Arbcom follies, Arbcom is totally blown away by the leaker Options

[chrisoff]

How can arbcom be so totally in outer space regarding the leaker. Their answer are pathetic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ity_Speculation


Are they really as dumb and inadequate as they come across? Even the super techie ones? And these are the people deciding the fate of wikipedia and its editors?

Giano, my hero! Dear clear sighted one!

[No one of consequence]

Giano, my hero! Dear clear sighted one!

In this case Giano is pursuing what is probably the least likely explanation, and is ignoring several more plausible explanations. Security for the mailing list was just bad, and anyone who (a) understood computer security and (b) knew how the Mailman software worked would have known this. The problem is that the people who did know this (a couple of Arbs, possibly, and most of the developers) didn't bother to fix it until after the big breach. Which is pretty much human nature, unfortunately.

And it is entirely plausible that the devs were warned, and they just decided that bots and widgets and new tools for fixing capitalization errors were more important.

[chrisoff]

In this case Giano is pursuing what is probably the least likely explanation, and is ignoring several more plausible explanations. Security for the mailing list was just bad, and anyone who (a) understood computer security and (b) knew how the Mailman software worked would have known this. The problem is that the people who did know this (a couple of Arbs, possibly, and most of the developers) didn't bother to fix it until after the big breach. Which is pretty much human nature, unfortunately.

And it is entirely plausible that the devs were warned, and they just decided that bots and widgets and new tools for fixing capitalization errors were more important.

I don't buy it. There's at least one arb that acts very techie on other sites, is a checkuser and such, and they NEVER worried about email security of "personal, sensitive" info that arbs, those supposedly trustworthy beings, happily gossip about among themselves? Giano is on the right track. Tabloid material.

[thekohser]

How can arbcom be so totally in outer space regarding the leaker. Their answer are pathetic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ity_Speculation


Are they really as dumb and inadequate as they come across? Even the super techie ones? And these are the people deciding the fate of wikipedia and its editors?

Giano, my hero! Dear clear sighted one!

That was the most delightful reading of the past week. Thanks, Chrisoff!

[InkBlot]

In this case Giano is pursuing what is probably the least likely explanation, and is ignoring several more plausible explanations. Security for the mailing list was just bad, and anyone who (a) understood computer security and (b) knew how the Mailman software worked would have known this. The problem is that the people who did know this (a couple of Arbs, possibly, and most of the developers) didn't bother to fix it until after the big breach. Which is pretty much human nature, unfortunately.

And it is entirely plausible that the devs were warned, and they just decided that bots and widgets and new tools for fixing capitalization errors were more important.

I don't buy it. There's at least one arb that acts very techie on other sites, is a checkuser and such, and they NEVER worried about email security of "personal, sensitive" info that arbs, those supposedly trustworthy beings, happily gossip about among themselves? Giano is on the right track. Tabloid material.

They, like many IT professionals, fall into the trap of thinking 'security through obscurity' is...well, actually secure. It's not. The old setup was weak and horribly insecure, but they must have figured if no one could see how flimsy the setup was they wouldn't know where to poke holes in it.

Giano just has to see ArbCom as villians actively plotting against him. It's the only way he can explain all the poop which has been dumped on his head over the years without admitting some of it, any of it, might just possibly have been brought on by his own self. Maybe I'm naive, but I've always lived closer to the adage: "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity."

[SpiderAndWeb]

In this case Giano is pursuing what is probably the least likely explanation, and is ignoring several more plausible explanations. Security for the mailing list was just bad, and anyone who (a) understood computer security and (b) knew how the Mailman software worked would have known this. The problem is that the people who did know this (a couple of Arbs, possibly, and most of the developers) didn't bother to fix it until after the big breach. Which is pretty much human nature, unfortunately.

And it is entirely plausible that the devs were warned, and they just decided that bots and widgets and new tools for fixing capitalization errors were more important.

I don't buy it. There's at least one arb that acts very techie on other sites, is a checkuser and such, and they NEVER worried about email security of "personal, sensitive" info that arbs, those supposedly trustworthy beings, happily gossip about among themselves? Giano is on the right track. Tabloid material.

They, like many IT professionals, fall into the trap of thinking 'security through obscurity' is...well, actually secure. It's not. The old setup was weak and horribly insecure, but they must have figured if no one could see how flimsy the setup was they wouldn't know where to poke holes in it.

Giano just has to see ArbCom as villians actively plotting against him. It's the only way he can explain all the poop which has been dumped on his head over the years without admitting some of it, any of it, might just possibly have been brought on by his own self. Maybe I'm naive, but I've always lived closer to the adage: "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity."

Frankly, certain members of ArbCom do plot against him, as can be seen in e.g. the leaked emails about the Arbcom wiki "hack," and his posting of the !! sockpuppetry evidence.

This post has been edited by SpiderAndWeb:

[A Horse With No Name]

Are they really as dumb and inadequate as they come across?

