Talk:Requests for comment/Poetlister and Cato

(Moved from main page)

Thank you for this report, FT. I'd like to add one point. You suggested that the sockring was first noticed in 2007, but it was in fact uncovered in November or December 2005, which is when David Gerard first blocked Rachel Brown for socking. The person behind the accounts then started campaigning against the admins he suspected were behind his exposure. I was one of them, and it made me a major target on the newly formed Wikipedia Review. BlissyU2/Zordrac took up Poetlister's case, and the two of them, together with the neo-Nazi founder, did their best, with a great deal of success, to turn my name into mud, because they thought I was behind the block. Poetlister was also responsible for trying to out me on WR, which Guy on WR (who was also obviously Poetlister) confirmed, and which Daniel Brandt confirmed again today.

It was only because some ArbCom members took up Poetlister/RachelBrown's cause that the man behind the Poetlister accounts was able to continue doing damage, and I'm thinking specifically here of Charles Matthews and FloNight. Charles and FloNight unblocked Poetlister (now called Quillercouch, for some reason) [1] and FloNight supported Poetlister as bureaucrat on Wikiquote, where Poetlister also had a checkuser account. Charles and FloNight did this despite the fact that it was obvious the accounts were run by the same person: prior to discovering proxies, they had all used the same IP address both to post to WP and to e-mail people from (with Hotmail accounts, which exposed the address). The ArbCom was aware of this, or at least the longer term members were. They were also aware of Poetlister's involvement in outing and attacking WP editors, yet apparently this wasn't serious enough to warrant a block. Not one member of the ArbCom e-mailed me before Poetlister was unblocked to ask for my views, or even to give me the heads-up. I recall FloNight resigning as an editor once because a similar thing happened with another WR member, but now she actively campaigns to have someone unblocked without so much as a note to that person's targets.

It's important not to whitewash the involvement of ArbCom members in this, because ArbCom's support of this person has caused a number of editors, myself included, very real distress, and serious real-life consequences. An apparent "trap" was recently set on Wikiquote, for example, in order to obtain IP addresses; I won't say more here because I don't know whether the person targeted wants to be discussed. My point is that this was a case of AGF run wild, but it was AGF only of the troublemaker, not of the regular editors he had targeted and outed. That is the real scandal here, in my view, and I hope lessons are learned from it at last, because it's not the first time it has happened.

Having said that, a big thank you to everyone involved in investigating this, including those members of the ArbCom who took part in it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1. As a brief summary, it's enough as background for others to know the sock ruing was formally banned in 2007. The prior history doesn't matter so much.
2. If you read the 2008 unblock post, you'll find your hypothesis is badly mistaken. Poetlister was unblocked despite being a proven past sock user, on the hope of change following good work on wikiquote, not because of some shady conspiracy. We all knew there had been abuse a year before. Even so, it was the consensus (partly allowing for communal mood), and not just one or two arbitrators, leading to a trial unblock, and a chance based on good work, and to see if it might have changed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FT, the prior history matters a great deal. It is thanks to certain ArbCom members that this happened, because it had all been wrapped up in December 2005. If ArbCom members had just left it alone, it probably wouldn't have developed. I think it's important to bear this in mind, because the culture of assuming good faith in troublemakers, but to hell with regular editors, has gone way, way too far. I appreciate that some members of the ArbCom have acted extremely well here (you, for example), but some of them actively facilitated what went on, so please let's not try to whitewash it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not for this it doesn't. We aren't reopening 2005-06 here, nor are we discussing whether some historic 2005 event needs a place in the history books either. Sorry. The issue here is "direct relevance to this specific set of actions". Sorry, no. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FT, with respect, why do you feel it's for you to decide what this case is about? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry SlimVirgin, much as it pain you, this incident actually isn't all about you. Giggy 10:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues this is about is why some arbitrators felt it was fine to unblock, support, and help to promote someone who had completely trashed another editor, outed her, and seriously affected her life; who had wildly sockpuppeted; who was clearly using fake photographs of other women; who administered an attack site; who had strongly supported the original neo-Nazi founder of that site; who suggested I myself was a neo-Nazi pretending to be a Jew; and who had faked an admin account on WP. All this was known to FloNight. That is a serious issue, in my view. If there's a lesson to be learned from this, it's that, if you sweep these things under the carpet, all you do is delay the day when they come out. You don't stop it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Give it a fucking rest! Your constant forum shopping for drama is beyond tired. Just go away already! --Dragon695 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been following me around with this obvious sockpuppet account for months doing nothing but attack, attack. No edits since June 2006, then suddenly you turn up again in 2008. This is your IP address, and this piece of vandalism is an example of your editing. Quit being such a foul-mouthed coward; say who are you or back off. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, the university I attend has its wireless network behind a firewall. That could be any one of 35,000 students. Yes, I have been following this discussion and your involvement is terribly unhelpful. I assure you that I am no sockpuppet. So quit your drama-mongering. --Dragon695 11:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The pseudonymous Dragon 695 wrote, "Really, OTRS needs to just be a recording that says "go away" or "fix your entry if you don't like it." I think it is totally ridiculous just how much the 'pedia has gotten into busybody meta about how things affect real world people."[2]

