Post by blissyu2 on Oct 2, 2008 9:12:12 GMT -5
On 6 September 2008, Proabviouc finally found definite proof that Poetlister was the same person as Taxwoman, Rachel Brown, and various other Wikipedia user names. In so doing, he also found out some new names, including "Guy" from Wikipedia Review. This also discovered the real name of the person responsible, and his identity - that of a 52 year old MALE statistician. It also gave some motivation for his choice of names and identities, and some of the true people behind the photographs.
This led to various decisions on Wikipedia. Wikipedia ran an interwiki Request for comment against Poetlister/Cato and related accounts. As a part of that, Cato, one of the names used by Poetlister, confessed to various accounts.
It also led to Cade Mertz, a regular Wikipedia critic, posting on The Register about the incident, which gives even more insight.
Perhaps the biggest aspect of all, however, was the reaction on Wikipedia Review, which led to the biggest thread in Wikipedia Review's history - far bigger than any others. An incredible 70+ pages worth of comments.
So why was this a big deal? After all, way back on 21 December 2005 SlimVirgin had said that they were abusive sock puppets, and they were indeed banned as such.
But of course that ban was overturned, thanks largely to User:Zordrac/Poetlister, the investigation made by myself into the incident, that exposed that correct process had not been followed and that there was no evidence of any abuse. I was banned over that, but the reaction to it all was that it was an example of some of the worst abuse in Wikipedia's history. So why the change?
Critically, in August 2007 Encyclopaedia Dramatica found evidence that they were the same person, and I even posted an update in September 2007 citing their evidence that they were the same person, including an at that stage unfounded accusation that Guy and Poetlister were the same person.
So why didn't people at Wikipedia Review believe me? After all, I had been the one behind the initial investigation. What possible reason would I have for lying about it?
As we now know, this was all a part of Somey's efforts to steal Wikipedia Review from me. He had actually purchased hosting from HostGator in July 2007, prior to ED and my uncovery of definite proof that they were the same person. Rather than accepting that what I was saying was true, Somey used this as the beginnings of his efforts to ruin my good name, to turn people against me.
This all culminated in Kato being promoted first to the Anti-Cabal group, then, after a week full to the brim of the worst abuse in Wikipedia Review history, Kato was not only not removed from the Anti-Cabal group but was promoted to moderator by Somey. My reaction to this was disgust, calling for Somey to be fired for it. Kato was destroying Wikipedia Review, taking it into the gutter. But Somey responded by wiping all of my posts trying to get him to stop it. Somey told me at the time that he didn't want everyone to see our dirty laundry, but as is now obvious the real reason was to paint a picture that, rather than me saying, quite correctly, that Kato should be removed from his position, in my position as owner of the site, that I was making "unfounded, irrational accusations". This was therefore used as justification by Somey to "ban me".
Whether Somey actually asked Kato to do it so as to justify his theft of the site (which had been done in July 2007, but I could have taken it back in November 2007 was I aware of it, and with the support of the Wikipedia Review community, as I definitely had as at July 2007), or alternatively whether Somey simply took advantage of the situation, is up for debate. In the end, in many ways it doesn't matter. The end result is that they were able to give some false justification for stealing the site. In spite of my posting hard, indisputable evidence that I was owner of the site as at when I was "banned", and Somey not posting any evidence to either contradict my evidence or to prove it himself, still some people insist that it is not true.
Unfortunately, after exposing Poetlister's identity thanks primarily to a single internet archive post (but later confirmed with various confessions), the person who had made the complaint, who called himself Chris Selwood, demanded that the evidence be removed. In removing the evidence, Proabviouc updated the post, which ended up blaming the creation of Poetlister's entire identity on me, based on an apparent "error" in getting "Referred by" and "Written by" mixed up. I have written a correction to this which proves it pretty conclusively.
To date, however, 2 weeks after the correction was posted, Proabviouc has made no attempts to correct his major error. On the other hand, however, Alison has used this as an excuse to run a major smear campaign against me, ending only when I showed her snippets of the Captain AmErika smear against the head of the CIA Michael Hayden, which was done by the same person that had smeared my name, a libel case won by me (or at least by Bonnie Coombs acting on behalf of me and a few others), the results of which are still available online, that she finally ended it, possibly in fear of being prosecuted by the CIA. Still my name is smeared over this though.
Rather than this being about Poetlister, it has turned into an excuse for a smear campaign against me, the person who has been more involved in it than anyone else.
SlimVirgin, for her part, has perhaps the most insane version of events out of everyone. Her PoetGate sub page ultimately states that Poetlister was a nazi set to destroy all Jews! I mean seriously! She also states that Wikipedia Review (which started 6 weeks prior to Poetlister being banned) was started purely because of Poetlister, and that the only reason that anyone has ever opposed her is because of Poetlister. She also makes smears about myself, based on Proabviouc's errors, smears that are being repeated on Wikipedia Review many times over.