Put it this way - if they had brains, would they be wasting their time hiding behind pseudonyms on a make-believe Sanhedrin? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Sololol]

Giano, my hero! Dear clear sighted one!

In this case Giano is pursuing what is probably the least likely explanation, and is ignoring several more plausible explanations. Security for the mailing list was just bad, and anyone who (a) understood computer security and (b) knew how the Mailman software worked would have known this. The problem is that the people who did know this (a couple of Arbs, possibly, and most of the developers) didn't bother to fix it until after the big breach. Which is pretty much human nature, unfortunately.

And it is entirely plausible that the devs were warned, and they just decided that bots and widgets and new tools for fixing capitalization errors were more important.

I don't think Giano is off-base in thinking it's an inside job versus hacking. It just doesn't matter. And they'd never tell even if they knew: the leaker would say they were hacked (in all honesty or just whipping out the victim card) and we know how that goes. Tune in next leak to find out.

[Vigilant]

Giano, my hero! Dear clear sighted one!

In this case Giano is pursuing what is probably the least likely explanation, and is ignoring several more plausible explanations. Security for the mailing list was just bad, and anyone who (a) understood computer security and (b) knew how the Mailman software worked would have known this. The problem is that the people who did know this (a couple of Arbs, possibly, and most of the developers) didn't bother to fix it until after the big breach. Which is pretty much human nature, unfortunately.

And it is entirely plausible that the devs were warned, and they just decided that bots and widgets and new tools for fixing capitalization errors were more important.

I don't think Giano is off-base in thinking it's an inside job versus hacking. It just doesn't matter. And they'd never tell even if they knew: the leaker would say they were hacked (in all honesty or just whipping out the victim card) and we know how that goes. Tune in next leak to find out.

The easiest way to do this would be to send a phishing email to each and every arb. Anyone with unpatched/not using email anti-virus gets their machine rooted. Search their drives for what you want. download the entire archive from the rooted machine.

Provide requested searches while letting arbcom thrash about wondering who the traitor is.

[Sololol]

The easiest way to do this would be to send a phishing email to each and every arb. Anyone with unpatched/not using email anti-virus gets their machine rooted. Search their drives for what you want. download the entire archive from the rooted machine.

Provide requested searches while letting arbcom thrash about wondering who the traitor is.

I have no idea how you'd do any of that. Maybe it's really simple. But it seems simpler to imagine someone with any of the numerous possible motivations (revenge/boredom/reform/Malice offered them a delicious sandwich) and sending it out. Something along the lines of what's happened three known times before and God knows how many other times. Again, it doesn't really matter since they can't stop either from happening again, just fun to speculate.

[gomi]

The easiest way to do this would be to send a phishing email to each and every arb.

I have no idea how you'd do any of that. Maybe it's really simple.

"The attached [Word document|PDF File|Link|whatever] contains incontrovertible proof that your fellow Arbitrator [X] has violated Wikipedia's trust." That'd get every one of 'em. Fuckin' post-apocalyptic warlord idiots.

[Casliber]

The easiest way to do this would be to send a phishing email to each and every arb.

I have no idea how you'd do any of that. Maybe it's really simple.

"The attached [Word document|PDF File|Link|whatever] contains incontrovertible proof that your fellow Arbitrator [X] has violated Wikipedia's trust." That'd get every one of 'em. Fuckin' post-apocalyptic warlord idiots.

Well, I've seen this now so I for one won't be opening it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Sololol]

The easiest way to do this would be to send a phishing email to each and every arb.

I have no idea how you'd do any of that. Maybe it's really simple.

"The attached [Word document|PDF File|Link|whatever] contains incontrovertible proof that your fellow Arbitrator [X] has violated Wikipedia's trust." That'd get every one of 'em. Fuckin' post-apocalyptic warlord idiots.

Well, I've seen this now so I for one won't be opening it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Damn! Casliber will need a personalized message now. What if it were Compressed Unicorn PDF and promised a real live unicorn if you opened it?

[Vigilant]

The easiest way to do this would be to send a phishing email to each and every arb. Anyone with unpatched/not using email anti-virus gets their machine rooted. Search their drives for what you want. download the entire archive from the rooted machine.

Provide requested searches while letting arbcom thrash about wondering who the traitor is.

I have no idea how you'd do any of that. Maybe it's really simple. But it seems simpler to imagine someone with any of the numerous possible motivations (revenge/boredom/reform/Malice offered them a delicious sandwich) and sending it out. Something along the lines of what's happened three known times before and God knows how many other times. Again, it doesn't really matter since they can't stop either from happening again, just fun to speculate.

I think if it were a current or farmer arb with a bad case of "FUCK YOU", they'd have a bunch of things they'd want to get out there. Things that bothered them personally.

This situation with the greatest hits parade is more like someone who has a secret and is enjoying trickling it out.

Now, Malice, where are my Merkey emails?