Um, no.Proabivouac 11:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes. Far too many people try to use OTRS to game the system to remove accurate and verifiable information from the project. However, it seems that OTRS has increased their diligence in detecting bullshit requests, so I am feeling somewhat different from what I did at the time. Anyways, this is not the point, this is a serious matter which SlimVirgin should not be trying to use to her own ends. --Dragon695 12:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters, since poetlister lied, but I am not psuedoanonymous. My information is on my en-wp user page, for what little it is worth. --Dragon695 12:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(moved from main page, since she is not the part of this investigation as far as I know; if she is, please feel free to back to main page)

When Poetlister, Runcorn, etc. were banned from English Wikipedia last year it was foreseeable that well-meaning editors would have difficulty believing the conclusion was correct. Naturally there was need to be discreet and avoid posting details onsite. I stepped forward then because I was one of the few people who knew something and was free to talk: the portion I had been involved in had been gleaned entirely from public edit histories. If there's one thing to be learned moving forward it's the need to improve cross-project communication. Best wishes to the editors of Wikiquote at this difficult time. Durova 12:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to provide a link to that for reference, as not everyone here follows en:wp doings closely... FT2 brought this here because of the crosswilki implications, I'm sure. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The original Runcorn saga really knocked my socks off when it was first revealed. Unfortunately I cannot say that this latest twist makes me feel any better. However I would like to offer my thanks to everyone who has obviously spent so much time digging into this ... our own nightmarish version of the never-ending-story. Kudos to all! --Kralizec! 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined at this time to, uncharacteristically for myself, cut SlimVirgin a huge degree of slack for the simple fact that, in the specific issue of the ongoing behavior of this sockpuppet farm, she has been right all along, while many others (including myself) have been wrong. I consider admitting one's own mistakes to be a desirable attribute to have, and here I was highly mistaken when I let my sympathies for the "dissident faction" and my dislike of certain on-wiki cliques lead me to accept uncritically the meme that Poetlister/etc. was unjustly banned and that the other associated usernames were merely a group of friends unfairly accused of sockpuppetry. I was wrong there, and am one of a large group of people who need to eat some crow now. On the other hand, this slack and crow-eating will only go so far... I hope Slim can manage to dial back the drama a bit and not try to push things into areas where it's still not clear that she's right and everybody else is wrong, such as labeling people "Nazis" (shades of Godwin's Law) and once again pushing the BADSITES meme by adding "administering an attack site" to the litany of charges against the sockpuppeteer. This is unnecessary; there are now plenty of valid reasons to regard the person in question as abusive and worthy of banning, and even the "WR crowd" seems to be trending that way, as they too have been abused and played for fools by that person. For once, a lot of people in factions that are usually at one another's throats are in agreement on something; don't screw it up by trying to twist it around to a "Wikipedia vs. the Evil Attack Sites" war yet again. Dtobias 15:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; one of the outcomes I'm kind of hoping for is WR and WP/WM to slightly notice that shading the differences between them so black-and-white doesn't help either, and both may surprisingly have at least some interests in common (fanatics on both sides not withstanding). In this case "we're being abused by a sock-user" and "we probably ought to act ethically and not just take revenge by outing" are common interests. Both may benefit. Demonizing is unrealistic and unhelpful. There are at least some honorable people on each "side" and some who have been grossly misconstrued. (And some who just can't or won't, sadly.) Both sides have grown up somewhat. We probably won't resolve all the differences but some at least we might be able to manage something where it serves a common benefit. Just choose carefully and be prepared to step back without "flaming" if it doesnt work with someone. And avoid fanatics. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing... Slim's statement that "if you sweep these things under the carpet, all you do is delay the day when they come out" is one I can wholeheartedly agree with, as it is one of the things underlining my own strong opposition to secrecy and censorship, which has led to many of the fervent stands I have taken (some of which have put me in opposition to Slim herself). Dtobias 15:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)