Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:23, 14 October 2008

Poetlister

I've posted an account of the effect this person — now at last confirmed to be one older man rather than a dozen young women — has had on my life, and how and why he started the "SlimVirgin is evil" meme on Misplaced Pages Review. Please see User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate; I wrote it in response to e-mails from people wanting to know the background. Posted with sincere thanks to the people who managed to track him down. SlimVirgin 18:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister

I am trying to recollect why I was involved in doing checks on Poetlister and other accounts. I think my involvement was just related to examining editing styles. But I concur with you that some editors, primarily men, were jaded by the fact that these accounts all had images of women who were generally attractive. I never believed that these were the real life images of these editors...or editor...and indeed, I agree that what we are dealing with is a massive liar who is just one editor and likely a neonazi as well. Ayway, I am sorry that you had to bear the brunt of the nonsense from this editor and am disappointed if what has been said regarding Flonights and Charles Matthews involvement is accurate. Is it possible they were duped by this miscreant?--MONGO 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Charles Matthews may have been duped, though I have to say it shows a worrying lack of common sense. Charles lives in or near London. He could easily have arranged to meet Poetlister, Rachel Brown etc, had they existed. To unblock such an abusive sockpuppeteer without minimal due diligence is worrying in an arbitrator. It was obvious that this was a man, though in fairness to Charles, I would say it was probably more obvious to women than to men.

FloNight, however, knew much more than Charles, as her unblock came a couple of years later. She knew that Poetlister was a Misplaced Pages Review admin. She knew that PL had been involved in the very early WR, when it was run by the neo-Nazi. She knew that PL had been involved in outing me there. She may not have known exactly how closely PL was involved (it was, in fact, PL who first passed information about me to Brandt), but she knew there was deep involvement. She knew that PL had tried to trash me. Yet she pushed for an unblock on WP, and she (along with Lar) supported PL as bureaucrat on Wikiquote. To say it was hurtful would be an understatement.

And the reason PL targeted me was, to begin with, because I had not fully supported him in a content dispute in 2005 I was asked to mediate (though I did partly support him in the interests of finding a compromise between the two sides), and then because I realized that PL, RachelBrown, and "Lisa, the flatmate," who posted as an IP, were the same person. (Rachel Brown and Poetlister not only posted on WP from the same IP address; they e-mailed people, myself included, from it too, not realizing that Hotmail was exposing the IP). That made me PL's first target, and he, BlissyU2 (User:Zordrac), Mistress Selina Kyle, and User:Amalekite, the white supremacist who founded Misplaced Pages Review, proceeded over the next couple of years to turn me into a hate figure, including the claim that I was being paid to edit as an intelligence agent, which Brandt picked up later, and then Slashdot. The hate continues today. The groupthink has been a very interesting process to watch — they have never allowed facts to get in the way of it — but it has also been very hurtful and damaging to me.

I'm in the process of writing up the history of the harassment, as people have been asking about it today, so I may post it on a user subpage. SlimVirgin 07:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I now have a better recollection of why I was involved...I was still an admin when Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters asked me to examine editing patterns of several accounts. I was not aware of Misplaced Pages Review at that time I don't think. From my perspective, it appeared to me that these accounts were all related. The userpages were very similar and some if not all of them had images of attractive women posted on them, but they looked like images taken from myspace pages, or personal blogs, etc. Each account seemed to have a major focus if I remember correctly. I remeber Londoneye uploaded images. I wonder if the metadata on the images added from other accounts (if there were any added) were made from the same camera. No doubt, the meme that was started by Poetlister at WR has been pervasive. Once that smear campaign was underway, the vast majority of the rest of the ramblings there about you was just part of the traditional underscore of that website. Surely there have been a some complaints about yourself and no doubt about me that are legit, but in your case, I sure hope that others think harder about whether a posting there regarding you has any basis in fact before they jump to conclusions in the future. The revelation of one or more arbcom members facilitating increased involvement by this wacko is disturbing.--MONGO 15:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to briefly say this sounds horrendous, sorry you've had all this hassle. Oddly enough you've always had my trust, wish I'd had the time and resources to have checked things out. . . dave souza, talk 19:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