[Ottava]

I'm of the believe that they are all the leaker, and that this whole thing was started because they all wanted to make the knowledge public while still having plausible deniability.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

After all, have any of the leaks really had anything incriminating? There is no "lets find out a way to screw this person" type of conspiracy as found in the Easter European emails. Most of them are debates between different people and show very little "collusion" or anything that wasn't taking place in public.

Of course, a few people are seen as two-faced, or shown to hide how they really feel. But that isn't anything new or ground breaking.

[SpiderAndWeb]

I'm of the believe that they are all the leaker, and that this whole thing was started because they all wanted to make the knowledge public while still having plausible deniability.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

A Orient Express-style conspiracy? I love it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Ottava]

I'm of the believe that they are all the leaker, and that this whole thing was started because they all wanted to make the knowledge public while still having plausible deniability.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

A Orient Express-style conspiracy? I love it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Wow, that should have read "I'm of the believers that".

Anyway, yes. I was thinking more of the third ending of Clue because that is far more sillier with all the running around and such. A Horse with No Name would probably enjoy both references as pertinent, unless he is still morning the death of the real Horse with No Name.

[SpiderAndWeb]

I'm of the believe that they are all the leaker, and that this whole thing was started because they all wanted to make the knowledge public while still having plausible deniability.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

A Orient Express-style conspiracy? I love it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Wow, that should have read "I'm of the believers that".

Anyway, yes. I was thinking more of the third ending of Clue because that is far more sillier with all the running around and such. A Horse with No Name would probably enjoy both references as pertinent, unless he is still morning the death of the real Horse with No Name.

With communism hacking just a red herring, I assume.

This post has been edited by SpiderAndWeb:

[chrisoff]

After all, have any of the leaks really had anything incriminating? There is no "lets find out a way to screw this person" type of conspiracy as found in the Easter European emails. Most of them are debates between different people and show very little "collusion" or anything that wasn't taking place in public.

Of course, a few people are seen as two-faced, or shown to hide how they really feel. But that isn't anything new or ground breaking.

Hummmmm


Does show that Cas Liber acts as the psychiatric consultant for the group! Let's ask Cas and see what the "mechanism" is, whether the guy is really suicidal!

"The thing that strikes me about RH&E is the knee-jerk "I'm too ill/I'm suicidal" response whenever challenged. What's all that about, Cas? What's the mechanism? Just deflection?"

Cas: "Oh, the common theme in all his correspondence is /his/ hard work, /his/ health i.e. "I'm having a hard time and you don't care". There is not /any/ consideration of the other side at all, which is interesting. it illustrates a fairly profound lack of empathy of knowing or caring about his obligations (role of admin), or problem it puts us in (threat of suicide and letting him edit). Admittedly this gets worse when a person is stressed (even reasonable folks can lose empathy" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)


Cas give us a quickie mental check on the arbs. Could there possibly be a profound lack of empathy in all this casual gossip and speculation by the arbs in these leaked emails?


Draft Giano for arbcom!

[powercorrupts]

I found Casliber's comment totally unconvincing in terms of being from a qualified psychiatrist. The more I read it the less convincing it is, in fact.

Asking Casliber this kind of question is ridiculous. They should have brought in (or even actually employ for these occasions) qualified people - including the police on occasions it could be argued - but instead they are querying their anonymous selves, and constantly bargaining with misfits to attempt to maintain the appearance of credibility.

What we are seeing is that arbcom are consistently what most normal people would call 'unprofessional'. I'm wondering if it's actually professionalism which these level of Wikipedians have a kind of fear or hatred of. There could even be a general contempt for it across Wikipedia.

I personally think people on WR are making a mistake in searching for Murdochian scandals in these leaks - they are not fully private emails, which of course must occur frequently enough - and are even alluded to on occasion. These kind of incidences could be as bad as it gets. Surely they are bad enough, despite what people here already know about arbcom - that they are simply the kind of venal, ambitious and self-interested people who climb upwards (to whatever degree) in the hazy world of Wikimedia Enterprises.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[thekohser]

Wow, that should have read "I'm of the believers that".

Are you sure about that? Really, Ottava? Really?

[Vigilant]

Wow, that should have read "I'm of the believers that".

Are you sure about that? Really, Ottava? Really?

Kind of sad what an expensive literary education gets you these days...

[Encyclopedist]

I found Casliber's comment totally unconvincing in terms of being from a qualified psychiatrist. The more I read it the less convincing it is, in fact.

I agree, but then, of course, I would, wouldn't I? CasLiber cites no psychological or psychiatric qualifications or expertise publicly, and is ostensibly interested in (to most) obscure flora, fauna, and fungi of Australia, given his most recent contributions.

I don't imagine for one second that he is qualified to judge a complex individual, such as myself, or indeed anyone, and he has failed to not only to take both sides of the debate, but also to reply to emails from myself. However, that's not unusual from my attempts to seek clarification from ArbCom, either collectively or individually, which to me shows that they are intransigent and in many ways, missing the point. They've hung me out to dry, and will defend that decision at all costs.

