This is the evidence used to justify my block:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sus...puppets/Newport

Note the evidence against me in particular:


(Brownlee is a he, but let that pass.) I have told several people about the Seamus Heaney dispute and it is well-known in many circles. Incidentally, the admin who dealt with that was Essjay. Is he therefore involved with us? Actually, the Seamus Heaney dispute was cited in my favour at one point. RachelBrown took no part in that discussion. Had we been sockpuppets, would she not have come to my aid then, as I went to hers a few weeks later?

Note that whether or not there is any checkuser evidence against the others, there cannot possibly be against me, as none of the others has shared a PC with me, nor have I edited any Judaism-related anything since my first unblock.

The strongest piece of evidence there is probably this:


Or is it? What proportion of British Jews subscribe to the Jewish Chronicle? Quite high, I believe. Quite a few non-Jews as well, actually. Is it likely that anyone as interested in Jewish matters as Newport and R613vlu would not subscribe? As for the Encyclopaedia Judaica (and this chap knows so much, he can't spell it) , there are two copies in the library at University College, and anyone with a London Borough of Barnet library ticket can access it online free.

I kind of missed all of that stuff really. Only today I found all of the stuff on the admin noticeboard (and added it to the talk page on wikiabuse.com for Mindspillage's thing). It caused a big stir on Wikipedia really, and once again they banned at least 2 people in relation to protesting your block. Of course, they then claim that you were being supported by banned users, but they were only banned after the fact...

Indeed. But they never blocked all my supporters. Charles Matthews was elected to ArbCom (with David Gerard's support) with unblocking me almost in his manifesto.

I agree that the evidence is far from conclusive, and seems dubious to the extreme, with a great deal of ulterior motive behind it.

All that they can say for certain is that all of these people disagree with them.

I don't know anything about Runcorn though, so perhaps someone who knows more about this admin might be able to shed light on them.

But again, the rules for sock puppets say quite clearly that only the duplicate accounts are to be banned. Yet in this case they all were. There is something wrong here.

The reality was that most people (user level or admins) opposed you being blocked, and people who wanted it to happen were in the very small minority. It was basically Slim Virgin plus anyone who is too afraid of SlimVirgin to go against her. That's it really.

Speaking as someone who is compiling evidence of SlimVirgin and Crum375's editing habits (why I'm wasting time on that I don't know), the comparable evidence against Poetlister is usless. In fact, judging by the criteria against Poetlister, the evidence against Slim and Crum - whom I don't believe are sockpuppets - is far more compelling.

The whole Poetlister business is certainly worth more investigation....

The evidence was compiled by Bulldog123, a known meatpuppet of Jayjg. If you were to compare him with say Tellerman, you could find evidence that they were socks quite as strong as the evidence here.

Poetlister and All,

Let's cut to the chase on this, and cease playing along with kangaroo courts, lynch mobs, and post hoc show trials in a way that accomplishes nothing more than adding the elusion of legitimacy to them.

Dignifying this stuff with the name of "evidence" is a sheer distraction. Those of us who have been through one of these wikiblackballings can guess well enough for all practical purposes why exactly you are where you are. Somewhere, sometime you pissed somebody off, the sort of person who has never considered the possibility that he or she might not be infallible, and this self-elected wikipope is determined you see you face the full fury of the WP:INQUISITION.

Now make your auto-da-fé and get back to your life in the real world.

Jonny

Auto-da-fe? What's an auto-da-fe?
It's what you outta not do, but you do anyway!

I have to fly to London a lot, next time will be this coming Thursday - want to meet around lunchtime for a quick photograph of some kind, posed as requested by some of the more "trusted" people on this site (such as dtobias etc)? I can then meet Charles Mathews (if he wants) at Stansted (only around 20 or 30 miles from his house) later that night to present my evidence, one way or another, to him in person...

Alternatively, if you live in Hertfordshire, why not get in touch with him yourself?

Or you could have each of those different people that they claim are the same person, egg a different admin's house at the same time.

Are you still interested in editing Wikipedia under the Poetlister username, or have you given up that idea?

I'd encourage that!

Although Mr. Mathews strikes me as a rather nice chap, actually. He's very open with his address too.

Incidentally, I intend to blag my way into some kind of wiki meetup in the next year or so to allow me to get a better handle on what makes these people tick.

And what on earth is this button that says "Initalizing..." about? Quite apart from the jarring American 'zee', it probably have intialised by now!

If they'll unblock me, I'll carry on. I certainly won't edit under any other name!

I don't get it. What are you accused of doing that would make you subject to a ban if sockpuppetry was revealed? Do they say you're a banned user who came back, or do they say you were using multiple accounts to influence discussions, or what?

That's just it - from what I can tell, they just keep contradicting themselves. "Look, all the accounts were editing in different subject areas, so that proves they're all the same person!" "No wait, some of them edited the same lists of Jewish people, so that proves they're the same person!" "But they almost never voted on the same things, so that proves they're the same person!" "No wait, here's a page where two of them voted, so that proves they're the same person!" And so on, ad nauseum.

There are two things I should point out here. First of all, the idea that Poetlister should have to "prove" who she is, photographically or otherwise, so that some power-tripping jagoff on Wikipedia can feel extra-special when he gets to say "oh, she could have had anyone pose for that photo," is quite simply obscene. If she really wants to do it then fine, but these are not people who deserve to have their petty power fantasies indulged, they're people who deserve to be behind bars.

