95
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Wednesday November 13, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchTalk:Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)
Revision as of 02:02, 12 October 2008
, 02:02, 12 October 2008→A word from Blissyu2
:::Blissy, do you have a link to a page providing the variances and discrepancies between Proabiv's account of the PoetGuy Caper and your account? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
:::Blissy, do you have a link to a page providing the variances and discrepancies between Proabiv's account of the PoetGuy Caper and your account? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
::::The above link proves it conclusively enough (unless the link doesn't work for you). Put simply, Proabviouc claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com. Yes, I probably did that (I can't recall, but it is such a minor thing that you don't remember such things). Classmates.com is *NOT* a verifiable reference source. Classmates.com is a social networking site, the same as MySpace. Use at own risk. It is designed to help people to find people that they used to go to school with. NamesDatabase is based on Classmates.com. I never used NamesDatabase, only Classmates.com, but they are owned by the same company. It says quite clearly "Referred by" *NOT* "Written by". Proabviouc has refused to change that. If Proabviouc thinks that I am responsible for it, then why was I telling everyone that Poetlister was Guy in September 2007? Why was I writing a page to redact my initial 2005 investigation? Why was I taking shit for that? Proabviouc seems to have used his "exposure" to rubbish my name, and to try to make WR look like the good guys for stealing the site from me.
::::Let's not worry about "my version" versus "Proabviouc's version". I can't prove or disprove most of his claims. What I do know is that most of what he says is unproven. It might be right, but it might not. His links do not prove what he claims that they prove. What we are left with is ONE item of evidence that is conclusive: that the person from The Boudoir, per the web archive link, is the same photo used by Taxwoman. We also know that Poetlister = Taxwoman, but we knew that in September 2007, thanks to my creating the beautiful people article. I didn't go to ED to prove their guilt, but it ended up that that is what happened. Why am I being punished twice, both ways? It's not fair.
::::We do not know that Poetlister is Michael Baxter. That hasn't been proven or confessed. We do not know that Chris Selwood is really his real name, or that Jodie Lynn is. We do not know whether they are telling the truth in their statements. We do not know whether any of the other photos were really belonging to other people (they probably were, given the confessions, but we do not know if they are who they claim to be). We also do not know whether Poetlister really used various other names claiming them to be her. In short, Proabviouc is missing huge amounts of evidence. It might be right, it might not. I don't know. What I do know is that his claims that I created the whole Poetlister identity are slanderous, libellous, and just plain wrong. They can be proven false so easily, and yet he refuses to change them. What kind of a person would do that?
::::If Proabviouc had even an ounce of integrity, he would modify his claims to reflect the facts of the situation, at least with regards to that one paragraph. He knows that what he is saying is false, he knows that it hurts me, and he knows that by changing it as I suggested it would stop the libel against my name but not in any way damage his case. So why not do it? Instead, I get abused just for trying to clear my name.
::::Poetlister, ultimately, did what so many people have done since the internet began - he set up a bunch of role accounts to pretend to be someone who he wasn't really - in his case a bunch of women. He didn't abuse anyone (aside from as Guy on Wikipedia Review perhaps). He was indeed abused on Wikipedia, by Antidote, then backed up by Lulu and ultimately SlimVirgin. He wasn't banned because he had created many role accounts, because that is actually perfectly legal on Wikipedia. He was banned because SlimVirgin is a bully. That is it, simple as you like. He only coordinated with those accounts to counter Antidote doing the exact same thing the other way around. Hey wow, big deal. There is no harm done by using someone's photo and claiming it is you. If it hasn't harmed the real men/women who belong to the photos in 4 years, it isn't going to harm them now. That kind of thing is extraordinarily commonplace. Who cares? As for the BDSM thing, once again, who cares? Rape play is roleplaying, it is not real rape. Taxwoman claimed to like rape play, to like to play a roleplay amongst consensual people, to pretend to like to roleplay it. There is a big difference. Anyone who actually understood BDSM would know that it was different.
