Re: Qworty
Posted: Fri May 17, 2013 1:06 am
Imagine the article Andrew Leonard would have written had he only known. Maybe that?greybeard wrote: He's trying to get out ahead of something. The question is, what?
Maybe... I guess we're about to find out!Sweet Revenge wrote:Imagine the article Andrew Leonard would have written had he only known. Maybe that?greybeard wrote: He's trying to get out ahead of something. The question is, what?
Via email I hear he's been working on it all week and the article is coming out tomorrow.Midsize Jake wrote: Maybe... I guess we're about to find out!
... or Ron Livingston v. John Doe AKA Mark Binmore.Midsize Jake wrote: Still, if the Gary Weiss case back in 2006 couldn't give Wikipedia a long-lasting black eye, I doubt this will give them so much as a grade-B zit. Hopefully I'm wrong...
How many editors are there like Young on Wikipedia? Legions of them. This one only got exposed because of the work of journalists and some of us here -- not through any of Wikipedia's so-called dispute resolution processes. That's the main point of the story.Your thoughts on your userpage and above present some interesting food for thought. However, some of your comments above are extremely troubling when considered in light of your edits and the "rants" you posted last month, which were extremely unfortunate and reflected negatively on the project. If you do continue or resume editing in the future, you are directed not to edit biographical articles concerning any living person (other than yourself and excluding reversion of obvious vandalism) and not to make disparaging comments about any living person on any page of Wikipedia. I hope you will understand that at this point, these restrictions ar in the best interests of all concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Things go from speculation of who someone is to outright attacking the person based on that speculation very quickly.DanMurphy wrote:Robert Young has been defaming his enemies and puffing up himself via his Qworty account and (numerous sock puppets) for six years and New York Brad IS ON IT!
How many editors are there like Young on Wikipedia? Legions of them. This one only got exposed because of the work of journalists and some of us here -- not through any of Wikipedia's so-called dispute resolution processes. That's the main point of the story.Your thoughts on your userpage and above present some interesting food for thought. However, some of your comments above are extremely troubling when considered in light of your edits and the "rants" you posted last month, which were extremely unfortunate and reflected negatively on the project. If you do continue or resume editing in the future, you are directed not to edit biographical articles concerning any living person (other than yourself and excluding reversion of obvious vandalism) and not to make disparaging comments about any living person on any page of Wikipedia. I hope you will understand that at this point, these restrictions ar in the best interests of all concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
What "speculation?" Try to keep up.IRWolfie- wrote:Things go from speculation of who someone is to outright attacking the person based on that speculation very quickly.DanMurphy wrote:Robert Young has been defaming his enemies and puffing up himself via his Qworty account and (numerous sock puppets) for six years and New York Brad IS ON IT!
How many editors are there like Young on Wikipedia? Legions of them. This one only got exposed because of the work of journalists and some of us here -- not through any of Wikipedia's so-called dispute resolution processes. That's the main point of the story.Your thoughts on your userpage and above present some interesting food for thought. However, some of your comments above are extremely troubling when considered in light of your edits and the "rants" you posted last month, which were extremely unfortunate and reflected negatively on the project. If you do continue or resume editing in the future, you are directed not to edit biographical articles concerning any living person (other than yourself and excluding reversion of obvious vandalism) and not to make disparaging comments about any living person on any page of Wikipedia. I hope you will understand that at this point, these restrictions ar in the best interests of all concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
"Anonymous editor says he is X" isn't the same as "Anonymous editor is X".DanMurphy wrote:What "speculation?" Try to keep up.
Interesting how the same person can present such different pictures of themself. The Facebook page is interesting.Vigilant wrote:I doubt that Qworty is Robert Clark Young.
If you go to
http://www.robertclarkyoung.com/
You can see he's been pretty busy dealing with his parents' long term care for the last year.
It's profoundly affected him and he's writing books about it, started a foundation, etc
All over his facebook as well.
https://www.facebook.com/RobertClarkYoung
There are no edits by qworty that even vaguely touch on that topic.
qworty's probably a ne'er do well wannabe writer, given his extreme vitriol over the last article.
Robert Clark Young is accomplished and almost certainly doesn't care if some other author got a leg up from their parents' influence in the publishing world.
qworty, lying to the end.
Robert Young says he is Qworty. Qworty says he is Robert Young. These are facts. Prior to his admission, there was a mountain of evidence of this fact.IRWolfie- wrote:"Anonymous editor says he is X" isn't the same as "Anonymous editor is X".DanMurphy wrote:What "speculation?" Try to keep up.