Second, as a staff member here I have access to a bit more information than most of these people, including the CheckUser folks on Wikipedia. I know Poetlister is who she says she is. I'm not goiing to tell anyone how I know, but if any of these people want to send* me a list of User:Runcorn's IP addresses used in the last 6 months, I'd be happy to look them up and, hopefully, tell them they're all full of shite. I guarantee I will not share that information with anyone. Other than that, I have no idea regarding the other accounts and I don't really care all that much, other than to point out that they didn't seem to be doing anything wrong, other than disagreeing with SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and their crew.

I realize it's pointless, of course, since this was obviously done to "send a message" to us here at Wikipedia Review, along the B-movie-villain lines of "you'd better not squeal to the cops or we'll hurt the girl." Well, apparently we squealed...? So, hey folks - message received! We now know that y'all are as vindictive as ever! Never mind that nobody clever enough to become an administrator both there and here would ever be not-so-clever enough to use the same machine and IP address on those two accounts in particular.

Anyhoo, keep up the good work!

Ok, simpler question: what do they seem to not like about whatever she's done? They wouldn't go flinging accusations unless they found something to dislike about her. Is this something to do with including people on lists of Jews?

I'm beginning to think Mr. Karmafist was right about you, EK! Of course they would. What part of "this was obviously done to 'send a message' to us here at Wikipedia Review" did you not agree with?

Hey, this is my 3,000th post!

That's what I took away from the 2005 Administrator's Noticeboard conversation, too: the 2005 "evidence" appears to show Poetlister !voting against the sock accounts in at least one AFD... It just doesn't make sense to me. I've requested an unblock, though obviously there probably isn't much chance of that.



Happy 3K, Somey.

Happy 3K!

If Poetlister's account has done no wrong, why block all accounts including those that have done no wrong?

I agree with Jonny that the mystery of CU needs to be demystified and more pressure needs to be brought to bear on CU persons to provide as much information publicly.

Wait a minute... didn't Jayjg do that to CharlotteWebb? Way to go Jayjg! Unfortunately, that wasn't what I (or anyone else here) had in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ve83#User:Jayjg

This was what SlimVirgin said after Poetlister was acquitted the first time.


Let me repeat the last sentence: "In any event, it doesn't matter so long as they don't post to the same pages and act to deceive other users." Whatever the allegations against Runcorn and the others, what has Poetlister done? Is it that as "a minor civil servant" she won't be able to do anything about it?

Even if the reason is that they don't like that she posts on WR, that's still a reason. The reason doesn't have to be valid, I'm just wondering why they decided they didn't like her. Weren't they giving her trouble before this site was even set up, anyway?

Ah, so somey is poetlister!

Well, the thing is that if you're clever enough, you can pretend to be anyone and the tools that Wikipedia use to catch sock puppeting wouldn't mean anything and you'd never be caught. There are such things as identity theft about.

But at the same time - why the hell would anyone bother to go to all of that trouble just so that they can edit a pathetic Wikipedia article? I mean if you are doing it to steal someone's identity, to make friends with their RL friends, to steal their boyfriends, steal their credit cards, and so forth, I can understand why you are going to all of that trouble. But why do it simply to vote to keep (or delete) a few Wikipedia articles? And if you are going to all of that trouble, why not go a step further and become Wikipedia admins? It's not like its hard to become admin, and everyone knows that you don't have any real power over there until you become administrator.

Perhaps one aspect of this is that nobody seems to know a single thing about Runcorn. I even wonder if he was actually an administrator in the first place. Was Runcorn a sock puppet of some scheming admin set up purely to try to justify a ban on Poetlister?

Also of note is that the page that I made helped to save Poetlister the first time around. Second time around, many people tried to reference that page, but Slim Virgin had deleted it already.

Why had Slim Virgin deleted it? Oh, after it had been up for 2 years previously, she decided on the spot that it was an attack page.

Coincidence? I think not.

Runcorn certainly was an admin; check the log. Regular editors can't block, delete, or move over redirects.

Look, Charles Matthews doesn't need convincing. But there's only so much that even he can do if he knows he'll be opposed by the Cabal. I can guarantee that even if you can prove to him that you met me, the powers that be would say that maybe I'm genuine, but all the rest are sockpuppets of me. Even if you met some of them too, obviously they're just friends pretending to be the other editors. There's no way on Earth that I can prove my innocence under Wikirules short of a Divine pardon from Jimbo.




They also deleted the photos of RachelBrown, Londoneye, Taxwoman and me, even though some of the Taxwoman photos were being used to illustrate articles. Again, this could have been a deliberate move to reduce protest.

the real tragedy here is that if this wasn't one person pretending to be several attractive women, then there are some hot babes that are banned from wikipedia and that's just not an idea i can get behind.

There's a long discussion here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...board/Archive89

I like this bit from user:SakotGrimshine (who, remarkably, is a blocked sock) attacking Taxwoman:

Of course, she's a specialist in fetish and her photos were presumably taken at fetish parties. I know nothing about such things, but I'd be surprised if she's the only accountant at these parties, and I'd be surprised if many of them turn up in pinstripes.

I'm kind of late to the party. But if Poetlister made any sort of edits to Jewish sites at all, were they of the sort that would have created great umbrage, and given Slim Virgin a reason, in her mind, for pinpointing Poetlister?

Also, I dont know the history on this, but if she was being bothered by some persons, and then wound up running this site (or moding it, or whatever), would that not have exacerbated the problem? Not to blame PL, but it sounds a bit like a perfect storm. Then having been already targeted, having shown defiance (as they would have it), she'd be a natural target.

With how little it takes for them to do what they do, I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier. With less ado.