I have some sort of dialogue with Wales, who at least is treating me with some minimal courtesy, if not exactly accepting that ArbCom, and he, got it badly wrong. However, I look at WP these days and see nonsense on my watchlist, particularly BLP violations, not being managed professionally and in a timely manner. It only takes ONE person to sue in relation to ONE diff incompetently handled, for the whole "due diligence" thinking behind WP:BLP to crumble into dust.

This ArbCom don't get that, and they should go, with extreme prejudice.

Ends.

[Abd]

What we are seeing is that arbcom are consistently what most normal people would call 'unprofessional'. I'm wondering if it's actually professionalism which these level of Wikipedians have a kind of fear or hatred of. There could even be a general contempt for it across Wikipedia.

No shit, Sherlock.

I do wonder why anyone would expect the arbitrators to be "professional," and I've seen the same comment made about administrators.

None of them are paid. They are largely selected for popularity, not for any kind of "professional" competence.

Supermajority election of administrators ensures that the community is badly represented by the administrative core, and the same is true of arbitrators.

It's like clockwork.

[Vigilant]

What we are seeing is that arbcom are consistently what most normal people would call 'unprofessional'. I'm wondering if it's actually professionalism which these level of Wikipedians have a kind of fear or hatred of. There could even be a general contempt for it across Wikipedia.

No shit, Sherlock.

I do wonder why anyone would expect the arbitrators to be "professional," and I've seen the same comment made about administrators.

None of them are paid. They are largely selected for popularity, not for any kind of "professional" competence.

Supermajority election of administrators ensures that the community is badly represented by the administrative core, and the same is true of arbitrators.

It's like clockwork.

Careful, now.

They are selected for popularity from amongst the largest collection of immature, maladjusted shut-ins on the face of the planet. As I wrote elsewhere, the group of the most active wikipedians make a group of rabid Star Trek fans look vanilla plain by comparison.

Arbcom is unaccountable and is thus incorrigible. The stratification of rank and obsession regarding relative status makes wikipedia a classic example of the Stanford Prison Experiment writ large.

[Casliber]

The easiest way to do this would be to send a phishing email to each and every arb.

I have no idea how you'd do any of that. Maybe it's really simple.

"The attached [Word document|PDF File|Link|whatever] contains incontrovertible proof that your fellow Arbitrator [X] has violated Wikipedia's trust." That'd get every one of 'em. Fuckin' post-apocalyptic warlord idiots.

Well, I've seen this now so I for one won't be opening it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Damn! Casliber will need a personalized message now. What if it were Compressed Unicorn PDF and promised a real live unicorn if you opened it?

Maybe if you tried a pegasus or manticore.....

[powercorrupts]

I found Casliber's comment totally unconvincing in terms of being from a qualified psychiatrist. The more I read it the less convincing it is, in fact.

I agree, but then, of course, I would, wouldn't I? CasLiber cites no psychological or psychiatric qualifications or expertise publicly, and is ostensibly interested in (to most) obscure flora, fauna, and fungi of Australia, given his most recent contributions.

I don't imagine for one second that he is qualified to judge a complex individual, such as myself, or indeed anyone, and he has failed to not only to take both sides of the debate, but also to reply to emails from myself. However, that's not unusual from my attempts to seek clarification from ArbCom, either collectively or individually, which to me shows that they are intransigent and in many ways, missing the point. They've hung me out to dry, and will defend that decision at all costs.

I have some sort of dialogue with Wales, who at least is treating me with some minimal courtesy, if not exactly accepting that ArbCom, and he, got it badly wrong. However, I look at WP these days and see nonsense on my watchlist, particularly BLP violations, not being managed professionally and in a timely manner. It only takes ONE person to sue in relation to ONE diff incompetently handled, for the whole "due diligence" thinking behind WP:BLP to crumble into dust.

This ArbCom don't get that, and they should go, with extreme prejudice.

Ends.

Don't you fucking dare even suggest my disbelief of Casliber's qualifications means that I disagree with what is clear as can be to everyone - that you are completely full of shit. You yourself have pretended to be a "psychologist" (wasn't it?) on Wikipedia when trying to build up credibility with your post-RodHull&Emu sock account, as has your partner in slime (and conversation if I remember), Malleus.

Every walking abyss who pretends to be a psychiatrist/psychologist on Wikipedia should be rounded up chained into one of Poetlister's dungeons. It's nothing less than you manipulative bastards deserve.

Obviously, that goes for you too Casliber.

[powercorrupts]

The easiest way to do this would be to send a phishing email to each and every arb.

I have no idea how you'd do any of that. Maybe it's really simple.

"The attached [Word document|PDF File|Link|whatever] contains incontrovertible proof that your fellow Arbitrator [X] has violated Wikipedia's trust." That'd get every one of 'em. Fuckin' post-apocalyptic warlord idiots.

