Wikipediocracy

What do we know about this user?

They shilled for Robert Clark Young aka Qworty and his giant bag of socks.

Block log
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... %20rosetta
Blocked once for 24 hours with all this stuff going on.
Have the admins lost their will to protect BLPs?
It seems like these BLP warrior can say and do anything and never get called on it.
Is there a higher calling on wikipedia than protecting innocent people from having malicious articles written about them?
Is there a more obvious failure than what's going on right now?

Here's what they're currently working on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =550568890

I'm fairly certain that this user should be restricted from working on BLPs, widely construed.

??

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

(cur | prev) 19:46, 22 January 2013‎ Little green rosetta (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (Little green rosetta moved page Mitch Walker to Mitch Walker (gay activist): not primary topic)

What?!
Then there's a redirect

Mitchell L. Walker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Mitch Walker (gay activist))
Jump to: navigation, search

Then there's a ton of edit warring on this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history
LGR and Insomesia battling it out.

Who is Insomnesia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... /Insomesia
Blocked as a sock of Benjiboi...

Stranger and stranger.
Who created that article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... /Gydreamer

Bizarre.

Wikipedia needs to deal with the BLP thing in a fat hurry. As I dig into the corners of this place it's hard not to find very, very strange people writing shit articles about real people.

Getting into the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page where LGR seems to be employing very Qworty-esque types of arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South ... le_way_out
Towards the bottom.

By the way, how come there is no SPI for Qworty given his earlier enormous sock farm?

Vigilant wrote:Getting into the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page where LGR seems to be employing very Qworty-esque types of arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South ... le_way_out
Towards the bottom.

By the way, how come there is no SPI for Qworty given his earlier enormous sock farm?

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

Sweet Revenge wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Getting into the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page where LGR seems to be employing very Qworty-esque types of arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South ... le_way_out
Towards the bottom.

By the way, how come there is no SPI for Qworty given his earlier enormous sock farm?

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

Fuck me that's a pretty impressive list.

Peter Damian wrote:

Sweet Revenge wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Getting into the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page where LGR seems to be employing very Qworty-esque types of arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South ... le_way_out
Towards the bottom.

By the way, how come there is no SPI for Qworty given his earlier enormous sock farm?

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

Fuck me that's a pretty impressive list.

He's missed Kolcha and Suite27.

I can tell you with some degree of certainty that LGR is not Qworty/Young. LGR is just your typical American conservative POV pusher. Should LGR be a sock then it would be a sock of your typical banned American conservative POV pusher.

The Devil's Advocate wrote:I can tell you with some degree of certainty that LGR is not Qworty/Young. LGR is just your typical American conservative POV pusher. Should LGR be a sock then it would be a sock of your typical banned American conservative POV pusher.

I believe you.
LGR is definitely a returning, almost certainly banned, user.

It makes his implications of editing by sock on the wikipediocracy article even more laughable.

Peter Damian wrote:

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

Fuck me that's a pretty impressive list.

That's more-or-less the list I posted on the private Qworty thread. Most of them are pretty damned obvious.

BTW, if you want to see LGR sticking foot in mouth:
http://pastebin.com/neW6T9Uq
Does anyone know who that "Koi" idiot is?

09:26 < greenrosetta> ah... I think that alf guy is EricBarbour

No, it's not.

EricBarbour wrote:

Peter Damian wrote:

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

Fuck me that's a pretty impressive list.

That's more-or-less the list I posted on the private Qworty thread. Most of them are pretty damned obvious.

BTW, if you want to see LGR sticking foot in mouth:
http://pastebin.com/neW6T9Uq
Does anyone know who that "Koi" idiot is?

09:26 < greenrosetta> ah... I think that alf guy is EricBarbour

No, it's not.