MONGO and Dave, my thanks to both of you. It's much appreciated. SlimVirgin 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Shocking stuff. I'm sorry you had to bear the brunt of all this crap. I thought I had maxed out my ability to be disgusted with that crowd. I thought wrong... Guettarda (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it there will be a few hundred people here soon with heartfelt apologies? Guettarda (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One would hope so. I'm in full agreement on the checkuser reform suggested as well; what measures can we take to approach this? The pump is the logical place for it to go, and be discussed ad nauseum and then die with a whimper. I'd prefer that not happen this time. I could always call Cary and bitch discuss for a few hours, would that help do you think? KillerChihuahua 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Guettarda and KC. For what it's worth, I don't blame Cary for this in any way regarding the checkuser issue. I think he's often caught between a rock and a hard place, with people making contradictory demands, and with a huge amount of work to do. But I'd definitely like to see some reform to make it easier for him to spot this kind of situation in future before the damage is done. KC, it might very well be worth talking to him in case he has ideas about how to proceed realistically. SlimVirgin 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I should be more careful about how I phrase things - I don't blame Cary a bit. But he is a good person to bitch to (not "at"!) and might have some suggestions. KillerChihuahua 00:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, apologize for being one of those who mistakenly thought that Poetlister (et al) got a raw deal and was being unjustly maligned and punished. On this I was wrong and Slim was right, and I'm not at all reticent about admitting my mistakes when they occur. This doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with all else that Slim has to say, though I'm giving it a more sympathetic reading now in light of the recent revelations. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan, thank you. I can't tell you how much I appreciate that. It's big of you, and very decent. SlimVirgin 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I thought PL was innocent, it was long before I was all that active on wiki, and I'd not heard much about the IP evidence before. And I didn't realise it was much about you Slim, they made it sound like it was that the whole 'establishment' ganged up on them for no reason. I didn't realise PL was behind a crucial part of the attempted outing, I thought that was a Bloke Reknowned And No Doubt Troublemaker doing what he does. Sticky Parkin 22:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, he picked up the baton, but it was Poetlister/Guy who started it and kept it going whenever it looked as though it might die down, aided by Jorge/Arniep — some people think he's another Poet sock, though I'm not so sure. SlimVirgin 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Its probably not my place to say anything, but I wanted to leave a message to basically acknowledge that when you want to be really thorough (and I stress the really thorough part) you surely proved that you can be. It was a very interesting read with insight into parts of Misplaced Pages that are kinda scary. I just try to build content in my own little area, and I guess I could never comprehend how people could become... I don't even know what words there are to describe this. I thought it was a very high quality read, even if it was based on some painful experiences and massive problems. Its a shame that things like this happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you've been vindicated at last, Sarah. I'm just sorry that you didn't get the support you deserved, particularly from the Arbcom and Jimbo, and that you have suffered three years of having a website devoted to slagging you off because you crossed this nutter. It's sad that that website is considered a fit place for having a chat by several of this site's admins. Grace Note (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ottava and Grace Note. Much appreciated. SlimVirgin 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding your suggestion about checkuser reform. You have a much better shot of getting en.WP to require that local checkusers are not allowed to use the global checkuser list than what you have initially suggested. I believe there is precedent for what I describe. Although I can't remember which community does not allow the local checkusers to use the global list, it was part of initial community agreement to have checkusers. Many wikis have stricter requirements of their checkusers than en.WP does on different facets. I think en.WP is overall very loose. From practical point of veiw, there next to no chance of your initial suggestion having positive results. Although I believe the opposition will come more from non-English communities than from the any of the communities you specifically mentioned. Also on a small side note I would like to say that Cato's support at PL's en.WS adminship was not taken into account. It mattered little as PL's adminship was completely unopposed, but non-local contributors although welcome to share their thoughts on candidates have their votes discounted by b'crats. We just are too diplomatic to point this out by striking out the votes. Something anyone of the numerous people following all this might want to keep in mind if they plan on showing up at en.WS for the PL's yearly reconfirmation vote. Everyone is more than welcome to share their thoughts and to sway local opinion, but votes will only be counted from the local community.--BirgitteSB 03:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Birgitte, I didn't know non-local votes were actually struck out. Still, non-locals could exert influence on local voters. If you get established editors from other projects turning up to say this person can be trusted, that's probably going to help to have the person elected. As you say, there was no opposition to Poetlister, even though many, many people suspected what he was up to. But at some point, you get fed up being targeted, so those with suspicions said nothing, and that's why he got away with it. SlimVirgin 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That is understandable. In all honesty I was aware of that PL had first been banned from en.WP for sockpuppetry and then reinstated when the en.WS adminship was on-going. I didn't know much about the bigger picture, but I remember having misgivings about the fact that people who were supportive of PL could also believe PL had not fully owned up to the old sockpuppetry issue at en.WP. But en.WS is not even close to being gameable with sockpuppets, so it was an easier concern to dismiss than other parts of this situation that I have only become aware of recently. There is a lot to digest and I am trying to stay open-minded for hearing an explanation from PL within the next few days. Right now I cannot account for the situation in any way that redeems PL, but I am still entertaining the idea that this could be due to a lack of information or imagination on my part. This is the very first reconfirmation that has been called up early at en.WS, so I am equally concerned with establishing a fairly run process as I am with gaining the correct result in particular case at hand. I am sincerely committed to seeing that both of goals are achieved, which means withholding my judgment a bit longer. I hope you don't see that as callous that I would comment here before making up my mind, but I thought failing to acknowledge that I saw the issue would be a worse though less public mistake. The one thing I most clearly took away from your account of all this is how damaging the personalization of Misplaced Pages's issues is to not only the project, but also to her contributors. I have wronged people and been wronged by others. All of us can say that. No one is evil, and if ever someone starts to think "Foo did X because they are evil" then they are being scammed. Even if it is only by their own ego or self-pride or however you like to describe that particular voice inside you. Believing in a meme like "SV is evil" is nothing less than giving up on critical thinking and that is our best tool in enviroment where so many of the things we normally rely on have been distorted by nature of this interface. Thank you for sharing your understanding of these events publicly.--BirgitteSB 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have been monumentally clueless all this time I've been editing on WP. I saw all the attacks on you and always (at least after the first month or so) dismissed them as background noise by disgruntled problem editors. I had not realized how profoundly corrupt the campaign against you was. Unfortunately, this only serves to deepen my misgivings about the future of WP. I've recently seen the problems in WP ascribed to a rift between 'wiki' (putting the community first) and 'pedia' (putting the encyclopedia first), but it looks like both 'wiki' and 'pedia' are under attack from outside. -- Donald Albury 17:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Donald. I share your misgivings, sadly. SlimVirgin 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing more dangerous than a situation where well-intentioned people can be so profoundly manipulated. We have to come up with reforms on checkuser and other facets of Misplaced Pages that are too easily hijacked to victimize an editor. I urge anyone who feels duped to channel their remorse or regret productively: what could be done differently around here to make it less likely that you would be manipulated and used in the future? The point I am raising is not what "you" can do differently, but what better rules and regulations on the use of wikipedia tools can we come up with? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