::::Why are so many people upset? Perhaps if they had listened to my initial recommendations, then all of this wouldn't have happened. If the people on Wikipedia had actually sat back and worked on remedies rather than on ego-tripping back patting, then we wouldn't be here now. I had said, back in the beginning, to do an arbitration to prove abuse on all sides, Lulu's, Slim's, Antidote's, Poetlister's and Antaeus Feldspar's. This never happened. I had said to restrict them from editing the affected articles, and to renominate them all for deletion. I had said to aim for things which resolved it all, and didn't cause problems. I had said for Poetlister to prove once and for all their identity by holding up signs when taking photos. But nobody paid any attention to what I said. Instead, all that they did was to link to what I said then pretend that what I had said meant something different, either way that they preferred to. In the end, when you write a lot, with actual evidence (unlike what Proabviouc did, which was to write a little, pretending to have evidence when you don't have any evidence at all), then people don't really read it. Perhaps instead I should have written something short, with no evidence at all, and then tried to force people to believe things one way or the other.
::::Poetlister is not a neo nazi. Wikipedia Review was not founded based on Poetlister - it started 3 months before she was banned. The criticisms of SlimVirgin were not based on the Poetlister incident - SlimVirgin was hated for thousands of different reasons, and for truth changing on the Lockerbie Bombing article. The ban was used as an example of an unfair ban. And indeed, in the washup, it was an unfair ban. Why ban her when she was doing nothing wrong? Why not ban Antidote (he was eventually banned, but much later)? Why not ban Antaeus Feldspar and Lulu? Why not de-admin SlimVirgin? Why is it that the people who did the wrong thing in this get patted on the back over it? What about all of the people that suffered for doing nothing more than trying to prove what really happened?
::::Poetlister should never have been promoted to admin on WR, but not because of abusing sock puppets. The issue was that PL hardly ever used the place. Guy also should not have been promoted (or else just promote one, not the other) because they spoke with one voice. Regardless of whether they are the same person, we shouldn't have 2 people that back each other up on everything. I always objected to that. Guy yes, Poetlister no. Somey and Selina sound to me like the same person too, and for the same reason we shouldn't have both (not that it is in my power to do anything anymore). I don't know if they really are the same person - although they certainly appear to be - but they back each other up too much and speak with one voice.
::::In the end, it shouldn't matter whether someone has 2 accounts, because it should be an issue of what you say not how many people say it. It shouldn't matter whether I publish things on my web site that prove conclusively that I owned Wikipedia Review, what should matter is that it proves it. It shouldn't matter who says something - what should matter is what they say. It shouldn't matter whether Proabviouc is normally reliable or whether the Poetlister case was one where he confessed to using multiple accounts - we actually knew that 12 months earlier! Proabviouc we know lied about one major thing. We also know that Proabviouc has refused to change that. The whole investigation now comes under question, because the other things aren't actually proven, and the one and only proof that he had has now been removed.
::::Quite possibly, Poetlister was just an ordinary everyday person who decided to roleplay online, in a positive fashion that didn't hurt anyone. Everything we thought about Poetlister up to September 2008 was in fact true. And that the actual issue is that Poetlister was sick of being harassed, sick of it being an issue, so decided to bury it. That Michael Baxter isn't really his name, that Chris Selwood and Jodie Lynn are both fake names, and that all or at least a lot of the "evidence" that Proabviouc has is completely made up.
::::As I said above, if Wikipedia Review today was still run by Igor Alexander, Blu Aardvark, and the other people who were originally involved, unless they retired, and still had the original aims, Wikipedia Review today would be in much better shape. The issue with Wikipedia Review was a lack of loyalty. Don't let Proabviouc's lies muddy the waters in claiming that I am supporting conspiracy theories, especially when he has just rubbished my name in his own lies. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:02, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==