I saw the Qworty page claiming to be Robert Young, where's the Robert Young page claiming to be Qworty?DanMurphy wrote:Robert Young says he is Qworty. Qworty says he is Robert Young. These are facts. Prior to his admission, there was a mountain of evidence of this fact.IRWolfie- wrote:"Anonymous editor says he is X" isn't the same as "Anonymous editor is X".DanMurphy wrote:What "speculation?" Try to keep up.
What's your name by the way?
Young was contacted by a journalist this week. Initially he denied having anything to do with Wikipedia. What is Wikipedia? Is it some kind of web site? That kind of thing. Immediately after the last contact, he rewrote the user:Qworty page. So, the Robert Young page is the Qworty page, and there he concedes he is Qworty.Vigilant wrote:I saw the Qworty page claiming to be Robert Young, where's the Robert Young page claiming to be Qworty?
Considering there are crackpots like: http://transpower.wordpress.com/2011/12 ... lear-atom/ I'm not planning to give out my real name. What would be the point? It only invites harassmentDanMurphy wrote:What's your name by the way?
People who are victims of Wikipedia's approach to biography have no such luxury.IRWolfie- wrote:Considering there are crackpots like: http://transpower.wordpress.com/2011/12 ... lear-atom/ I'm not planning to give out my real name. What would be the point? It only invites harassmentDanMurphy wrote:What's your name by the way?
Credibility and accountability. I have little patience for cowards who criticize me (particularly when they don't have their facts straight).IRWolfie- wrote:Considering there are crackpots like: http://transpower.wordpress.com/2011/12 ... lear-atom/ I'm not planning to give out my real name. What would be the point? It only invites harassmentDanMurphy wrote:What's your name by the way?
Good lord. Upgrading wolfie to sniveling coward after reading the link -- it's just some guy complaining that wolfie was involved in getting an article on a fringe physics theory deleted from Wikipedia. Oh the horror!Peter Damian wrote:People who are victims of Wikipedia's approach to biography have no such luxury.IRWolfie- wrote:Considering there are crackpots like: http://transpower.wordpress.com/2011/12 ... lear-atom/ I'm not planning to give out my real name. What would be the point? It only invites harassmentDanMurphy wrote:What's your name by the way?
Interesting. I'm surprised and that doesn't happen that often with wikipedia stuff.Peter Damian wrote:Young was contacted by a journalist this week. Initially he denied having anything to do with Wikipedia. What is Wikipedia? Is it some kind of web site? That kind of thing. Immediately after the last contact, he rewrote the user:Qworty page. So, the Robert Young page is the Qworty page, and there he concedes he is Qworty.Vigilant wrote:I saw the Qworty page claiming to be Robert Young, where's the Robert Young page claiming to be Qworty?
And there is, as Dan says, an absolute mountain of evidence to prove this. It will be published soon I believe.
If I were him, I'd be writing this up as a high-concept summary and shopping it around for a low-end book deal. His chances of getting one may not be all that good, but it's not like he has no experience with "creative non-fiction." Apparently he's the Creative Non-Fiction Editor for ConnotationPress.com. If he's really smart, which I think he might be, he'll have the book practically finished already in preparation for this very eventuality.Vigilant wrote:...where's the Robert Young page claiming to be Qworty?
There may be loads of Youngs and Haris but I bet that once the journalist and Wikipediocracy publish their stuff, NYB is going to find that his warning is a wasted effort as the lynch mob get down to important business of demonstrating that Young is no longer of the body.DanMurphy wrote:Robert Young has been defaming his enemies and puffing up himself via his Qworty account and (numerous sock puppets) for six years and New York Brad IS ON IT!
How many editors are there like Young on Wikipedia? Legions of them. This one only got exposed because of the work of journalists and some of us here -- not through any of Wikipedia's so-called dispute resolution processes. That's the main point of the story.Your thoughts on your userpage and above present some interesting food for thought. However, some of your comments above are extremely troubling when considered in light of your edits and the "rants" you posted last month, which were extremely unfortunate and reflected negatively on the project. If you do continue or resume editing in the future, you are directed not to edit biographical articles concerning any living person (other than yourself and excluding reversion of obvious vandalism) and not to make disparaging comments about any living person on any page of Wikipedia. I hope you will understand that at this point, these restrictions ar in the best interests of all concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I dunno - he may have a valid reason for concern here. The guy whose article he got deleted has been working on some software to computerize all Reciprocal System calculations into one easy-to-use database package, and once that hits the street, you have to figure that anyone who's not already part of the unstoppable Reciprocal Systems juggernaut will be crushed by its terrible, mighty jaws. I mean, it's a fully-integrated axiomatic system, right? You can't stop a fully-integrated axiomatic system, no matter how high your edit-count is.DanMurphy wrote:Good lord. Upgrading wolfie to sniveling coward after reading the link -- it's just some guy complaining that wolfie was involved in getting an article on a fringe physics theory deleted from Wikipedia. Oh the horror!