Ultimately, however, still nobody has presented any evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Poetlister. Other than ultimately supporting Somey's abuse of me on Wikipedia Review, Poetlister didn't abuse his position on Wikipedia Review (and, given Somey and Kato's actions, Poetlister's involvement was hardly major). There was no abuse anywhere really. Even these big complaints now release state basically that Poetlister used photos that belonged to other people - something which is apparently criminal because, using 1 and only 1 of the accounts (Taxwoman) he had claimed to like BDSM. These photos were not used in chat sites but in encyclopaedia sites.
This issue wasn't really about abuse though. I for one had always suspected that they were the same person. After all, why hadn't they held up signs related to the photos to say that it was them? How hard would that be to do? Why not call Mindspillage to confirm your identity? There are ways to prove your identity absolutely, and you can do it whilst still protecting your privacy. But at the same time, nobody had complained. It took 4 years before anyone made any complaints, which is extremely minor really, and reflects just how tiny this issue is in real terms.
The issue was about being lied to. I had thought, and still believe, that Poetlister should not have been banned for he was a constructive member. Rather, he should have been restricted to one account.
Now, in an effort to justify falling for these lies, a lot of people have made outlandish theories as to what has happened, which, thanks largely to WR being stolen from me, falls on my head.
If I was still running WR, or if I had taken it back off Somey, what would people be saying about me now? SlimVirgin undoubtedly would still be saying the same things, but there wouldn't be this same kind of reaction against me on WR. Indeed, I can prove my position, but it is like I don't have a voice anymore. The smear campaign against me is because of Somey's theft, using this incident as an excuse.
A secondary issue though, which is relevant, is the lengths that they went to to hide their identity. Early on, and on ED, they were sloppy, but on WR in particular they used different IP addresses and different ISPs for each identity, with no overlap at all. After the scrutiny began, they were very careful.
With that much effort taken to hide your identity, over something which, basically, is nothing, what could they have done if it was more serious?
Or perhaps, secretly, there is something more sinister behind this that nobody has yet discovered.
One has to wonder why the person who made the complaint would now want the only bit of evidence that they are telling the truth removed from everywhere, and why they are blaming the wrong people for it. This action, and related actions, suggest a cover up - that this latest exposure is a red herring to hide what is really going on.
Whether it is really just a paranoid idiot over-reacting or whether it is something sinister is something which, at the moment at least, is up for debate.
This led to various decisions on Wikipedia. Wikipedia ran an interwiki Request for comment against Poetlister/Cato and related accounts. As a part of that, Cato, one of the names used by Poetlister, confessed to various accounts.
It also led to Cade Mertz, a regular Wikipedia critic, posting on The Register about the incident, which gives even more insight.
Perhaps the biggest aspect of all, however, was the reaction on Wikipedia Review, which led to the biggest thread in Wikipedia Review's history - far bigger than any others. An incredible 70+ pages worth of comments.
So why was this a big deal? After all, way back on 21 December 2005 SlimVirgin had said that they were abusive sock puppets, and they were indeed banned as such.
But of course that ban was overturned, thanks largely to User:Zordrac/Poetlister, the investigation made by myself into the incident, that exposed that correct process had not been followed and that there was no evidence of any abuse. I was banned over that, but the reaction to it all was that it was an example of some of the worst abuse in Wikipedia's history. So why the change?
Critically, in August 2007 Encyclopaedia Dramatica found evidence that they were the same person, and I even posted an update in September 2007 citing their evidence that they were the same person, including an at that stage unfounded accusation that Guy and Poetlister were the same person.
So why didn't people at Wikipedia Review believe me? After all, I had been the one behind the initial investigation. What possible reason would I have for lying about it?
As we now know, this was all a part of Somey's efforts to steal Wikipedia Review from me. He had actually purchased hosting from HostGator in July 2007, prior to ED and my uncovery of definite proof that they were the same person. Rather than accepting that what I was saying was true, Somey used this as the beginnings of his efforts to ruin my good name, to turn people against me.
This all culminated in Kato being promoted first to the Anti-Cabal group, then, after a week full to the brim of the worst abuse in Wikipedia Review history, Kato was not only not removed from the Anti-Cabal group but was promoted to moderator by Somey. My reaction to this was disgust, calling for Somey to be fired for it. Kato was destroying Wikipedia Review, taking it into the gutter. But Somey responded by wiping all of my posts trying to get him to stop it. Somey told me at the time that he didn't want everyone to see our dirty laundry, but as is now obvious the real reason was to paint a picture that, rather than me saying, quite correctly, that Kato should be removed from his position, in my position as owner of the site, that I was making "unfounded, irrational accusations". This was therefore used as justification by Somey to "ban me".