Session Start: Mon May 13 23:56:52 2013
Session Ident: Koi
01[23:56] Koi is uid10416@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xdytaktxohiaytgm * gwickwire
01[23:56] Koi on #wikipedia-en
01[23:56] Koi using sendak.freenode.net Vilnius, Lithuania, EU
01[23:56] Koi is using a secure connection
01[23:56] Koi is logged in as Celebi
01[23:56] Koi End of /WHOIS list.
-

mac wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:

Peter Damian wrote:

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

Fuck me that's a pretty impressive list.

That's more-or-less the list I posted on the private Qworty thread. Most of them are pretty damned obvious.

BTW, if you want to see LGR sticking foot in mouth:
http://pastebin.com/neW6T9Uq
Does anyone know who that "Koi" idiot is?

09:26 < greenrosetta> ah... I think that alf guy is EricBarbour

No, it's not.

Session Start: Mon May 13 23:56:52 2013
Session Ident: Koi
01[23:56] Koi is uid10416@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xdytaktxohiaytgm * gwickwire
01[23:56] Koi on #wikipedia-en
01[23:56] Koi using sendak.freenode.net Vilnius, Lithuania, EU
01[23:56] Koi is using a secure connection
01[23:56] Koi is logged in as Celebi
01[23:56] Koi End of /WHOIS list.
-

I would have sworn that was Scott Bibby.

Hi Greg!!
Enjoying your new nym?

I wonder why his account isn't indef'd.
I also wonder when we'll find his current sockpuppet.

Vigilant, you're one step ahead of me - no wonder I get hammered as your sock. I just came here to start a thread on rosetta.

Strikes me that we have to take a good hard look at coffeepusher as well, who was apparently part of the Qworty posse - I'm told this gang of three coordinated attacks.

On a more positive note, Wikipedia is now free to reinstate/renovate entries destroyed maliciously by Young and friends. Might be good to start with Qworty's worst enemies. Something tells me that Brad Vice, for instance, hasn't been treated with great justice by the encyclopedia. (I haven't even had a chance to look at his entry, but I'd be amazed if it weren't drenched in slime.) I imagine someone's already looked into the Barry Hannah entry. But it would be good to have the complete Robert Clark Young enemy list.

This should perhaps be a separate freestanding thread?

EricBarbour wrote:

Peter Damian wrote:

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

Fuck me that's a pretty impressive list.

That's more-or-less the list I posted on the private Qworty thread. Most of them are pretty damned obvious.

BTW, if you want to see LGR sticking foot in mouth:
http://pastebin.com/neW6T9Uq
Does anyone know who that "Koi" idiot is?

09:26 < greenrosetta> ah... I think that alf guy is EricBarbour

No, it's not.

Alf confirms it.

NaymanNoland wrote:Vigilant, you're one step ahead of me - no wonder I get hammered as your sock. I just came here to start a thread on rosetta.

Strikes me that we have to take a good hard look at coffeepusher as well, who was apparently part of the Qworty posse - I'm told this gang of three coordinated attacks.

On a more positive note, Wikipedia is now free to reinstate/renovate entries destroyed maliciously by Young and friends. Might be good to start with Qworty's worst enemies. Something tells me that Brad Vice, for instance, hasn't been treated with great justice by the encyclopedia. (I haven't even had a chance to look at his entry, but I'd be amazed if it weren't drenched in slime.) I imagine someone's already looked into the Barry Hannah entry. But it would be good to have the complete Robert Clark Young enemy list.

This should perhaps be a separate freestanding thread?

Every article edited by Qworty or any of his socks needs to be gone over and fixed.
That's a huge amount of work in its own right.

The they'll have to look for unfound sockpuppets and collaborators like LGR and coffeepusher.
Every article that they've edited is certainly suspect.

With 7 years gone from the start and an unknown number of accounts moved through.

It's a vast amount of work. My guess is that the ADHD guys over there will just leave most of it in the ground, knowing, KNOWING, that there are BLP violations all over but just too filled with ennui to go about fixing them.

mac wrote:Alf confirms it.

