User:Zordrac/Poetlister

From Encyc

This page is designed to document the ban of User:Poetlister as a suspected sock puppet of User:RachelBrown. It documents how there was no collusion, how they did not edit the same articles, and how they were not acting as sock puppets. In the absence of CheckUser evidence, theories as to why they were accused of being sock puppets are speculative, although it is noted that they were best friends who visited each other regularly. Caught up in this were the bans of User:Londoneye, User:Taxwoman and User:Newport, whose relationship with User:RachelBrown is less notable. This page offers a neutral point of view on the topic, as someone who did not know any of the users prior to this incident. It is purely based on independent research in to the topic. It has also uncovered detailed reasons for why the ban might have been done unfairly, pointing towards the 2 persons who Poetlister was in dispute with, who were in fact the people that asked for the ban, and also went to pains to cover up their own wrongdoings. The photographs on the right demonstrate the ridiculousness of suggestions that they might all be the same person, as do their user pages. And this page documents the entire ridiculousness of the claims that there could be any legitimacy to this action.

File:RachelBrown.jpg
User:RachelBrown
File:Poetlister.JPG
User:Poetlister
User:Londoneye
File:Taxwoman.jpg
User:Taxwoman
File:Taxwoman2.jpg
Taxwoman2
File:Taxwoman3.jpg
Taxwoman + 3 friends (possibly some of the other affected users)
File:Taxwoman4.jpg
Taxwoman4
File:Taxwoman5.jpg
Taxwoman5
File:Taxwoman6.jpg
Taxwoman6
File:Taxwoman7.jpg
Taxwoman7

Acknowledgements: The primary author of this page is User:Zordrac and all views expressed within are the personal views of User:Zordrac unless stated otherwise. The only other direct contributor to this page is User:Mistress Selina Kyle, whose major contribution was the #Anonymous IP editor section as well as some bolding, formatting and minor corrections, and some of the views contained within may be her personal views. In researching this page, advice was sought from the following persons: User:Grace Note, User:Arniep, User:Poetlister, User:Dan100, User:Thuresson, User:Flcelloguy, User:SlimVirgin, User:Antidote, User:Mindspillage, User:Kelly Martin, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, User:Nlu, User:Charles Matthews, User:David Gerard and others.

Timeline[edit]

This is the timeline of events related to this block. Note that it is not comprehensive and is the opinion of the author (User:Zordrac) as to what is most relevant. (per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Poetlister and elsewhere)

[13]