Whether Somey actually asked Kato to do it so as to justify his theft of the site (which had been done in July 2007, but I could have taken it back in November 2007 was I aware of it, and with the support of the Wikipedia Review community, as I definitely had as at July 2007), or alternatively whether Somey simply took advantage of the situation, is up for debate. In the end, in many ways it doesn't matter. The end result is that they were able to give some false justification for stealing the site. In spite of my posting hard, indisputable evidence that I was owner of the site as at when I was "banned", and Somey not posting any evidence to either contradict my evidence or to prove it himself, still some people insist that it is not true.
Unfortunately, after exposing Poetlister's identity thanks primarily to a single internet archive post (but later confirmed with various confessions), the person who had made the complaint, who called himself Chris Selwood, demanded that the evidence be removed. In removing the evidence, Proabviouc updated the post, which ended up blaming the creation of Poetlister's entire identity on me, based on an apparent "error" in getting "Referred by" and "Written by" mixed up. I have written a correction to this which proves it pretty conclusively.
To date, however, 2 weeks after the correction was posted, Proabviouc has made no attempts to correct his major error. On the other hand, however, Alison has used this as an excuse to run a major smear campaign against me, ending only when I showed her snippets of the Captain AmErika smear against the head of the CIA Michael Hayden, which was done by the same person that had smeared my name, a libel case won by me (or at least by Bonnie Coombs acting on behalf of me and a few others), the results of which are still available online, that she finally ended it, possibly in fear of being prosecuted by the CIA. Still my name is smeared over this though.
Rather than this being about Poetlister, it has turned into an excuse for a smear campaign against me, the person who has been more involved in it than anyone else.
SlimVirgin, for her part, has perhaps the most insane version of events out of everyone. Her PoetGate sub page ultimately states that Poetlister was a nazi set to destroy all Jews! I mean seriously! She also states that Wikipedia Review (which started 6 weeks prior to Poetlister being banned) was started purely because of Poetlister, and that the only reason that anyone has ever opposed her is because of Poetlister. She also makes smears about myself, based on Proabviouc's errors, smears that are being repeated on Wikipedia Review many times over.
Ultimately, however, still nobody has presented any evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Poetlister. Other than ultimately supporting Somey's abuse of me on Wikipedia Review, Poetlister didn't abuse his position on Wikipedia Review (and, given Somey and Kato's actions, Poetlister's involvement was hardly major). There was no abuse anywhere really. Even these big complaints now release state basically that Poetlister used photos that belonged to other people - something which is apparently criminal because, using 1 and only 1 of the accounts (Taxwoman) he had claimed to like BDSM. These photos were not used in chat sites but in encyclopaedia sites.
This issue wasn't really about abuse though. I for one had always suspected that they were the same person. After all, why hadn't they held up signs related to the photos to say that it was them? How hard would that be to do? Why not call Mindspillage to confirm your identity? There are ways to prove your identity absolutely, and you can do it whilst still protecting your privacy. But at the same time, nobody had complained. It took 4 years before anyone made any complaints, which is extremely minor really, and reflects just how tiny this issue is in real terms.
The issue was about being lied to. I had thought, and still believe, that Poetlister should not have been banned for he was a constructive member. Rather, he should have been restricted to one account.
Now, in an effort to justify falling for these lies, a lot of people have made outlandish theories as to what has happened, which, thanks largely to WR being stolen from me, falls on my head.
If I was still running WR, or if I had taken it back off Somey, what would people be saying about me now? SlimVirgin undoubtedly would still be saying the same things, but there wouldn't be this same kind of reaction against me on WR. Indeed, I can prove my position, but it is like I don't have a voice anymore. The smear campaign against me is because of Somey's theft, using this incident as an excuse.
A secondary issue though, which is relevant, is the lengths that they went to to hide their identity. Early on, and on ED, they were sloppy, but on WR in particular they used different IP addresses and different ISPs for each identity, with no overlap at all. After the scrutiny began, they were very careful.
With that much effort taken to hide your identity, over something which, basically, is nothing, what could they have done if it was more serious?
Or perhaps, secretly, there is something more sinister behind this that nobody has yet discovered.
One has to wonder why the person who made the complaint would now want the only bit of evidence that they are telling the truth removed from everywhere, and why they are blaming the wrong people for it. This action, and related actions, suggest a cover up - that this latest exposure is a red herring to hide what is really going on.
Whether it is really just a paranoid idiot over-reacting or whether it is something sinister is something which, at the moment at least, is up for debate.