It's not even his FINAL FORM!

Vigilant wrote:I also wonder when we'll find his current sockpuppet.

Koi (T-C-L)? Naah......

Also, I have learned that LGR logs into IRC thus:

15:37 -!- greenrosetta [~greenrose@c-98-204-58-89.hsd1.va.comcast.net] has joined #wikipedia-en
15:37 -!- greenrosetta [~greenrose@c-98-204-58-89.hsd1.va.comcast.net] has quit [Changing host]
15:37 -!- greenrosetta [~greenrose@unaffiliated/greenrosetta] has joined #wikipedia-en

Great, a Comcast cable modem.

EricBarbour wrote:

Vigilant wrote:I also wonder when we'll find his current sockpuppet.

Koi (T-C-L)? Naah......

Specifically, I am active in the furry fandom, where I take on the fairly non-anthropomorphic form of a catboy.

*sigh*

(I know I've said that it would be a bad idea for me to get too involved in Project Qworty, personally. But there still has to be a Project Qworty. And I'm more than happy to help light a fire under it.)

EricBarbour wrote:

Vigilant wrote:I also wonder when we'll find his current sockpuppet.

Koi (T-C-L)? Naah......

Also, I have learned that LGR logs into IRC thus:

15:37 -!- greenrosetta [~greenrose@c-98-204-58-89.hsd1.va.comcast.net] has joined #wikipedia-en
15:37 -!- greenrosetta [~greenrose@c-98-204-58-89.hsd1.va.comcast.net] has quit [Changing host]
15:37 -!- greenrosetta [~greenrose@unaffiliated/greenrosetta] has joined #wikipedia-en

Great, a Comcast cable modem.

Not my area of expertise, but isn't like 40% or more of the USA on a comcast cable modem? (I think I am, or maybe I'm on the other one, but you get my drift).

DanMurphy wrote: Not my area of expertise, but isn't like 40% or more of the USA on a comcast cable modem? (I think I am, or maybe I'm on the other one, but you get my drift).

I don't know the percentage, but that one's in Arlington, Virginia it seems.

The Devil's Advocate wrote:I can tell you with some degree of certainty that LGR is not Qworty/Young. LGR is just your typical American conservative POV pusher. Should LGR be a sock then it would be a sock of your typical banned American conservative POV pusher.

Ming has come across her as part of the Collect (T-C-L)-centered group that spends a lot of time attacking detractors of right-Libertarian nuttery. Ming doesn't think that they actually function as a cabal, but they hardly need to.

Ming wrote:

The Devil's Advocate wrote:I can tell you with some degree of certainty that LGR is not Qworty/Young. LGR is just your typical American conservative POV pusher. Should LGR be a sock then it would be a sock of your typical banned American conservative POV pusher.

Ming has come across her as part of the Collect (T-C-L)-centered group that spends a lot of time attacking detractors of right-Libertarian nuttery. Ming doesn't think that they actually function as a cabal, but they hardly need to.

Rosetta may be a feminine noun, but it's fairly obvious that LGR isn't a girl. Also, he's a Zappa fan.

Ming wrote:Ming has come across her as part of the Collect (T-C-L)-centered group that spends a lot of time attacking detractors of right-Libertarian nuttery. Ming doesn't think that they actually function as a cabal, but they hardly need to.

If you know how pathetic the "Collect Gang" really was, you wouldn't call them a "cabal".

Did you know that Collect tried to change a Britannica article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... n_a_source
And if that's not stupid enough:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... nt/Collect

In case you wondered whether LGR is still carrying water for Qworty. Here she is, despite her tepid statement of support for the ban:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555692910

That would be a barnstar to Obiwankenobi for his defense of "fairness" to Robert Clark Young.

(Obiwan is someone I quite like who is nevertheless being absurdly generous to this vandal. Just discussed this syndrome in the Qworty thread.)

Viriditas thinks that Little green rosetta is the indefinitely blocked user Belchfire.

