Post by blissyu2 on Oct 11, 2008 19:43:11 GMT -5
On 6 September 2008, Proabviouc, Tarantino and Thisismyusername finally broke the Poetlister scandal. All of a sudden, it was the biggest thread, in terms of number of comments, in Wikipedia Review's history, and probably will end up as the most viewed thread.
But out of all of this, a lot of people missed the point somewhat.
Poetlister had actually been proven to have been using multiple accounts on Encyclopaedia Dramatica back in September 2007, a full year beforehand. While ED often isn't believed, the fact that the person responsible for the initial investigation into the ban from Wikipedia, me, had updated the investigation to say that they were guilty of using multiple accounts, in September 2007, should have been enough. On top of that, I was abused on Wikipedia Review, a site which, at that point in time, I owned, for daring to say it. The only opposition was Guy, who I said right then was also the same person.
It wasn't just that people hadn't accepted the evidence. They should have, but perhaps you can forgive ignorance. After all, ED isn't exactly reliable. But then the really freaky bit was that in September 2008 all and sundry were blaming me for it.
In August 2007, I questioned why Newport was banned from ED for something that Poetlister had done. This questioned was answered, and, as proven above, I changed my story. But that didn't stop it being falsely added to the Encyc version of the article, to try to rubbish my name.
Indeed, to get back to why my name was being rubbished, we need to look no further than the main September 2008 exposure, by Proabviouc et al. See, they had actually blamed me for the whole thing, which was, of course, blatantly false, as I proved. They then went to lengths to try to prevent me from being able to get it out there that I had been wronged, trying to wipe an article written to prove my innocence and making various other attempts to rubbish my name over it.
Indeed, the incident became more an issue of trying to rubbish my name than it was about trying to expose Poetlister. This of course probably relates to Wikipedia Review being stolen from me in November 2007 (technically in July 2007, although it wasn't exposed until November 2007).
Of course, as nay sayers will say, I wrote that article (just as how Proabviouc wrote his article too), on my own web site. That doesn't mean that those e-mails aren't real, or that the thousands of posts all around the web aren't real. There's a lot more evidence that I owned WR than there is that I created the Poetlister identity.
So then we get back to this scandal. Whilst it was undoubtedly used as an excuse to make WR look good in spite of misdeeds (at least since I lost control of the site in November 2007), and to rubbish my name, the thing is that Poetlister confessed to using multiple accounts, so in that respect it is true. But what of the rest of it?
We already know that some elements of Proabviouc's claims are false. After all, I really was not responsible for creating the Poetlister identity. Yet Proabviouc insists on it, and this lie is also repeated by SlimVirgin (who uses it to simultaneously rubbish my name and WR's).
The thing is that Proabviouc's claims are supported by links, yet the links do not actually prove what he says.
Statements made by people calling themselves Chris Selwood and Jodie Lynn are used to back up the following statements:
1) Poetlister's real name is Michael Baxter.
2) Rachel Brown is Michael Baxter's feminised alter-ego.
Do we know for sure that Chris Selwood and Jodie Lynn are real people? Just because they claim that these are their real names doesn't mean that they are. Why has nobody tried to prove this?
Further, how do we know that Michael Baxter is his real name? We have one Wikipedia article, now deleted, which may or may not be real.
Now, the only actual evidence provided that actually proved anything at all, was the photo of "Nas", a woman whose photo was used for Taxwoman. This was linked to an archive.org link of boudoir.
So why then was Chris Selwood trying to get that photo removed? It doesn't add up. If this is the ONE AND ONLY bit of evidence, other than statements, that actually proved the claims, then why was it removed? Why do you want to get rid of evidence that proves your innocence?
Furthermore, Chris Selwood wasn't trying to attack Proabviouc, who was the guilty party, nor was he trying to get rid of the photo from archive.org (which is simple enough to do, as they remove links on request). Instead, Chris Selwood was trying to attack me on Encyc and ED for daring to link to photos.
So why do this? This seems unbelievably suspicious.
Here we can perhaps theorise as to what was really going on.
Obviously, Poetlister really was using multiple accounts. Poetlister's departure from WR, wiping all of the posts, suggests that there was something to hide, and also that people had finally turned on him.
Perhaps then, rather than this being trying to set up Poetlister, it was instead being done to try to help Poetlister.
Perhaps Proabviouc was in league with Poetlister, to pretend to various "facts" so that he could move on with his life.
It might not be anything more than that. Poetlister, in leaving, wanted to leave parting gifts of a number of lies about all who had hurt him, to hurt them more. And that is that. No more investigations, that is it.