well we probably need another page to discuss this but one thing that would help is to make the arbcoms/checkuser/sockpuppet cases easier to look at for yourself if you're hearing about it a year later or whatever. Because I for one find it very difficult to find the details of the cases to look at the evidence myself. I understand why we wouldn't want this to be googlable, but it should be easier to search for cases or info about issues with an individual user on wiki to find out the wiki's side of the story. Another tool which would have helped us who weren't in the loop greatly (not that we would probably have thought to try it) is this one; If we'd put poetlister and the socks in it we'd have seen that they shared similar articles, some very distinctive such as the school he went to. But in the end I suppose it's simply another lesson in the importance of critical thinking.:) Sticky Parkin 23:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi SL and SP, I think what could be done differently, as SP says, is that we need some critical thinking. It's what I meant when I talked about common sense earlier. This was a massive failure of critical thinking on the part of a large number of well-meaning people. Why? It was in large part because of the photographs this guy posted of pretty women, which is quite a depressing thought, because the men who were taken in by them almost certainly suspected they were fake, but the fantasy was appealing so it overrode the suspicions. Secondly, there are too many people willing to take the side of anyone who's claiming persecution by someone they claim is associated with the "cabal," no matter how unlikely the tale. I had to go through an ArbCom case a couple of years ago to justify (with evidence that took hours to gather) the blocking of a wildly extremist Islamist who, in addition to adding making antisemitic edits (e.g. that a certain British serial killer was a Jew, using as I recall a jailed Islamist preacher in the UK as his source), could barely write in English anyway, so it was never clear how he was going to make a contribution. But a full ArbCom case was called nonetheless, as though we all have second and third lives that we can devote entirely to Misplaced Pages.