I see no reason to facilitate people who seem to be a little unhinged and think they "have every moral right to go after" me. If you want to call that cowardice, fire ahead, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.Midsize Jake wrote:I dunno - he may have a valid reason for concern here. The guy whose article he got deleted has been working on some software to computerize all Reciprocal System calculations into one easy-to-use database package, and once that hits the street, you have to figure that anyone who's not already part of the unstoppable Reciprocal Systems juggernaut will be crushed by its terrible, mighty jaws. I mean, it's a fully-integrated axiomatic system, right? You can't stop a fully-integrated axiomatic system, no matter how high your edit-count is.DanMurphy wrote:Good lord. Upgrading wolfie to sniveling coward after reading the link -- it's just some guy complaining that wolfie was involved in getting an article on a fringe physics theory deleted from Wikipedia. Oh the horror!
LOL, that's a bit "closing the barn door after the horse has escaped", innit?DanMurphy wrote:Robert Young has been defaming his enemies and puffing up himself via his Qworty account and (numerous sock puppets) for six years and New York Brad IS ON IT!
I bet PublishAmerica (T-H-L) would be willing to make a deal with him. I'm sure Jeff Leinhard (T-C-L), Wnikodemus (T-C-L), Yossarian57 (T-C-L), David Jennings (T-C-L), Furs4Sale (T-C-L) and NathanW (T-C-L) would be interested in buying a copy, since their Wikipedia edits show an appreciation for Young's work.Midsize Jake wrote:If I were him, I'd be writing this up as a high-concept summary and shopping it around for a low-end book deal. His chances of getting one may not be all that good, but it's not like he has no experience with "creative non-fiction."Vigilant wrote:...where's the Robert Young page claiming to be Qworty?
Mason wrote:I bet PublishAmerica (T-H-L) would be willing to make a deal with him. I'm sure Jeff Leinhard (T-C-L), Wnikodemus (T-C-L), Yossarian57 (T-C-L), David Jennings (T-C-L), Furs4Sale (T-C-L) and NathanW (T-C-L) would be interested in buying a copy, since their Wikipedia edits show an appreciation for Young's work.
That's not what I smell.Midsize Jake wrote:Mason wrote:I bet PublishAmerica (T-H-L) would be willing to make a deal with him. I'm sure Jeff Leinhard (T-C-L), Wnikodemus (T-C-L), Yossarian57 (T-C-L), David Jennings (T-C-L), Furs4Sale (T-C-L) and NathanW (T-C-L) would be interested in buying a copy, since their Wikipedia edits show an appreciation for Young's work.
I SMELL PULITZER!
Well lets paraphrase NTB shall we:Mason wrote:LOL, that's a bit "closing the barn door after the horse has escaped", innit?DanMurphy wrote:Robert Young has been defaming his enemies and puffing up himself via his Qworty account and (numerous sock puppets) for six years and New York Brad IS ON IT!
Newyorkbrad is crazy if he things Young will return as Qworty. The next time Young wants to take another author down a peg or two, he'll just mint a brand new account like he's done dozens of times in the past.
This is serious. So serious it is very serious! In fact I've not known anything this serious ever. It will seriously reflect badly on the project, seriously. You should seriously, think just how seriously stupid you've made us all look.
Ok, now I see why they are the same person. This looks pretty damning.
My impression is that Young thinks this is all wonderful and maybe he'll get a book contract out of it. The fact that he provided that picture at the top of the Salon article says volumes about him.Vigilant wrote:WOW.
Excellent article.
Kudos to Andrew Leonard and the group of our very own WO guys.
It's interesting to me, personally, that Andrew went down the same rathole I just did.
Makes me feel ever so slightly less stupid.
Can someone who isn't banned go post a link to AN/I, NewYorkBrad's page, Jimbo's page and Qworty's page?
Stunningly funny.
Bad, bad, bad for wikipedia.
If he thinks that, he's more than a bit delusional.DanMurphy wrote:My impression is that Young thinks this is all wonderful and maybe he'll get a book contract out of it.Vigilant wrote:WOW.
Excellent article.
Kudos to Andrew Leonard and the group of our very own WO guys.
It's interesting to me, personally, that Andrew went down the same rathole I just did.
