"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he'll tell you the truth." (Velvet Goldmine) This applies best, as we all know, on the internet. And to a fault. (Personally, I believe the internet is going to change the face of poetic publication. And I'm not just talking about Ron's book. But that's my personal observation and another topic entirely.)
That in spite of itself, I try never to assume that a poet is his work. I would prefer people not make such assumptions with my work; I can see where some things in poetry-- for example some images, some allusions-- refer to real events in a real person's life that are "too close to home" to be fiction. However if I write about the trials of divorce, that does not mean I am currently undergoing one.
The reality is this-- some poets, especially contemporary ones-- will say "This is me; take it or leave it." But they will lay their innermost heart out for you and you are a heartless beast for not taking it. I see it as a kind of ploy for sympathy, and perhaps readership as well-- not that it makes the work any any less real or authentic, quite the contrary-- but it puts the reader in an uncanny position of befriending, and sympathizing with, the poet, and not just the "speaker."
If you read the work and don't like the speaker, then I imagine it would be hard to like the poet himself. But take this into consideration-- are you seeing a consistency, or are you seeing a singularity? I am one of the crowd that kindasorta frowns on the poet = poem style, believing it to be an occasional necessity-- *but* one that can be hidden to such an extent that it needn't be an issue. Right? Who knows if I'm writing about me, a close friend, or a fictional character? I could be *that* good. I mean, what do we do but play with words?
"And one day...the whole stinking world would be theirs..."
-- Velvet Goldmine (Todd Haynes, Oscar Wilde and, unofficially, David Bowie)