Talk:Requests for comment/Poetlister and Cato

First replies

(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)

If anyone specifically asks for it, sure. I'm not so much interested in rehashing the past as in seeing how we can prevent something like this from happening again. It's unlikely that anyone who watches this closely would want to repeat my decision: I stepped forward with the intention of being available to answer questions and reduce the chance of further exploitation. That didn't actually help Wikiquote, it turned out, but it did make me hated by the PL sockfarm at WR. People who had better ops could confer with each other to some extent, but not so much with the communities at large. There ought to be a way around the Catch-22. Durova 22:09, 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)

Thank you very much for your statement, Dan. That can't have been an easy thing to write. Durova 19:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Dan. Paul August 20:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan, I feel that you have opened my eyes a bit and I begrudgingly admit that you have a point. Thank you, I'll withdraw from further discussing this now. --Dragon695 20:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea.--MONGO 21:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Dan. I have to credit WR for their response here. Georgewilliamherbert 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of WR history (clarification on the "neo-nazi" thing)

A site at proboards called "Wikipedia Review" was founded by Igor Alexander, who has been alleged by multiple people (not just SV and not just people connected to SV) to be a neo-nazi and specifically a holocaust denier. These allegations resulted in a somewhat acrimonious split between him and those in charge of the current Wikipedia Review site at wikipediareview.com. He has never had any role in the current WR site. —Random832 22:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I note only that BluAardvark was strongly involved with the site (his comments on Jews can be found in various places on the web, including in his "work" on Wikipedia) and that the guy who started the wikipediareview.com site, Zordrac/Blissyu2, is also a Holocaust denier. There is some small relevance here because of the Poetlister farm's interest in creating comprehensive lists of Jews of different types on Wikipedia, which rightly proved ala rming to some of the Jewish editors on the site. I sympathise with SlimVirgin here, because she had this right from day one, and much of the purpose of Wikipedia Review, particularly in its early days, was to punish her for getting this right, and for being Jewish in general, and it has been genuinely distressing for her not to be protected by a project she has served in great measure--whether one agrees with her way of going about it or not, it would be churlish to ignore her good work. I'm astonished to see a contributor of good standing suggest that we should credit WR. Yeah right. Credit due for facilitating and encouraging what was quite clearly a sick person. I knew this the first time he emailed me. Are you seriously suggesting that they didn't? Dr Zen 02:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister & Co was a pro-Jewish sock ring, not anti. But mostly, just a sock ring. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How sure are we of that though? I mean, the entire identifying effort seems to be akin to antisemitic activity. Also, these earlier efforts to go after Slim led to the entire well documented anti-SlimVirgin meme that permeates WR still today. I cannot condemn those that were duped by Poetlister and his sockfarm, but people need to start using WR for more positive approaches and not continuing memes that are so very often completely erroneous.--MONGO 05:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the guy behind it all is Jewish himself, both of your opinions are looking pretty laughable right now. I've read people have issues with FT2 (I don't know him myself and haven't paid attention to that drama yet. It's been nowhere near as much as I've seen complaints about "Mongo" though (isn't that an anti-Downs syndrome epithet?)) but on this one he's right. I'm not going to link to the press release since it has his real name and I don't really agree that was needed to be revealed, but it was obvious who he was to anyone who looked at some of the edits anyway - I realised that when people who weren't in on things started talking about government statistics etc.

As for the SlimVirgin "meme", no amount of whitewashing will cover the corruption there, and calling anyone who disagrees anti-semitic or a nazi must be disgusting for those who have suffered from real abuse. And if you want to go and call me a "nazi" now, go ahead, anyone who knows anything about me knows that's not true, even Grace note (using his Dr Zen alias there). In fact I've been accused by nazis of the opposite, as you can see from this spittle-covered diatribe (I even get called "Super Defender of the Jews".... I guess anything even-handed is seen as totally biased to a nutter) --Selina

Temporary Checkuser loss?

I figure I will be the bad guy and ask the question, since it seems other people were wondering this as well. I really don't want to cause any trouble but feel I need to ask. The loss of Checkuser access by PoetGuy (I'm just using this phrase I coined on WR rather than referring to the various individual names for ease of discussion--Poet for the principle WMF account, Guy for the principal WR account) under the WikiQuote Cato name has been called "temporary".

1. Is the Foundation considering returning Checkuser access to this individual?
2. Does the Foundation have final say on access to levels like Checkuser/Oversight access, a veto if you will, over local projects? rootology (T) 04:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good questions. I was wondering what the answer to #2 is myself, although I had assumed the answer to #1 was that it was up to the WQ community to they come to a consensus, and if it was to re-grant, make the request here at meta, and then up to the stewards to try to decide what policy applied (which is where my analysis broke down!). ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser is an extension of the WMF Privacy policy and is within the purview of the Foundation. Granting of this permission is only with the agreement of the Foundation; stewards cannot proceed until such time as the Foundation states that the requirements have been met. While community agreement is required on many projects (including Wikiquote) in order for an editor's name to be put forward for access to this permission, that does not oblige the Foundation to grant it. It is the WMF that is liable for any privacy violations that may occur due to improper use of the privilege, not the individual project. I would recommend that the stewards have a discussion with the appropriate WMF representative specific to this question so that an action plan is in place, and that Cary Bass or another appropriate WMF representative notify the Wikiquote community in advance whether or not the Foundation considers the person behind these accounts to be a suitable candidate for reinstatement to checkuser access. Risker 05:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention, but actually the Wikiquote community, not as a whole but through a member (that's me), was notified this issue before this request for comment opened. Cary Bass talked to me as Wikiquote CU and said it is the community issue if we recall Cato. I don't publish our whole talk since it contains sensible information, but if WMF reviewed is your concern, they did. Thanks. --Aphaia 05:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to make a problem where one didn't exist. Aphaia has known about this since July, and has been kept in the loop as best able. In an informal way she has acted for or represented the interests of the wikiquote community in the inquiry, and I have deferred to her wherever that's been relevant. My own focus has been to handle the actual investigation, being extremely familiar with the sock-user, which has the potential to impact a wide range of wiki* projects, and to ensure that when the time came, the people and communities who need to make decisions could make them well.

Rather than assume what wikiquote will or won't do, I would rather simply do the clean-up. The Wikiquote community and WMF office both know the rough situation already. There is now a fair bit of evidence I have to collate for review (see above) following which Aphaia and Jeff Q will surely carefully form their own view what post to write for their community, and that's nobody's concern except their own. If they did wish Cato reinstated, that and any safeguards (if needed) for other projects would not be a matter for anyone except themselves and the WMF office (and possibly for steward-l), and I am sure they would not give any advice unless they truly felt knowing all the facts, that it was good.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)