Well, I've seen this now so I for one won't be opening it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Damn! Casliber will need a personalized message now. What if it were Compressed Unicorn PDF and promised a real live unicorn if you opened it?

Maybe if you tried a pegasus or manticore.....

Can you save us your maladjusted 'join the trolls' 24-Step Psychology in a Day horseshit. You really are cringe-making, and a total fraud.

[Heat]

Giano, my hero! Dear clear sighted one!

In this case Giano is pursuing what is probably the least likely explanation, and is ignoring several more plausible explanations. Security for the mailing list was just bad, and anyone who (a) understood computer security and (b) knew how the Mailman software worked would have known this. The problem is that the people who did know this (a couple of Arbs, possibly, and most of the developers) didn't bother to fix it until after the big breach. Which is pretty much human nature, unfortunately.

And it is entirely plausible that the devs were warned, and they just decided that bots and widgets and new tools for fixing capitalization errors were more important.

I don't think Giano is off-base in thinking it's an inside job versus hacking. It just doesn't matter. And they'd never tell even if they knew: the leaker would say they were hacked (in all honesty or just whipping out the victim card) and we know how that goes. Tune in next leak to find out.

The easiest way to do this would be to send a phishing email to each and every arb. Anyone with unpatched/not using email anti-virus gets their machine rooted. Search their drives for what you want. download the entire archive from the rooted machine.

Provide requested searches while letting arbcom thrash about wondering who the traitor is.

Easiest - and illegal.

[Vigilant]

Giano, my hero! Dear clear sighted one!

In this case Giano is pursuing what is probably the least likely explanation, and is ignoring several more plausible explanations. Security for the mailing list was just bad, and anyone who (a) understood computer security and (b) knew how the Mailman software worked would have known this. The problem is that the people who did know this (a couple of Arbs, possibly, and most of the developers) didn't bother to fix it until after the big breach. Which is pretty much human nature, unfortunately.

And it is entirely plausible that the devs were warned, and they just decided that bots and widgets and new tools for fixing capitalization errors were more important.

I don't think Giano is off-base in thinking it's an inside job versus hacking. It just doesn't matter. And they'd never tell even if they knew: the leaker would say they were hacked (in all honesty or just whipping out the victim card) and we know how that goes. Tune in next leak to find out.

The easiest way to do this would be to send a phishing email to each and every arb. Anyone with unpatched/not using email anti-virus gets their machine rooted. Search their drives for what you want. download the entire archive from the rooted machine.

Provide requested searches while letting arbcom thrash about wondering who the traitor is.

Easiest - and illegal.

Illegal is only a problem is the targets actually take steps to preserve forensics and report it to some authorities that would actually give a shit about the targets and their potential losses.

Going after bank CEOs, kind of dangerous. Going after the kangaroo court of a volunteer encyclopedia, not so much.

And, after Risker/Anne told everyone to do stupid, security theater shit to their computers, I think it unlikely that there's much to find or any interest from a security specialist who wasn't paid time and materials in looking into this situation.

Add in the use gmail, access through anonymizers and the spread out geographical locations of the target demographic and I think you can safely say, "There ain't no fucking chance in hell in getting caught..."

Technically naughty, but so is guessing passwords.
For all intents and purposes, impossible to get caught.

[MaliceAforethought]

Things like this just seem to happen to these poor blokes on a regular basis, eh?

********

From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:59:20 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Arbcom wiki showing in google

New arbs are cautioned that the MW developers, despite their
considerable skills in other areas, are very poor at keeping
confidential information leak-free. This sort of thing has happened
before and is likely to happen again.

Steve/UC

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:04:31 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Arbcom wiki showing in google

2008/12/27 Steve Dunlop

> New arbs are cautioned that the MW developers, despite their
> considerable skills in other areas, are very poor at keeping
> confidential information leak-free. This sort of thing has happened
> before and is likely to happen again.


Yes. Basically, MediaWiki isn't the place to put anything you don't
want to tell the world, as that's its entire function.

There are ways to protect the entire wiki more than the usual private
wiki accessible via the Internet, but they aren't implemented on our
wiki farm (and they're a major PITA for all involved) - things like
.htaccess files as well.


- d.

From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:59:49 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Arbcom wiki showing in google

<<<Does using the secure server help, or is that only for the "sniffing
passwords" bit?

Carcharoth>>>

No. What usually happens is that the developers take site maintenance
actions that affect all the 100+ wikis hosted by WMF and either don't
think through the implications for sensitive wikis or screw up the
implementation.

We had one episode where they included a private wiki in the public backup tarball.

We had one episode where they made a private wiki visible on the tool server.

We had one MediaWiki patch that was buggy and caused information compromise, at
least potentially. I can't remember where it was, but it was some new feature
that worked great but forgot to check, on a private wiki, whether there was a
user logged in.

And now this.