LGR and Belchfire certainly have an interesting intersection of interests.

tarantino wrote:Viriditas thinks that Little green rosetta is the indefinitely blocked user Belchfire.

LGR and Belchfire certainly have an interesting intersection of interests.

Whoever LGR is, they need to be indef'd.
They don't write well and they cause a ton of trouble.

This is their latest work.
Look upon that and weep.

And, of course, it's a BLP.

*sigh*

Ming wrote:

The Devil's Advocate wrote:I can tell you with some degree of certainty that LGR is not Qworty/Young. LGR is just your typical American conservative POV pusher. Should LGR be a sock then it would be a sock of your typical banned American conservative POV pusher.

Ming has come across her as part of the Collect (T-C-L)-centered group that spends a lot of time attacking detractors of right-Libertarian nuttery. Ming doesn't think that they actually function as a cabal, but they hardly need to.

Collect's alright. He does seem to be a conservative but not in the "crazy" kind of way (I can describe some people on the other end of the political spectrum in the same words). Mostly he seems to be focus on BLP issues - sort of like YouReallyCan/OfftoRioRob but way way way more stable and reasonable. I don't think he has a cabal or a "centered" group aside from the fact that there may be some people who sometimes agree with him.

Also I think he might have actually posted here on WR at some point.

tarantino wrote:Viriditas thinks that Little green rosetta is the indefinitely blocked user Belchfire.

LGR and Belchfire certainly have an interesting intersection of interests.

I know Belchfire as well and was kind of amused when I saw that he was now a blocked sockmaster. However, I do not think LGR is Belchfire either. To explain, back during the election cycle one of LGR's liberal opponents got indeffed, LGR e-mailed the editor in a, how shall I say, less than gracious fashion and that editor showed me the e-mails that apparently contained LGR's IP address. If the address given in Belchfire's list of suspected socks is indicative of where he lives and the IP I have is LGR's then LGR is not his sock.

Viriditas probably wishes that were the case because it would be a hell of a lot more convenient for him.

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

tarantino wrote:Viriditas thinks that Little green rosetta is the indefinitely blocked user Belchfire.

LGR and Belchfire certainly have an interesting intersection of interests.

I know Belchfire as well and was kind of amused when I saw that he was now a blocked sockmaster. However, I do not think LGR is Belchfire either. To explain, back during the election cycle one of LGR's liberal opponents got indeffed, LGR e-mailed the editor in a, how shall I say, less than gracious fashion and that editor showed me the e-mails that apparently contained LGR's IP address. If the address given in Belchfire's list of suspected socks is indicative of where he lives and the IP I have is LGR's then LGR is not his sock.

Viriditas probably wishes that were the case because it would be a hell of a lot more convenient for him.

Why the tedious cloak and dagger shit.
Where does LGR live?

Vigilant wrote:

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

tarantino wrote:Viriditas thinks that Little green rosetta is the indefinitely blocked user Belchfire.

LGR and Belchfire certainly have an interesting intersection of interests.

I know Belchfire as well and was kind of amused when I saw that he was now a blocked sockmaster. However, I do not think LGR is Belchfire either. To explain, back during the election cycle one of LGR's liberal opponents got indeffed, LGR e-mailed the editor in a, how shall I say, less than gracious fashion and that editor showed me the e-mails that apparently contained LGR's IP address. If the address given in Belchfire's list of suspected socks is indicative of where he lives and the IP I have is LGR's then LGR is not his sock.

Viriditas probably wishes that were the case because it would be a hell of a lot more convenient for him.

Why the tedious cloak and dagger shit.
Where does LGR live?

Is it not Arlington, Virginia? according to ip2location.com?

Eh. I know that this opinion isn't popular here, but I think you can deal with a menace like LGF without outing him completely. Especially his geographic location.