Of course, in the wash up, we all know that Poetlister didn't do anything seriously wrong.
But out of all of this, a lot of people missed the point somewhat.
Poetlister had actually been proven to have been using multiple accounts on Encyclopaedia Dramatica back in September 2007, a full year beforehand. While ED often isn't believed, the fact that the person responsible for the initial investigation into the ban from Wikipedia, me, had updated the investigation to say that they were guilty of using multiple accounts, in September 2007, should have been enough. On top of that, I was abused on Wikipedia Review, a site which, at that point in time, I owned, for daring to say it. The only opposition was Guy, who I said right then was also the same person.
It wasn't just that people hadn't accepted the evidence. They should have, but perhaps you can forgive ignorance. After all, ED isn't exactly reliable. But then the really freaky bit was that in September 2008 all and sundry were blaming me for it.
In August 2007, I questioned why Newport was banned from ED for something that Poetlister had done. This questioned was answered, and, as proven above, I changed my story. But that didn't stop it being falsely added to the Encyc version of the article, to try to rubbish my name.
Indeed, to get back to why my name was being rubbished, we need to look no further than the main September 2008 exposure, by Proabviouc et al. See, they had actually blamed me for the whole thing, which was, of course, blatantly false, as I proved. They then went to lengths to try to prevent me from being able to get it out there that I had been wronged, trying to wipe an article written to prove my innocence and making various other attempts to rubbish my name over it.
Indeed, the incident became more an issue of trying to rubbish my name than it was about trying to expose Poetlister. This of course probably relates to Wikipedia Review being stolen from me in November 2007 (technically in July 2007, although it wasn't exposed until November 2007).
Of course, as nay sayers will say, I wrote that article (just as how Proabviouc wrote his article too), on my own web site. That doesn't mean that those e-mails aren't real, or that the thousands of posts all around the web aren't real. There's a lot more evidence that I owned WR than there is that I created the Poetlister identity.
So then we get back to this scandal. Whilst it was undoubtedly used as an excuse to make WR look good in spite of misdeeds (at least since I lost control of the site in November 2007), and to rubbish my name, the thing is that Poetlister confessed to using multiple accounts, so in that respect it is true. But what of the rest of it?
We already know that some elements of Proabviouc's claims are false. After all, I really was not responsible for creating the Poetlister identity. Yet Proabviouc insists on it, and this lie is also repeated by SlimVirgin (who uses it to simultaneously rubbish my name and WR's).
The thing is that Proabviouc's claims are supported by links, yet the links do not actually prove what he says.
Statements made by people calling themselves Chris Selwood and Jodie Lynn are used to back up the following statements:
1) Poetlister's real name is Michael Baxter.
2) Rachel Brown is Michael Baxter's feminised alter-ego.
Do we know for sure that Chris Selwood and Jodie Lynn are real people? Just because they claim that these are their real names doesn't mean that they are. Why has nobody tried to prove this?
Further, how do we know that Michael Baxter is his real name? We have one Wikipedia article, now deleted, which may or may not be real.
Now, the only actual evidence provided that actually proved anything at all, was the photo of "Nas", a woman whose photo was used for Taxwoman. This was linked to an archive.org link of boudoir.
So why then was Chris Selwood trying to get that photo removed? It doesn't add up. If this is the ONE AND ONLY bit of evidence, other than statements, that actually proved the claims, then why was it removed? Why do you want to get rid of evidence that proves your innocence?
Furthermore, Chris Selwood wasn't trying to attack Proabviouc, who was the guilty party, nor was he trying to get rid of the photo from archive.org (which is simple enough to do, as they remove links on request). Instead, Chris Selwood was trying to attack me on Encyc and ED for daring to link to photos.
So why do this? This seems unbelievably suspicious.
Here we can perhaps theorise as to what was really going on.
Obviously, Poetlister really was using multiple accounts. Poetlister's departure from WR, wiping all of the posts, suggests that there was something to hide, and also that people had finally turned on him.
Perhaps then, rather than this being trying to set up Poetlister, it was instead being done to try to help Poetlister.
Perhaps Proabviouc was in league with Poetlister, to pretend to various "facts" so that he could move on with his life.
It might not be anything more than that. Poetlister, in leaving, wanted to leave parting gifts of a number of lies about all who had hurt him, to hurt them more. And that is that. No more investigations, that is it.
Of course, in the wash up, we all know that Poetlister didn't do anything seriously wrong.