Steve/UC

[chrisoff]

I found Casliber's comment totally unconvincing in terms of being from a qualified psychiatrist. The more I read it the less convincing it is, in fact.

I agree, but then, of course, I would, wouldn't I? CasLiber cites no psychological or psychiatric qualifications or expertise publicly, and is ostensibly interested in (to most) obscure flora, fauna, and fungi of Australia, given his most recent contributions.

I don't imagine for one second that he is qualified to judge a complex individual, such as myself, or indeed anyone, and he has failed to not only to take both sides of the debate, but also to reply to emails from myself.

<snip>

Ends.

Don't you fucking dare even suggest my disbelief of Casliber's qualifications means that I disagree with what is clear as can be to everyone - that you are completely full of shit. You yourself have pretended to be a "psychologist" (wasn't it?) on Wikipedia when trying to build up credibility with your post-RodHull&Emu sock account, as has your partner in slime (and conversation if I remember), Malleus.

Every walking abyss who pretends to be a psychiatrist/psychologist on Wikipedia should be rounded up chained into one of Poetlister's dungeons. It's nothing less than you manipulative bastards deserve.

Obviously, that goes for you too Casliber.

Could've fooled the FAC people and the arbs too! He touts himself as a psychiatrist and touts his RL experiences as one regularly. (Eg. I had a bad day, a patient committed suicide.) Note how they solicit his "opinion"? Here is the illustrious Elen of the Roads asking for a little confirmation from Cas of her high-level psychoanalysing:

(copied from leaked email)

"Actually, this is the most reasonable statement I've seen in a while. It confirms that he has been using Wikipedia as a support mechanism (which we thought), and I think the 'unintended consequences' are actually to him, as he hints, while continuing to bluster about consequences to us."

"If Casliber is about, I'd be interested in his take/advice on responding."

[NuclearWarfare]

.

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare:

[Milton Roe]

Could've fooled the FAC people and the arbs too! He touts himself as a psychiatrist and touts his RL experiences as one regularly. (Eg. I had a bad day, a patient committed suicide.) Note how they solicit his "opinion"? Here is the illustrious Elen of the Roads asking for a little confirmation from Cas of her high-level psychoanalysing:

(copied from leaked email)

"Actually, this is the most reasonable statement I've seen in a while. It confirms that he has been using Wikipedia as a support mechanism (which we thought), and I think the 'unintended consequences' are actually to him, as he hints, while continuing to bluster about consequences to us."

"If Casliber is about, I'd be interested in his take/advice on responding."

So Casliber is a real shrink. In that case, it's too bad they didn't run Proofreader77 by him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Encyclopedist]

You realize that Casliber edits under a derivative of his real name, right? And has written Wikipedia-related articles for medical journals, such as JMIR?

From the official Wikimedia blog:

Casimir Liber, MBBS, FRANZCP, is a psychiatrist at the Department of Psychiatry, Bankstown Health Service, Sydney, Australia, and a conjoint lecturer at the School of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Which you can verify by going to UNSW's website. The Internet is magic!

So he may be a shrink; but it's professionally inexcusable to offer an opinion, let alone a diagnosis, without a full and proper consultation with a subject, let alone a client, and without reference to any history and case notes. He should not have made those comments in those circumstances, and if he were acting in a professional manner, at minimum, a disclaimer in the above terms should have been issued. But thanks for the heads up, and I will certainly examine the complaints procedures for any professional bodies of which he is a member. Once he gets over his cold, he's going to need some help of his own, either legal or of the type that wasn't offered to me by ArbCom, and given that he was ideally placed to offer it, at least privately, and failed to do so, again indicates his lack of professionalism. In short, he's a charlatan.

[Milton Roe]

So he may be a shrink; but it's professionally inexcusable to offer an opinion, let alone a diagnosis, without a full and proper consultation with a subject, let alone a client, and without reference to any history and case notes. He should not have made those comments in those circumstances, and if he were acting in a professional manner, at minimum, a disclaimer in the above terms should have been issued. But thanks for the heads up, and I will certainly examine the complaints procedures for any professional bodies of which he is a member. Once he gets over his cold, he's going to need some help of his own, either legal or of the type that wasn't offered to me by ArbCom, and given that he was ideally placed to offer it, at least privately, and failed to do so, again indicates his lack of professionalism. In short, he's a charlatan.

And you're about as in contact with reality as Charlie Sheen right now, "Rod." Why don't you give it a rest?

[Encyclopedist]

So he may be a shrink; but it's professionally inexcusable to offer an opinion, let alone a diagnosis, without a full and proper consultation with a subject, let alone a client, and without reference to any history and case notes. He should not have made those comments in those circumstances, and if he were acting in a professional manner, at minimum, a disclaimer in the above terms should have been issued. But thanks for the heads up, and I will certainly examine the complaints procedures for any professional bodies of which he is a member. Once he gets over his cold, he's going to need some help of his own, either legal or of the type that wasn't offered to me by ArbCom, and given that he was ideally placed to offer it, at least privately, and failed to do so, again indicates his lack of professionalism. In short, he's a charlatan.