Outing is radical. Until you know that he's a monster on the level of Qworty, I think it's unfair. It has to be the kind of hypocrisy that utterly delegitimizes everything he says and does - and what he says and does has to be pretty nasty. Just as I think it's completely unfair to out someone as gay, unless it's, say, Fred Phelps.

(Note that I can believe this and STILL be fervently in support of ditching Wikipedia's anonymity policy.)

NaymanNoland wrote:Eh. I know that this opinion isn't popular here, but I think you can deal with a menace like LGF without outing him completely. Especially his geographic location.

Outing is radical.

Crap. Utter crap.

Until you know that he's a monster on the level of Qworty, I think it's unfair.

I disagree completely.
If you behave like a dick to people because you think you're anonymous, then it becomes perfectly fine to remove that enabling cloak.

It has to be the kind of hypocrisy that utterly delegitimizes everything he says and does - and what he says and does has to be pretty nasty.

I think we're already way, way past that particular line.

Just as I think it's completely unfair to out someone as gay, unless it's, say, Fred Phelps.

I'm so very sick of this broken analogy. Being gay is not like being a douchenozzle on wikipedia. It's just not.

Here's a simple rule:
If you behave like a dick on wikipedia, expect to have your identity exposed.
And some free advice from Toy Story:
So, play nice.

NaymanNoland wrote:Outing is radical.

No it isnt.

Anroth wrote:

NaymanNoland wrote:Outing is radical.

No it isnt.

Well, I'm convinced!
¡pǝɔuıʌuoɔ ɯ,ı 'ןןǝʍ

It is radical, because it's simply punishment. And, for some people, pretty serious punishment.

Yes, Wikipedia should ban anonymity. But the social contract at the moment does not state that. People join with the understanding that they will be working in that way: pseudonymously. Should they sometimes be stripped of that anonymity? Yes. But they sure better have done something pretty horrible: they have to have done something that indicates that they are no longer bound by that contract, hence no longer protected by it. They have to have torn a huge nasty hole in the social fabric.

The Westboro analogies are getting a bit tired, it's true, but this one happens to be extremely useful. What Qworty did was precisely analogous to what we'd see if Fred Phelps were gay.

Qworty spent close to a decade ripping people for being failed writers. Qworty is a failed writer.

Fred Phelps has devoted his entire life to ripping people for being gay. Fred Phelps is gay.

(Well, we don't know that, but that's the analogy.)

NaymanNoland wrote:Fred Phelps is gay.

(Well, we don't know that, but that's the analogy.)

GOD HATES TAGS

Note that this is a pretty stringent standard. It's much more than just being a dickhead. Lots of people are dickheads. From your perspective, my taking this position may very well make me a dickhead.

With Young, however, it's not a matter of perspective. The fact is that nobody sane could possibly look at Qworty's behavior and see it as anything but monstrous. Not even Robert Clark Young. In fact, that's the salient point: Qworty is monstrous, judged by Qworty's own standards.

There's no question that LGR is a real piece of work. But I don't see any evidence - yet - that he's done anything remotely as vile and hypocritical as what Qworty has done, consistently, for over seven years.

Dude,
You draw your line where you will and I'll do the same.

NaymanNoland wrote:Note that this is a pretty stringent standard. It's much more than just being a dickhead. Lots of people are dickheads. From your perspective, my taking this position may very well make me a dickhead.

With Young, however, it's not a matter of perspective. The fact is that nobody sane could possibly look at Qworty's behavior and see it as anything but monstrous. Not even Robert Clark Young. In fact, that's the salient point: Qworty is monstrous, judged by Qworty's own standards.

There's no question that LGR is a real piece of work. But I don't see any evidence - yet - that he's done anything remotely as vile and hypocritical as what Qworty has done, consistently, for over seven years.

Concern troll?

Okay, fair enough.

But I hope you have a line. Because it's pretty radical - and unkind - to simply out people on Wikipedia because you think Wikipedia should not be anonymous.