Makes me feel ever so slightly less stupid.
Can someone who isn't banned go post a link to AN/I, NewYorkBrad's page, Jimbo's page and Qworty's page?
Stunningly funny.
Bad, bad, bad for wikipedia.
Is that a non photo-shopped picture?The fact that he provided that picture at the top of the Salon article says volumes about him.
There are a much greater representation of narcissists on wikipedia than are in the general population.Narcissists make really, really good liars, which has helped him take people in.
Or he could have spun off another SPA to do the dirty work.Midsize Jake wrote:For me, the big takeaway from this whole business would be this important safety tip for current and future WP revenge-editors - don't attack people from the New York Times who have just written uncomplimentary op-eds about Wikipedia. You should at least wait a few weeks until things cool down a little bit.
I wonder how long he could have gone on without being noticed, if he hadn't done that? I would tend to think indefinitely, considering the current (and longstanding) state of things over there.
Ah, you're probably right that it's a composite picture.Vigilant wrote:If he thinks that, he's more than a bit delusional.DanMurphy wrote:My impression is that Young thinks this is all wonderful and maybe he'll get a book contract out of it.Vigilant wrote:WOW.
Excellent article.
Kudos to Andrew Leonard and the group of our very own WO guys.
It's interesting to me, personally, that Andrew went down the same rathole I just did.
Makes me feel ever so slightly less stupid.
Can someone who isn't banned go post a link to AN/I, NewYorkBrad's page, Jimbo's page and Qworty's page?
Stunningly funny.
Bad, bad, bad for wikipedia.Is that a non photo-shopped picture?The fact that he provided that picture at the top of the Salon article says volumes about him.
I've seen the foreground before
I get the feeling it's a composite picture of this one and a laptop screen.There are a much greater representation of narcissists on wikipedia than are in the general population.Narcissists make really, really good liars, which has helped him take people in.
That's an incontrovertible fact.
I'm not so sure about that, actually. Like I've been saying, this fellow seems to be a bit more clever, not to mention dedicated, to his personal mission than most of the people we've seen do this sort of thing in the past. I suspect he knew the edits to the Filipacchi-related articles would be challenged, and a SPA would have been reverted immediately and probably blocked - he had to risk sacrificing what I'd assume is the main account, in the hopes that the edit count and the general mean-guy reputation would help keep the edits from getting reverted right away.Vigilant wrote:Or he could have spun off another SPA to do the dirty work.
He was lazy.
Your analysis is better than mine. I concede.Midsize Jake wrote:I'm not so sure about that, actually. Like I've been saying, this fellow seems to be a bit more clever, not to mention dedicated, to his personal mission than most of the people we've seen do this sort of thing in the past. I suspect he knew the edits to the Filipacchi-related articles would be challenged, and a SPA would have been reverted immediately and probably blocked - he had to risk sacrificing what I'd assume is the main account, in the hopes that the edit count and the general mean-guy reputation would help keep the edits from getting reverted right away.Vigilant wrote:Or he could have spun off another SPA to do the dirty work.
He was lazy.
And looking into this a bit more closely, I really don't think he had much to lose by pushing the behavioral envelope. Clearly, years of "burnishing" his own WP article hadn't helped jump-start his career as an author, so I suspect it finally dawned on him that the mere existence of a positive WP article about you doesn't cause the world to beat a path to your door. Wikipedia may be the #6 site on the internet, but it also has 30 million pages. So it's a lot of traffic, sure, but that's also a lot of pages to spread that traffic around (and a large portion of that goes to the Main Page anyway).
If you accept that there's "no such thing as bad publicity," then this incident will probably do more for him of a semi-tangible nature than his past eight years of WP activity combined - and that's with full knowledge that some of the things he's been doing are, shall we say, rather lacking in self-restraint.
OK, but he may already know about that... at the risk of being seen as Devil's Advocate here, (alleged) self-promotion via Amazon.com reviews pages is very common. I wouldn't even say the level of it we're seeing there is all that unusual, really. It's easier, too - you don't have to be quite as subtle, and there's relatively little "reputational buildup" required once you set up an account, in order to get a review included. Obviously Amazon.com is trying to sell product, so they have little interest in preventing the posting of bad reviews.Vigilant wrote:It's pretty much like that through all of the reviews sections. A few honest reviews, but tons and tons of pablum from people who only give out five stars and have, apparently, read every book Bob's ever written.
Needs more work.
Tell Andrew.