  • 02:01, 4 December 2005 User:Newport's 10th edit [14], 4 hours after RachelBrown's last, demonstrating a total lack of collusion. Also was on an article that RachelBrown had never edited. [15]
  • 05:11, 4 December 2005 User:Newport's first chat with anyone involved in the dispute, with User:SlimVirgin, where she spoke in a totally different way to Rachel Brown, [16]
"Sorry - I'm rather new here. Are you the person responsible for this list? Can you do anything about Antidote deleting names of foreign born people? Next he'll be deleting Michael Marks. "
":At Flcelloguy's request, I'm trying to clarify here:
  1. I am not interested in participating in this mediation
  2. I never was interested in participating in this mediation
  3. I have never stated anything to suggest I might be interested in participating in this mediation
  4. I have no expectation of becoming interested in participating in this mediation
  5. I am not aware of any issue even vaguely relevant to mediation here
I am, of course, highly appreciative of the existence and hard work of the mediation committee, and am not opposed to mediation in principle. There is simply nothing to mediate on this topic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 20:36, 21 December 2005 User:Poetlister wrote to User:Zordrac to ask for his help to advise what to do with the problem since User:SlimVirgin and User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters refused to participate in the mediation and were trying to silence the problem (User_talk:Zordrac/Archive1#Grateful_for_your_advice_please).
  • 21:52, 21 December 2005 (Note: The block log incorrectly says 07:22, 22 December 2005) User:Mindspillage blocked User:Poetlister, User:Newport, User:Taxwoman and User:Londoneye claiming,
    "sockpuppet of RachelBrown, used for edit warring/vote stacking/etc." with no evidence. [25]
  • 22:41, 21 December 2005 User:Zordrac wrote on the Administrator's noticeboard asking for clarification for why there was a block. No clarification has ever been received. (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_check),
    Can we get a sock check on User:RachelBrown as compared toUser:Poetlister, who was blocked indefinitely by User:Mindspillage as a "suspected sock puppet of RachelBrown" with apparently no evidence of this, and indeed RachelBrown has not been banned so I query whether that is an automated ban anyway. This has happened in the middle of a request for mediation in relation to edit warring with another user which involved these 2 users and a 3rd user. The mediation was refused by the person who was requested to deal with it (User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters), thus meaning that a request for comment is in order. Due process has been disrupted by this block. I ask for a sock check to prove that these two are indeed the same person, as there seems to be circumstantial evidence that they could not be the same person and WP:POINT may apply in relation to this block."
  • 07:57, 22 December 2005 [[::User:71.244.86.178|71.244.86.178]] ([[::User talk:71.244.86.178|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/71.244.86.178|contribs]]) vandalised Image:BON11.JPG to falsely suggest that User:Taxwoman had anything to do with User:RachelBrown [26]- this was done by a vandal with a long history of abuse [27]. A CheckUser request was refused by Arbitration Committee members to determine if this person was User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters or anyone else involved in this dispute. (see: #Anonymous IP editor)
  • 06:16, 23 December 2005 User:Kelly Martin provided "evidence" (which was just her opinion, in which she falsely stated that she was not involved) [28]:
    "I have reviewed the evidence in this case, and agree with the conclusion reached by Mindspillage. Either all of these editors are the same person, or several people all of whom share the same workplace, residence, and (apparently) a single computer. There is one point in the log where in the course of nine minutes three distinct accounts edited from the same IP, and multiple instances of two distinct accounts editing from the same IP within the space of two to five minutes. We've only heard one flatmate suggested; am I to believe that there are three (or more) people all sharing the same workplace and residence, the same obsession with the same topic, and who carefully coordinate their edits so as never to interleave them? No, the most probable conclusion is that this is a single person. Any other conclusion multiplies entities unnecessarily."
    (Except that they weren't obsessed with the same topic, and didn't collude at all)
  • 07:29, 23 December 2005 User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, the person most central to the block, wrote to User:Zordrac threatening him in relation to his attempts to find out the truth of this case, saying that he would get Zordrac banned if it continues. [29]
  • 08:16, 23 December 2005 User:Antaeus Feldspar, who had been stalking and harassing Zordrac since the Daniel Brandt incident, wrote to Zordrac supporting Lulu and implying that they both would stalk Zordrac until either he stopped trying to get Poetlister's ban reversed, or else was banned from Wikipedia. [30]
  • 17:48, 23 December 2005, this page (User:Zordrac/Poetlister) was created. [31]
  • 18:38, 23 December 2005, User:Mistress Selina Kyle discovered evidence that a photo had been vandalised to try to pretend that User:Taxwoman was related to User:RachelBrown. (see: #Anonymous IP editor)
  • 06:03, 24 December 2005 User:Dan100 unblocked [[::User:Poetlister|Poetlister]] ([[::User talk:Poetlister|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Poetlister|contribs]]), [[::User:Newport|Newport]] ([[::User talk:Newport|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Newport|contribs]]), [[::User:Londoneye|Londoneye]] ([[::User talk:Londoneye|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Londoneye|contribs]]) and [[::User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] ([[::User talk:Taxwoman|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Taxwoman|contribs]]) after reviewing the evidence presented on this page.
  • Dan100 began investigations, including discussions with User:Arniep, User:Mistress Selina Kyle, User:Kelly Martin and User:SlimVirgin as to what had happened.
  • 17:25, 24 December 2005, User:Kelly Martin admitted that there was no evidence of collusion, but was still angry at Dan100 for his questioning her judgement,
    "It's not "once edited from the same computer"; there is an ongoing pattern of edits by multiple accounts from the same group of computers (both work and home). I think it is unreasonable to say that there is "no evidence" as there clearly is evidence. Your argument should not be that there is no evidence, but that you think that there is countervailing evidence based on edit content (which I did not review, since I was merely asked to review the CheckUser evidence). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)" (User_talk:Dan100#The_evidence_on_RachelBrown_et_al.)
  • 09:42, 25 December 2005, User:Mistress Selina Kyle created a subpage of the Wikipedia:Administrator's Noticeboard to document this dispute: [32]
  • 16:53, 25 December 2005, Dan100 wrote that in his opinion that,
    "From what I can tell, one of the accounts is a sock (Newport) but the rest are genuine editors who happen to know each other in real life. From I've learned of the Checkuser results, several of these accounts once edited from the same computer. For people who live near each other and are friends, I don't think it's unexpected for them share a computer at some stage. Further, all the accounts (apart from Newport) have very different edit histories and areas of expertise, and have been making good edits. Quite apart from anything else, Wikipedia the encyclopedia will suffer without those editors. Finally, the blocking policy only allows for the blocking of socks when they are being used to violate policy. As far as I can see, that's not happened. None of the other accounts have been used for anything else that could justify a ban." (User_talk:Dan100#The_evidence_on_RachelBrown_et_al.)
  • 20:06, 25 December 2005 User:Nandesuka blocked User:Poetlister, with the reasons of User with an expiry time of indefinite (Sockpuppet of Rachel Brown; evidence provided (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Poetlister&diff=32455012&oldid=32453173) (referring to User:Kelly Martin's opinion, as if it were actual evidence).
  • 02:44, 26 December 2005 User:David Gerard blocked "User:Poetlister" with an expiry time of indefinite (Rachel Brown sockpuppet) - even though it was already blocked.