I don't know what the answer is. Editors with common sense are being driven off, so it's becoming increasingly easy for the Poetlisters to get a foothold. SlimVirgin 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reason is that more wikipedians tend to have a liberal bias than not (or so conservapedia says.) I know that as someone who was brought up in a politically active, left-wing household, it's hard for me not to have sympathy for the underdog in every circumstance, and especially if they are from a minority group. The PLentity claimed to be Jewish/Black/Female/into a fringe sexual practice, as such it would not be easy to question them without failing to seem politically correct and open-minded. Sticky Parkin 14:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Gustav von Humpelschmumpel

You've said that this user is the same as Arniep - I note that Arniep is banned but this user is still editing - do you have any evidence this is the same person? Being as we don't normally let banned users continue editing and all that... --Random832 (contribs) 12:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate

] could you provide links to said topics? I really couldn't find them (which would go along with WP:ATT which you seem to want as policy). Kwsn-pub 14:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Harlow-Isolationchamber.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Harlow-Isolationchamber.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LondonPassportsKhan1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LondonPassportsKhan1.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

PETA

Do you disagree with my replacement of the broken link in the intro with an updated and working link from Newsweek? (See diff) I don't want to edit the intro again if you had an issue with that link, but we should find a working one at least. Thanks! Leena (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Leena, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to remove that link, and didn't realize I had. I've restored it now. My apologies for the inconvenience. SlimVirgin 22:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. FeloniousMonk may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in the decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described in the findings of fact, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct. The Committee provides a list of six behavioural issues (click to read) which the parties in the case are "specifically instructed" to ensure that their future editing complies with. The Committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances.

The Committee also notes that editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this Arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this Arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles. Furthermore, the Committee acknowledges the extraordinary duration of this case. Whilst there have been reasons for this to arise, an overall apology is due, and given.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

My comments on WP:POST. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Vindication

		The Red Barnstar
		Well deserved. Face it: you rock, SV! This is for standing tall in the face of adversity, for all you do for this project that goes unrecognized, and for just being a cool chick. David Shankbone 02:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NOR

Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PAMegrahiGauci.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PAMegrahiGauci.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rumi

Out beyond ideas of

wrong-doing and right doing

there is a field

I'll meet you there

When the soul lies down in that grass

the world is too full to talk about.

Ideas, language, even the phrase,

each other

doesn't make any sense.

(olive (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)): )

lol....To explain.. I was struck by the synchronicity of seeing the Rumi quote on your User page, telling my dancers I has seen it ... I and they being lovers of Rumi, one dancer sending the complete text of the poem today, slightly different than yours ... Thought I'd send it.(olive (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

I like the Picture of the Day and the Rumi bit on your userpage. It's like a poetic version of NPOV :) Steven Walling (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Whitelogo.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Whitelogo.jpeg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:The Holocaust

Now when we are having 4 sources which are speaking about 6 Holocaust extermination camps. What is your thinking about revert and adding this sources to template ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)