And you're about as in contact with reality as Charlie Sheen right now, "Rod." Why don't you give it a rest?

Who the fuck are you? If you don't like me, ignore me. Otherwise, crawl back under whatever stone you came from.

[Vigilant]

So he may be a shrink; but it's professionally inexcusable to offer an opinion, let alone a diagnosis, without a full and proper consultation with a subject, let alone a client, and without reference to any history and case notes. He should not have made those comments in those circumstances, and if he were acting in a professional manner, at minimum, a disclaimer in the above terms should have been issued. But thanks for the heads up, and I will certainly examine the complaints procedures for any professional bodies of which he is a member. Once he gets over his cold, he's going to need some help of his own, either legal or of the type that wasn't offered to me by ArbCom, and given that he was ideally placed to offer it, at least privately, and failed to do so, again indicates his lack of professionalism. In short, he's a charlatan.

And you're about as in contact with reality as Charlie Sheen right now, "Rod." Why don't you give it a rest?

Who the fuck are you? If you don't like me, ignore me. Otherwise, crawl back under whatever stone you came from.

Milton's not the only one. You come across as a seriously deranged fruitbat.

I'd call it at about 1472 milli-Ottavas
Just sayin'

This post has been edited by Vigilant:

[Encyclopedist]

So he may be a shrink; but it's professionally inexcusable to offer an opinion, let alone a diagnosis, without a full and proper consultation with a subject, let alone a client, and without reference to any history and case notes. He should not have made those comments in those circumstances, and if he were acting in a professional manner, at minimum, a disclaimer in the above terms should have been issued. But thanks for the heads up, and I will certainly examine the complaints procedures for any professional bodies of which he is a member. Once he gets over his cold, he's going to need some help of his own, either legal or of the type that wasn't offered to me by ArbCom, and given that he was ideally placed to offer it, at least privately, and failed to do so, again indicates his lack of professionalism. In short, he's a charlatan.

And you're about as in contact with reality as Charlie Sheen right now, "Rod." Why don't you give it a rest?

Who the fuck are you? If you don't like me, ignore me. Otherwise, crawl back under whatever stone you came from.

Milton's not the only one. You come across as a seriously deranged fruitbat.

I'd call it at about 1472 milli-Ottavas
Just sayin'

Trite insults don't help. Not much helps right now. Maybe I'm not as well as I should be right now, and maybe I'm not getting the help I should be. So, who the fuck are you? If you don't like me, ignore me. Is that so difficult for someone purporting to be superior in some way? I don't t'ink so.

[powercorrupts]

You realize that Casliber edits under a derivative of his real name, right? And has written Wikipedia-related articles for medical journals, such as JMIR?

From the official Wikimedia blog:

Casimir Liber, MBBS, FRANZCP, is a psychiatrist at the Department of Psychiatry, Bankstown Health Service, Sydney, Australia, and a conjoint lecturer at the School of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Which you can verify by going to UNSW's website. The Internet is magic!

It's not that difficult to find him in Australia's medical registrar either. He's been registered since Christmas Eve '92.

Thanks for that. I'll contact them and see what they have to say about it, as his comments strike me as being highly unprofessional. Is he someone who should be dealing with (presumably) vulnerable people? I specifically mean his real life clients, but if he's dishing out advice to an outfit like arbcom..

Looking at the net he's been paid by a pharmo to lecture on bipolar disorder, which immediately looks like a dodgy scenario to me - given the drugs they pump into people who get spuriously diagnosed with the disorder by shrinks (I've seen this happen).

But Wikipedia? Maybe the old cliche about these people is true.

"We believe its possibilities for use as a tool for worldwide health promotion are underestimated. We invite the medical community to join in editing Wikipedia, with the goal of providing people with free access to reliable, understandable, and up-to-date health information.... "

Perhaps he made an unspeakable oath?

[EricBarbour]

This is why people on the Crazypedia don't take WR seriously. They cover up and hide their crazy.

[Milton Roe]

Trite insults don't help. Not much helps right now. Maybe I'm not as well as I should be right now, and maybe I'm not getting the help I should be. So, who the fuck are you? If you don't like me, ignore me. Is that so difficult for someone purporting to be superior in some way? I don't t'ink so.

Phil, you're about as hard to ignore as a dog who got hit by a car out front, who dragged itself up onto our lawn, snarling at everybody and bleeding. I don't think you came for euthanasia, did you?

Perhaps you could start by stopping all those activating drugs you're taking that tend to make people nasty, from legal to illegal, and get some rest?

[Encyclopedist]

Trite insults don't help. Not much helps right now. Maybe I'm not as well as I should be right now, and maybe I'm not getting the help I should be. So, who the fuck are you? If you don't like me, ignore me. Is that so difficult for someone purporting to be superior in some way? I don't t'ink so.