Lulu Bad Editing timeline[edit]

Timeline of bad editing practise by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters on List of Jewish jurists, which is at the centre of this dispute:

(per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&limit=500&action=history)

Note: User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has continued to edit this page after this date, attacking more editors, with more nasty edit summaries and continues to do so to this day

Collusion[edit]

From April 2005 when User:RachelBrown first started her page until November 2005, at which time User:Taxwoman, User:Poetlister and User:Londoneye were all well established, there was no collusion with any articles at all. The people who try to justify this ban have tried to suggest that these 4 usernames lay in wait, that they waited until that exact moment to collude. Perhaps they will suggest that they were all alter-egos. They have even totally ignored all of the evidence of lack of collusion up to this point in time by focussing on this small period of time. Perhaps they all had a party. Perhaps they did briefly give each other their passwords. But it certainly wasn't a long-term collusion, and they were definitely different people. Since no actual evidence has been brought forward, we are left to guess. However, in aiding this investigation, I have conducted my own investigation in to the so-called collusion, based on contributions of the persons who have been accused (note: User:Newport could not have done any collusion, as her first edit began after the time period of the so-called collusion had ended).

Sources: Taxwoman contribs, Londoneye contribs, Poetlister contribs, RachelBrown contribs.

On 27 November 2005, User:Taxwoman made 10 contributions in 10 different AFDs [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], almost all of which were simple "copy and paste" jobs from each of the others - i.e. she was arguing that they should be made in to categories like List of Jews suggests. Note that this is a totally different opinion to that exercised by the other 3. She voted, yes, but she did not collude. There is also zero collusion before or after this.

From 17 November-27 November 2005, User:Londoneye made 9 contributions in 9 different AFDs (note: not the same articles that Taxwoman voted on) [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], not all of which were actual votes (most were comments), with different, well thought out comments for each particular decision. She also did not edit any of the same articles as the others listed, other than in these AFDs.

From 17 November-20 November, User:Poetlister made 8 contributions in 4 different AFDs (multiple contributions for 2 of the articles which she felt strongly about) [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], and her argument was totally different to the others. Hers was mostly copy and paste (except for Jewish jurists) where she argued anti-semiticism for the reason for the deletions being proposed.

From 16 November-19 November, User:RachelBrown made 14 contributions in 6 different articles (focussing mainly on List of Jewish Fellows in the Royal Society - an article which none of the other supposed sock puppets cared about) [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], most of which were very un-WP:CIVIL comments verging on being Wikipedia:No personal attacks, in attacking User:Antidote and alledging corruption of process. Note that none of the other supposed sock puppets did any of this.

