thought. However, some of your comments above are extremely troubling...." Some contributors to the Wikipediocracy website have taken the first sentence grossly out of context as meaning that I endorsed everything Qworty had written, including his suggestion that spurious comments about a living person on Wikipedia have little importance because they are "only a text." Obviously I radically disagree with that assertion by Qworty, given everything I have written on this site over the years and given that I went on to direct Qworty never again to edit the biography of a living person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555701934

Right, but you didn’t originally say that you radically disagree with the assertion that spurious comments about a living person on Wikipedia have little importance because they are "only a text." You said his essay is ‘food for thought’. Read Grice’s maxims http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html. “The maxim of quantity, where one tries to be as informative as one possibly can, and gives as much information as is needed, and no more”. On the assumption that you gave as much information as was needed, it follows you did not want to give the information about ‘Wikipedia is only a text’.

You did say that Qworty’s edits were ‘extremely troubling’, and you refer to remarks on his talk page (not his user page, which is where he makes the ‘only a text’ remark). But even then you were directing him to stay away from BLP articles, rather than working on a full site ban, and rather than trying to reform Wikipedia on a more fundamental level.

You might start with the principle that an organisation must be able to subject itself to appropriate scrutiny. You say you do not read WPY any more. Ask yourself why the scrutiny had to come from a site like this, and not from within Wikipedia. Ask yourself what the hell you are doing on Wikipedia.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sun May 19, 2013 8:56 am

As predicted.

Versus · Unread post by **Versus** » Sun May 19, 2013 9:44 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:Well done to all concerned for bringing this to light.

I assume the right thing now would be for every one of Qworty's edits to be checked for abuse. Or are you confident you've unearthed everything? And has anyone published a list of likely socks?

(I haven't read this thread yet.)

Qworty also participated in numerous Article for Deletion votes. Since Qworty should have been banned back in July 2007, he's had an unfair hand in influencing the destiny of many articles. I don't envy the person going through each of his edits.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun May 19, 2013 11:04 am

thekohser wrote:
Outsider wrote:
DanMurphy wrote: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%.

So that still makes him better-known than say some journalists that we know.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun May 19, 2013 11:13 am

NaymanNoland wrote:One thing that might help would be to erase the entire history of Wikipedia, so that there really was a clean slate: nothing but content.

That wouldn't be possible because of copyright.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun May 19, 2013 11:57 am

Outsider wrote: So that still makes him better-known than say some journalists that we know.

OHSNAP.GIF

Anthonyhcole wrote:Well done to all concerned for bringing this to light.

Indeed. This is an excellent result all around.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun May 19, 2013 4:05 pm

Qworty's block log.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... type=block

12:05, 19 May 2013 Ironholds (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Qworty (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy: Unacceptable behaviour.)
17:45, 18 May 2013 Ironholds (talk | contribs) blocked Qworty (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy: Unacceptable behaviour.)
07:26, 25 October 2012 WilyD (talk | contribs) unblocked Qworty (talk | contribs) (Appears to be a poorly explained/overzealous pursuit of a sock farm)
07:07, 25 October 2012 WilyD (talk | contribs) blocked Qworty (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Not sure if the account is compromised or what, but they're blanking articles with false and misleading edit summaries, then A7ing the resulting stubs)

Seven years of BLP defamation and revenge postings and this is what they found.
I wonder how many people who tried to oppose Qworty got their accounts banned.

I know I had two joke accounts banned. I had to give them up to keep NaymanNoland from getting caught up in my whack-a-mole fun.

How many good faith editors, trying to do the right thing, did the wikipedia admins BAN on behalf of Robert Clark Young?

Are they going to go back and look at all of the people who edited in opposition to this list of accounts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ons/Qworty
and see if they were improperly blocked?

How many will get the apologies that wikipedia admins are so fond of extracting from the damned?

greybeard · Unread post by **greybeard** » Sun May 19, 2013 7:44 pm

Versus wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =361207852
"In the late 1980s, author Robert Clark Young prevailed upon his father, an employee of the California Department of Motor Vehicles, to look up Pynchon's driving record, ..."

I have serious doubts over Qworty's claim it was "legal" to do so.

Until the advent of the Internet* (more or less), many states considered driver's license (and vehicle registration) information to be public records. My state did, until someone decided to put it all in a searchable online database, and that ended right quick. I cannot speak to California.

(*) Actually, New York's Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) was enacted in 1994 due to stalking by anti-abortion protesters, not using the Internet.

greybeard · Unread post by **greybeard** » Sun May 19, 2013 8:02 pm

May 1:

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

Not to brag, but I think I'm the first to go on record calling Qworty a sociopath. Feel free to quote me. I was reacting to this quote from Qworty's talk page:

I've got just one thing to say to you people: You don't intimidate me, and if you are going to do anything to me, you'd better kill me dead, and not just cripple my ass. Because if I'm left a cripple in a wheelchair, I will continue to type out, with a stick clenched between my teeth ...

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun May 19, 2013 9:40 pm

Dixit.

"For those of us who love Wikipedia, the ramifications of the Qworty saga are not comforting". That sums it up for me. More thoughts soon. I would have banned him outright years ago. So would many others. That we did not, points to serious deficiencies in our systems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555828831

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun May 19, 2013 9:50 pm

Peter Damian wrote:Dixit.

"For those of us who love Wikipedia, the ramifications of the Qworty saga are not comforting". That sums it up for me. More thoughts soon. I would have banned him outright years ago. So would many others. That we did not, points to serious deficiencies in our systems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555828831

Didn't he say much the same about Hari?