It's okay to be a nudist. It's okay to insist that the whole world be nudists. But when a posse of nudists runs through Times Square with scissors, holding people down and cutting their clothes off, that's not nudism. That's terrorism.

Concern troll?

Screw that. Concern trolling indicates that I'm somehow being insincere. You may not agree with me, but I am not trolling: I believe this, I assure you.

NaymanNoland wrote:Okay, fair enough.

But I hope you have a line. Because it's pretty radical - and unkind - to simply out people on Wikipedia because you think Wikipedia should not be anonymous.

It's okay to be a nudist. It's okay to insist that the whole world be nudists. But when a posse of nudists runs through Times Square with scissors, holding people down and cutting their clothes off, that's not nudism. That's terrorism.

Look through my history or ask around.

I don't think I pick fights with people who aren't assholes.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

tarantino wrote:Viriditas thinks that Little green rosetta is the indefinitely blocked user Belchfire.

LGR and Belchfire certainly have an interesting intersection of interests.

Now THAT is snappy material. Thank you.

NaymanNoland wrote:Okay, fair enough.

But I hope you have a line. Because it's pretty radical - and unkind - to simply out people on Wikipedia because you think Wikipedia should not be anonymous.

It's okay to be a nudist. It's okay to insist that the whole world be nudists. But when a posse of nudists runs through Times Square with scissors, holding people down and cutting their clothes off, that's not nudism. That's terrorism.

Chill, friend. You don't know my opinion on anonymity on Wikipedia. If someone logs into IRC with a visible IP address how is it anything bad to geolocate it? If the guy cared to hide it he could pay five bucks a month for a cheap VPN or just use TOR like normal people.
edit:Ah, you didn't mean me. OK, but still...

No, I didn't mean you. I was just bridling at the "concern troll" allegation. (I've been dealing with a notorious concern troll elsewhere: she's pretty repulsive.)

I'm not being un-chill, actually. As I said from the outset: I know that my position on this is not likely to be hugely popular. But you have to say what you believe, right? Even if it means protecting someone as noxious as LGR.

NaymanNoland wrote:Note that this is a pretty stringent standard. It's much more than just being a dickhead. Lots of people are dickheads. From your perspective, my taking this position may very well make me a dickhead.

With Young, however, it's not a matter of perspective. The fact is that nobody sane could possibly look at Qworty's behavior and see it as anything but monstrous. Not even Robert Clark Young. In fact, that's the salient point: Qworty is monstrous, judged by Qworty's own standards.

There's no question that LGR is a real piece of work. But I don't see any evidence - yet - that he's done anything remotely as vile and hypocritical as what Qworty has done, consistently, for over seven years.

If you're sincere, which I do wonder about, I'll answer sincerely. Sane people can in fact look at Qworty's behavior and see it as anything but monstrous. The guy is purely human. Yes, what he did was bad. Yes, he should be blocked, banned, humiliated, whatever. But if you don't see how you could get to where he is from where you are you're not thinking about it hard enough. There are no monsters in this world, just people, and, taking circumstances into account, it's not so easy to tell one from another, at least not to the extent of calling one a monster. Try to have some mercy. You're a sinner too, as are we all. While you're being merciful, it's also OK to torment, tease, harass, and even out people who strike you as monstrous. So I contradict myself? See Whitman on that subject.

NaymanNoland wrote:...

Sorry, unrelated to this thread, but - you're not related to Mantanmoreland, are you?

Naw. It's Beckett. (Who's way more depressing than Whitman.)

Sweet Revenge: Why do you wonder whether I'm being sincere?

And yeah, the word "monster" is probably over the top. And yes, we're all sinners. But there are greater and lesser sinners in this world. And this guy wins some kind of prize.

NaymanNoland wrote:Naw. It's Beckett. (Who's way more depressing than Whitman.)

Sweet Revenge: Why do you wonder whether I'm being sincere?

I don't know, maybe because you're evasive (see present case) and you remind me of other people? Probably nothing. I won't mention it again.