So this, it seems, is the collusion. However, in addition, User:Poetlister also edited a handful of articles which User:RachelBrown also edited, and acted in support of her friend. More collusion here:

They both repeatedly wrote on Talk:List of Jewish jurists, they both wrote repeatedly to User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, and User:RachelBrown contributed to List of Jewish jurists, and then, after RachelBrown left Wikipedia, User:Poetlister contributed on User:RachelBrown/List of Jewish juriststemp. Collusion?

Oh, and User:Poetlister and User:RachelBrown also contributed to List of British Jews and to Talk:List of British Jews, once again criticising User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for bad editing practise. Collusion?

That is in fact the entirety of the collusion. Throughout the other 6 months of editing with 300-1,000 edits each, they never edited the same articles, or indeed even the same types of articles. RachelBrown is the only one of them interested in Judaism, and even then only indirectly. Whilst it is clear that they were all asked to vote on the AFDs for Jewish Lists, and may possibly have all done it from the same house on one night (they might have had a party?) that is about the extent of it.

Oh, and as for the Wikipedia:Privacy policy meaning that their IP logs can't be displayed - that is only if the users don't want them displayed. Go on and ask them. I bet that they DO want them to be displayed, after this action. Then the privacy policy will tell you that they can, and should, be displayed.

Additional actions related to the block[edit]

The following users involved in this dispute tried to prevent this evidence being presented:

Anonymous IP editor[edit]

(This section primarily written by User:Mistress Selina Kyle on 18:38, 23 December 2005, initially to correct a mistake made by User:Zordrac that there was a connection between User:Taxwoman and User:RachelBrown or any evidence that they were friends.)

Image:BON11.JPG was a photo taken by Taxwoman but NOT RachelBrown like the description previously said. The description was vandalised from "Friend demonstrating the BDSM meaning of strappado {{PD}}" to "Rachel Brown demonstrating the BDSM meaning of strappado at 07:57 on 22 December 2005 {{PD}}"[136] by an anonymous editor, 71.244.86.178 (talk) who may be one of the other editors embroiled in this dispute - Perhaps a sockpuppet/user check would be a good idea. Other edits from this IP include these:

The following persons had motivation to change the image to pretend that RachelBrown was related to Taxwoman:

  • User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters - central figure in the dispute, was calling everyone a sock puppet.
  • User:SlimVirgin - person who first asked for a CheckUser claiming sock puppetry.
  • User:Mindspillage - made the block, and was unable to produce any evidence of linkage.
  • User:Kelly Martin - agreed to do the CheckUser, refused to provide any evidence, made a false "neutral review" of the evidence (lying about not being involved in the dispute), and needed some evidence that there was an actual connection.

No other users had any motivation to do this.

Why would an anonymous vandal vandalise a page to make someone look like they should be blocked AFTER they were already blocked? The simple reality is that they wouldn't. Not unless they were involved. The most likely person to have done this is User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, or alternately someone who was asked by Lulu to do this.

To date, Arbitration Committee members have refused to perform a CheckUser to confirm these suspicions (note that 2 of the persons with motivation to do this were Arbitration Committee members).

Sock puppetry[edit]

Interests[edit]

If they were sock puppets, why did they have different interests and different editing histories?

  • [[::User:RachelBrown|RachelBrown]] ([[::User talk:RachelBrown|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/RachelBrown|contribs]]) (created 15 April 2005) was interested in biographies User:RachelBrown/biographies, bibles, lists and geography User:RachelBrown/articles
  • [[::User:Poetlister|Poetlister]] ([[::User talk:Poetlister|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Poetlister|contribs]]) (created 12 July 2005) was interested in poetry. User:Poetlister/articles
  • [[::User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] ([[::User talk:Taxwoman|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Taxwoman|contribs]]) (created 10 August 2005) was interested in S&M, bondage, sexy clothing and lifestyle, and has many photos of herself. User:Taxwoman/articles
  • [[::User:Londoneye|Londoneye]] ([[::User talk:Londoneye|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Londoneye|contribs]]) (created 28 September 2005) was interested in photos User:Londoneye/contributions.
  • [[::User:Newport|Newport]] ([[::User talk:Newport|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Newport|contribs]]) (created 3 December 2005) edited mostly Jewish and Bible-related articles.

