Overview: Qworty has been blocked indefinitely for malicious editing in conflict of interest, because he was outed by Wikipediocracy and he admitted his identity as author Robert Clark Young on his user page. However, Qworty was identified as a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Geri Litton in July 2007, but not immediately blocked, I don't know why. If Qworty appeals his May 2013 block I think his extensive sockpuppeting should first be examined, which is why I'm filing this investigation. Also, every listed account should now be blocked and tagged rather than left free to edit. Binksternet ( talk) 20:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I started this page so that there would be a record in one place of all known Qworty socks. I consider it important to have such a record. As far as blocking this or that stale account, I think it would be useful to know about the previous scrutiny if any of them revived. At the very least they should get a template that says someone suspects sockpuppetry. Binksternet ( talk) 19:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Geri Litton from 2007. User:Geri Litton, User:Tuscan Doges, and User:Qworty were confirmed to be controlled by the same person. None of the accounts were blocked. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Another IP apparently controlled by "Qworty" is User:4.246.120.66, whose surviving promotional/COI edits, mostly related to Young's One of the Guys, I did my best to clean up yesterday. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Certainly they may well all be Q-socks - but this is a futile exercise since no CU can possibly make a positive connection, and there is no sign of any remote chance of further disruption by this horde. Frankly, blocking accouts from 8 years ago which made a single edit or three is a bit of a waste of time - let's all agree Q had a bunch of socks, and not try to label each one of them. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 07:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
@Dennis: I agree with you that "bagging and tagging" all the vintage-2005 accounts is not a particularly useful exercise, but given what we know, would it be wise to at least check the main account for any current socks? I think the evidence is pretty compelling that such a check would be warranted. 28bytes ( talk) 01:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Overview: Qworty has been blocked indefinitely for malicious editing in conflict of interest, because he was outed by Wikipediocracy and he admitted his identity as author Robert Clark Young on his user page. However, Qworty was identified as a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Geri Litton in July 2007, but not immediately blocked, I don't know why. If Qworty appeals his May 2013 block I think his extensive sockpuppeting should first be examined, which is why I'm filing this investigation. Also, every listed account should now be blocked and tagged rather than left free to edit. Binksternet ( talk) 20:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I started this page so that there would be a record in one place of all known Qworty socks. I consider it important to have such a record. As far as blocking this or that stale account, I think it would be useful to know about the previous scrutiny if any of them revived. At the very least they should get a template that says someone suspects sockpuppetry. Binksternet ( talk) 19:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Geri Litton from 2007. User:Geri Litton, User:Tuscan Doges, and User:Qworty were confirmed to be controlled by the same person. None of the accounts were blocked. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Another IP apparently controlled by "Qworty" is User:4.246.120.66, whose surviving promotional/COI edits, mostly related to Young's One of the Guys, I did my best to clean up yesterday. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Certainly they may well all be Q-socks - but this is a futile exercise since no CU can possibly make a positive connection, and there is no sign of any remote chance of further disruption by this horde. Frankly, blocking accouts from 8 years ago which made a single edit or three is a bit of a waste of time - let's all agree Q had a bunch of socks, and not try to label each one of them. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 07:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
@Dennis: I agree with you that "bagging and tagging" all the vintage-2005 accounts is not a particularly useful exercise, but given what we know, would it be wise to at least check the main account for any current socks? I think the evidence is pretty compelling that such a check would be warranted. 28bytes ( talk) 01:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)