"

Right. So we've dealt with the question of Qworty's slander. Let's move on. Here's why you should not be involved in this discussion, Qworty. You have demonstrated - not simply to me; not simply to Wikipedia; but to THE WORLD AT LARGE - that you are incapable of editing in good faith. When the mainstream media characterizes you - Qworty - as a ranting, slanderous, biased editor, then... well, we should take that seriously.  I do hope you've read the Salon article about you? If not, let me quote: your screed was interpreted (rightly) as ""an apoplectic defense by one Wikipedia editor of actions that other Wikipedia editors labeled 'revenge editing.' There’s a lot of anger here (not to mention an unhealthy fixation with excrement!). Call me persnickety, but reading Qworty’s comments did not give me the greatest faith in Wikipedia’s internal process for building an encyclopedia of human knowledge.""

Those aren't my words, regarding you. They are Salon's. THEY have identified you as an apoplectic, vengeful disgrace, with an unhealthy scatological fixation. So, that's what we're dealing with here: you, Qworty, as the star of an article entitled ""Wikipedia's Shame.""

Now, Wikipedia requires that we assume good faith in our fellow editors, which I do, until the most extreme (and frankly comical) evidence points out that we're dealing with someone like you. Since we know that you will do everything within your power to sabotage any entry remotely related to Filipacchi, it's a waste of time to discuss matters of policy with you. I'm happy to debate subtle points of epistemology with almost anyone, into the wee hours of the morning - just not with you.  As for Little green rosetta: I've been giving her the benefit of the doubt. Even though she accused me - on the basis of what she termed ""behavioral and technical evidence"" - of using sock puppets. Even though, when that proved to be false (okay, a lie), she didn't apologize, but instead came here to support your - Qworty's - frivolous snark. Despite all of this, I've given her the benefit of the doubt. Now shall we get back to the tedious matter of editing this article?  (By ""we,"" I mean me and the editor who hasn't starred in an article entitled ""Wikipedia's Shame."")   "