Even if they were sock puppets, why ban them?[edit]

Having 2 accounts is discouraged, but by itself is not a bannable offence: See Wikipedia:Sock puppet.

The 100 edit limit is used as a guideline to determine if a user is a sock puppet or not (if more than 100 edits, then they are presumed not to be). Edits per user: User:RachelBrown: 1,428, User:Poetlister: 342, User:Londoneye: 193, User:Taxwoman: 432, User:Newport: 93. Ergo they can't automatically be determined to be sock puppets (even Newport's 93 is close enough to 100 to be given some explanation). There needs to be investigation.

For a similar case, see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote - in that case, which, ironically, is over the same issue (but from the opposite side), Antidote is proven to have sock puppets, yet is still able to state his case and try to prove his innocence. There is also evidence of collusion. Yet there is a fair process, where it is displayed publicly.

Theory that they might all be the same person[edit]

Rachel Brown starts up her own account on 15 April 2005 to edit Wikipedia. After a while, she thought that she'd like to edit poetry related articles, but didn't want anyone to know that she was a poet, so on 12 July 2005 she set up User:Poetlister to do this. Then later on she wanted to be a bit kinky so thought to make a sexy fantasy character User:Taxwoman, who she created on 10 August 2005 to have fun with kinky things, and included a lot of photos to try to draw attention to herself (Taxwoman was enormously popular, it should be noted). Then this was going along well, so on 28 September 2005 she decided to make up a new account with a name that makes it sound like she knows what she is doing, so she added User:Londoneye. Then she was having trouble with edit wars, and so "quit" on 3 December 2005, the same day that she made her new account User:Newport, so that she could continue editing in peace.

However, after problems with Lulu and SlimVirgin, Rachel Brown, who before that time had not coordinated any of her 4 user names, then decided to use them all to gang up on these 2, so that instead of it being 2vs1 it became 4vs2 in her favour, thus also engendering support from others.

Theory that they might not be the same person[edit]

Rachel Brown starts up her own account on 15 April 2005 to edit Wikipedia. When her friend visited her house a few times, she caught Rachel editing Wikipedia and thought that that might be fun, so she created her own account User:Poetlister on 12 July 2005. The two of them then chatted about it and from time to time edited the same articles. Unknown to them, User:Taxwoman started up her own account on 10 August 2005. Unknown to them, User:Londoneye set up her own account on 28 September 2005. When Rachel Brown was having problems with SlimVirgin and Lulu, Poetlister offered to help her out, but then Rachel was talking to some of her friends and found out that Londoneye and Taxwoman also had accounts, and asked them if they could help with things too. Taxwoman agreed to vote only, but Londoneye, being Rachel's cousin, offered to help out a bit more to try to resolve the dispute. When Rachel left Wikipedia, Poetlister asked for someone to help them out, and found another friends, Newport, who offered to help them out. (note: User:Arniep has evidence that Newport and RachelBrown are different people)

Theory in between[edit]

RachelBrown quit Wikipedia on 3 December 2005, publicly at least. She felt that she was being harassed too much. So she then created a new account, Newport, to avoid the harassment.

Proposals[edit]

Renominate AFDs for deletion[edit]

Given that these users have been banned because of a "suspicion" of sock puppetry in AFD votes, it is only reasonable that all of the AFDs in which they voted in the period 17-27 November 2005 be renominated for deletion as part of Wikipedia:Deletion Review. They are as follows:

In addition, 2 other articles were focusses on dispute, and should also be nominated for deletion, as follows:

Users who should be prohibited from contributing to the AFDs:

Short term solution proposal[edit]

  • The CheckUser results made public per Wikipedia:Privacy policy as a request from the users concerned who want to prove their innocence.
  • User:Taxwoman be unbanned as she did not coordinate with RachelBrown at all.
  • User:RachelBrown be banned instead of User:Poetlister, since Rachel Brown was not active at the time of the ban while Poetlister was.

Medium term solution proposal[edit]

  • That User:Mindspillage contact User:Poetlister by e-mail (as the most active person as at the time of the bans) and then organise for the 6 affected persons to talk to her on the phone to confirm their identities.

