Umkay's banning

Was there a back-channel bit of research the Mods can clue us in on?

An announcement is forthcoming, but I think all of the research was posted in the Pit thread.

Oh, good, I’m glad - the Pit thread is making me more, not less, confused.

For the sake of those of us who don’t feel like reading through over a thousand posts can somebody summarize what happened?

Here’s what I understand so far:

Umkay appeared a little while ago and started a thread about being a quadriplegic.

She mentioned she would be offline a few days addressing some medical issue.

Notokay showed up, said he was umkay’s brother, and posted she had died.

Umkay returned and said notokay was a fraud.

It was found that umkay had been making false posts similar to this on another board.

Do I have this correct? And did I miss any part of the story?

Will the plot get any thicker, we now wonder?

Got it.

The announcement has been posted here.

She didn’t say she’d be offline. She was inactive without a specified reason, and NotOkay registered to say she had died. A few weeks earlier umkay had left the thread, returned, and said she’d had a medical crisis. But other than that, yes, this is a pretty accurate summary of the situation as it appeared.

I’d be interested in hearing what evidence allowed us to conclude that umkay was the one making false posts to another board. I know there is a set of similarities between that poster and her, but there are also some differences. The voice umkay created here was literate and engaging, and I don’t hear that in the “mommy board” poster at all. But the rash of similarities in stories – that is, the facts each was presenting as “my life” – is rather damning.

I think that’s accurate. A poster named “sezyoo” was discovered to be posting on a pregnancy board claiming to be a C4 quadriplegic and ended up being confirmed as a faker when it was shown she had posted photos of someone else claiming it was her. As posted on page 8 of the pit thread
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=656188&page=8 many people feel that there were suspicious similarities to umkay’s circumstances, though I’m not sure if anything that confirmed the connection (like matching up IP addresses) was presented.

That’s probably why the delay between the evidence posted in the pit thread and the banning. TPTB, I’m assuming, were gathering more solid evidence and/or giving Umkay a chance to explain herself before lowering the boom. If they hadn’t come up with anything concrete I don’t think she’d have been banned (ie living_in_hell wasn’t banned, even though she was suspected of being footwear)

I realize the links that were posted in the Pit thread are not proof positive, but they are very strong circumstantial evidence: the fact that someone telling an extremely similar story with a lot of matching details was exposed as a fraud on another board only a few months ago would be an unbelievable coincidence. When you combine that and the fact that umkay was just a little too perfect all around, it’s hard to see any other explanation. People have correctly been identified as fakers or trolls or socks with much less information.

EDIT: We wouldn’t post IP address information here, even for a fraud or a troll.

Lookit, Bricker! Still clinging. “B-b-but…she talked so purty!”.

If y’all want to bash each other over your reactions, take it to the Pit thread. This is ATMB.

Sorry, twicks. Got carried away.

To be fair, I had the exact same reaction as Bricker to Little Nemo’s statement “It was found that umkay had been making false posts similar to this on another board.”

Nemo was spot on in the rest of the post - and I am fully convinced that umkay is a troll - but there’s no proof that sezyoo is umkay. A statement such as “Some posters found evidence of a poster on another board with an eerily similar story as umkay, who turned out to be a fraud” may have been more accurate.

In my time dealing with Internet drama and real-life drama queens, I’ve seen a repeated pattern of attention-seeking which in real life typically involves feigned suicide attempts or faking illness, and on the Internet is often characterized by feigning one’s death or creating a sock nemesis with whom to have a dramatic conflict.

I am not claiming to know anything about this case nor to have seen it coming before anyone else, but the dramatic “X has died!” post with so little other information, followed quickly by the “What the–I’m still alive and that person is awful!” thread certainly followed a tiresomely familiar pattern.

Didn’t see the thread that sparked this, nor do I recall Umkay as a poster, but just for my own clarification here, was the banning because s/he was using a sock or because of the use of a false identity or persona…or was it involved in the ‘don’t be a jerk’ policy? I’m unclear on exactly what the poster is being banned for in all of this.

-XT

Fact.

I haven’t checked the thread to confirm this, but it could be done, and if true, it’s a fact. Marley23 says otherwise: “She didn’t say she’d be offline. She was inactive without a specified reason.”

Fact.

Fact.

Alleged. If you look for similarities, you find them. If you look for differences, you find those, too. It’s possible the mods have better evidence than us peons, but so far, we aren’t in on it.

With my edits, you got it.

And all the “facts” are merely confirming that X posted Y, not that Y is true, or that X exists. After all, we’re only a freakin’ message board, not a court of law, but a little logic should be applied where possible.

The “false persona,” as TubaDiva phrased it in the announcement.

I guess I didn’t realize that was a ban-able offense. Thanks for the info, Marley.

-XT