Well, of course from their perspective, Wikipedia must be seen as the victim in this affair - people will do searches on "Robert Clark Young" and instead of seeing a huge article laced with self-promotional kudos, they'll see that, and say "what's all the fuss about?" Standard WP procedure in a case like this - quick cleanup on aisle 3, sweep it under the rug, minimize and/or avoid criticism.SB_Johnny wrote:Heh.
Really good work on all fronts. Nicely done, and in a way that the majority of people who look at WP without editing it should be able to understand.
Apropos.The world desperately needs a Narcissists Anonymous group. The hitch is that none of them wants to be anonymous.
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-myth-dement ... html?cat=5Robert Clark Young
I have been a caregiver for my parents since 2008, when they both suffered strokes. When I started, I knew nothing about eldercare, but I now believe that anyone with a compassionate heart can learn to be a caregiver. I have decided to use my experience to help others, by writing a book called THE SURVIVOR: HOW TO DEAL WITH YOUR AGING PARENTS, WHILE ENRICHING YOUR OWN LIFE. The book is seeking a publisher. I am hoping that it will help all of those people who are suddenly placed in the position of caring for an infirm parent. Some of these columns are excerpted from the book, and many of them originally appeared in the Davis Enterprise.
Really? Is that why you're USING YOUR FUCKING PARENTS to try to make some coin?The filmmaker shuts the camera off. "I don't think your father even knows who you are. And I think you're just pretending to understand what your mother is talking about."
The filmmaker is in our house to make a documentary about my caring for my parents. I've agreed to the project because I believe it will advance the cause of eldercare, helping and inspiring seniors and the family members who care for them.
Makes me think he has more to hide.Registrant:
Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0132014336
96 Mowat Ave
Toronto, ON M6K 3M1
CA
Domain name: ROBERTCLARKYOUNG.COM
Administrative Contact:
Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0132014336, robertclarkyoung.com@contactprivacy.com
96 Mowat Ave
Toronto, ON M6K 3M1
CA
+1.4165385457
Technical Contact:
Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0132014336, robertclarkyoung.com@contactprivacy.com
96 Mowat Ave
Toronto, ON M6K 3M1
CA
+1.4165385457
Checking the obvious.Storyline
Robert Clark Young spends the first 47 years of his life looking for fame, fortune and love, only to end up a troubled young alcoholic, obsessive writer, and mercenary has-been. When both his parents have strokes and nobody else in the family will care for them, Bob returns home to San Diego and embarks on a transformative journey of self discovery which takes him as far outside himself as he's ever been in his life. Filmmaker Terisa Greenan follows Bob's odyssey of self discovery and tells his story with unflinching truth and surprising humor as he confronts the demons of his past by providing daily, life-giving care to his disabled mother and father. Written by Terisa Greenan, Director
From her contact information on her website:Geolocation Information
Country: United States us flag
State/Region: Washington
City: Seattle
Latitude: 47.6062 (47° 36′ 22.32″ N)
Longitude: -122.3321 (122° 19′ 55.56″ W)
Area Code: 206
https://twitter.com/terisagreenanPlease ONLY contact Terisa's agent with PAID acting work. For personal appearances and interviews, please contact Terisa directly.
Terisa Greenan is represented by:
Melissa Klein
TCM Models
2200 - 6th Ave. #530
Seattle, WA 98121
melissak@tcmmodels.com
Phone: (206)728-4826
FAX: (206)728-1814
You can e-mail Terisa directly at terisagreenan@comcast.net
Follow Terisa on Twitter!
There have been a bunch of IP edits to Qworty driven articles that geolocate to the Federal District, Mexico City.Robert Clark Young
My dad with three of his nieces, who came all the way from Mexico City and Veracruz to help celebrate his 85th birthday. Eldercare is so much easier when you have family who actually care.
Well, I wonder who that might be?Terisa recently started dating a third man, and her two current partners are OK with that.
You obviously missed this from earlier in this thread:IRWolfie- wrote:Ok, now I see why they are the same person. This looks pretty damning.
This is a really ugly episode whether or not it gets play in the mainstream media. It is yet another example of why Wikipedia's Cult of Anonymity is inherently unsavory and intellectually indefensible, and the way that its continuation undermines the cause of free, accurate, verifiable encyclopedic information...
Yup but I think we should go for the ones that are left. The easiest way now seems to be to develop relationships with journalists in the mainstream media who can write about it. This will create the impetus for Wikipedians "to go through article histories to investigate and clean up what now seems to be a pattern of bad COI editing".Randy from Boise wrote:Hopefully there will be a few Wikipedians that will go through article histories to investigate and clean up what now seems to be a pattern of bad COI editing by Mr. Young.
RfB