Long term solution proposal[edit]

  • That the 4 banned accounts have their bans lifted.
  • That a Request for Arbitration be filed against User:RachelBrown, User:Poetlister, User:Taxwoman, User:Londoneye, User:Newport and User:81.153.41.72 for allegations of sock puppetry and manipulation of Wikipedia, and that persons affected are able to submit evidence towards proving or disproving this theory.
  • That the Request for Arbitration also submit evidence surrounding allegations of coordination of their attacks.
  • That the Request for Arbitration produce suggestions as to possible resolutions, including warnings for meat puppetry, and consider possibly banning 1 or more of the usernames.
  • That all of the affected articles be renominated for deletion with none of the above persons (or Lulu or SlimVirgin) permitted to comment in any of the AFDs.
  • That the mediation/comment/arbitration against SlimVirgin and Lulu be recommenced in relation to this case.
  • Upon completion of the Request for Arbitration against RachelBrown et al for allegations of sock puppetry, a Request for Arbitration should be filed as Rachel Brown et al vs SlimVirgin and Lulu.
  • This Request for Arbitration should work towards resolving all of the Jewish list related disputes, and work towards civility.
  • Unless absolutely necessary, bans against affected users should be discouraged.

"Evidence" to support this block[edit]

To date, no evidence has been presented to support the block. The word of User:Kelly Martin has been used to justify the block. No evidence has been presented to date either showing evidence of sock puppetry or collusion. A CheckUser has allegedly been done, although its details have not been presented anywhere, in violation of Wikipedia:Privacy policy which states that it must be made public upon a request by the users concerned. User:Kelly Martin has stated that any questioning of her word is a violation of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith and has warned both User:Zordrac and User:Dan100 for trying to investigate this issue.

WWJD (What would Jimbo Do?)[edit]

Would Jimbo be horrified at the level of corruption and revert the bans and stop the abuse?

Or would he simply allow them to carry on per usual and criticise the people who tried to make Wikipedia more transparent?

Is Wikipedia's public image more hurt because of the existence of this page that proves the corruption? Or is it more hurt by the fact that the corruption exists?

If there is anyone who is neutral to this, and wishes to contact User:Jimbo Wales for comment, I, User:Zordrac, give full permission for them to do so.

I will do it. I personally think that Poetlister should be unblocked.-- Bonaparte talk 08:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Bonaparte was banned shortly after making this pledge.

Postscript, July 2006[edit]

Many people were concerned about these blocks, which were done without an RfAr or even RfC, and the refusal by Kelly Martin and Mindspillage to release the Checkuser evidence to the blocked editors. Kelly Martin accepted that there was strong evidence that controverted her conclusions from the Checkuser evidence, but said that as she had only been asked to do a Checkuser, she was not interested in reviewing this evidence.

Dan100 unblocked Poetlister, Londoneye, Taxwoman and Newport on 23 December, "pending evidence". However, David Gerard reimposed the blocks on Christmas Day, still not citing evidence. He also gave RachelBrown a one week block, although Kelly Martin and Mindspillage had not blocked her and she had not edited for several weeks. Nandesuka had re-blocked Poetlister, though not the others, earlier on Christmas Day.

It is not clear how much impact this incident had on the ArbCom elections in January, although Kelly Martin felt obliged to withdraw after the elections started. Charles Matthews was elected to the ArbCom and reopened the ban on Poetlister. Following discussions with her and with David Gerard, he was satisfied that the ban was unwarranted and unblocked her on 31 January 2006. She has resumed her editing.

Many felt that if the ban on Poetlister was unwarranted, the bans on the others could not hold water. Londoneye was unblocked on 9 February, Taxwoman on 25 February and Newport on 26 February 2006. All have resumed their previous editing, continuing to receive expressions of appreciation from other editors in their respective fields. However, some involved in their blocking have remained unhappy. Claims that Newport is a sockpuppet of RachelBrown have not stopped. It has even been claimed that Newport is User Guy on Wikipedia Review. Kelly Martin and Sannse opposed Poetlister's RFA, claiming that they could not trust her[137].

Zordrac, Bonaparte and Mistress Selina Kyle remain blocked. Subsequently, Vulturell and Arniep have also been blocked.

Retrieved from "https://encyc.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zordrac/Poetlister&oldid=4422"