Phil, you're about as hard to ignore as a dog who got hit by a car out front, who dragged itself up onto our lawn, snarling at everybody and bleeding. I don't think you came for euthanasia, did you?

Perhaps you could start by stopping all those activating drugs you're taking that tend to make people nasty, from legal to illegal, and get some rest?

Nevertheless, some people manage to ignore me- those with presumably something better to do with their time. However, I don't think you and I know each other IRL, so please do assume we are not on first-name terms. And it's a gross insult to assume that I'm taking any drugs whatsoever; I am not.

[Milton Roe]

Nevertheless, some people manage to ignore me- those with presumably something better to do with their time. However, I don't think you and I know each other IRL, so please do assume we are not on first-name terms. And it's a gross insult to assume that I'm taking any drugs whatsoever; I am not.

It's not a gross insult, it's just by far the best guess. But if you're not, good.

[Vigilant]

So he may be a shrink; but it's professionally inexcusable to offer an opinion, let alone a diagnosis, without a full and proper consultation with a subject, let alone a client, and without reference to any history and case notes. He should not have made those comments in those circumstances, and if he were acting in a professional manner, at minimum, a disclaimer in the above terms should have been issued. But thanks for the heads up, and I will certainly examine the complaints procedures for any professional bodies of which he is a member. Once he gets over his cold, he's going to need some help of his own, either legal or of the type that wasn't offered to me by ArbCom, and given that he was ideally placed to offer it, at least privately, and failed to do so, again indicates his lack of professionalism. In short, he's a charlatan.

And you're about as in contact with reality as Charlie Sheen right now, "Rod." Why don't you give it a rest?

Who the fuck are you? If you don't like me, ignore me. Otherwise, crawl back under whatever stone you came from.

Milton's not the only one. You come across as a seriously deranged fruitbat.

I'd call it at about 1472 milli-Ottavas
Just sayin'

Trite insults don't help. Not much helps right now. Maybe I'm not as well as I should be right now, and maybe I'm not getting the help I should be. So, who the fuck are you? If you don't like me, ignore me. Is that so difficult for someone purporting to be superior in some way? I don't t'ink so.

They're not trite and they're not insults. You are mad as a hatter. I get the heebie geebies everytime I read one of your posts.

Stop posting please.

[Sololol]

Maybe if you tried a pegasus or manticore.....

You think we can just email a pegasus to Sydney?! My God, if you thought the rabbits played merry hell with the ecosystems what do you think would happen with those things?! And the more PC term is "personticore", which I'll be happy to send post-haste.

P.S.: Could you mail me some Bundy? It would be for psychiatric purposes only.

[Encyclopedist]

So he may be a shrink; but it's professionally inexcusable to offer an opinion, let alone a diagnosis, without a full and proper consultation with a subject, let alone a client, and without reference to any history and case notes. He should not have made those comments in those circumstances, and if he were acting in a professional manner, at minimum, a disclaimer in the above terms should have been issued. But thanks for the heads up, and I will certainly examine the complaints procedures for any professional bodies of which he is a member. Once he gets over his cold, he's going to need some help of his own, either legal or of the type that wasn't offered to me by ArbCom, and given that he was ideally placed to offer it, at least privately, and failed to do so, again indicates his lack of professionalism. In short, he's a charlatan.

And you're about as in contact with reality as Charlie Sheen right now, "Rod." Why don't you give it a rest?

Who the fuck are you? If you don't like me, ignore me. Otherwise, crawl back under whatever stone you came from.

Milton's not the only one. You come across as a seriously deranged fruitbat.

I'd call it at about 1472 milli-Ottavas
Just sayin'

Trite insults don't help. Not much helps right now. Maybe I'm not as well as I should be right now, and maybe I'm not getting the help I should be. So, who the fuck are you? If you don't like me, ignore me. Is that so difficult for someone purporting to be superior in some way? I don't t'ink so.

They're not trite and they're not insults. You are mad as a hatter. I get the heebie geebies everytime I read one of your posts.

Stop posting please.

Let's get this quite clear: *I* am as "mad as a hatter", yet *you* "get the heebie geebies everytime you read one of my posts"? It's like the old joke- Man goes to a doctor & says "It hurts when I do this"; doctor says "Well, don't do that". Same thing. Stop reading my posts, if they cause you so much pain. The remedy lies in your own hands.

[Anna]

Seconded, Encyclopedist.

[chrisoff]

I found Casliber's comment totally unconvincing in terms of being from a qualified psychiatrist. The more I read it the less convincing it is, in fact.

Asking Casliber this kind of question is ridiculous. They should have brought in (or even actually employ for these occasions) qualified people - including the police on occasions it could be argued - but instead they are querying their anonymous selves, and constantly bargaining with misfits to attempt to maintain the appearance of credibility.

Is Casliber another Essejay? Just act like you are a psychiatrist and everyone believes it? Isn't there a rule about acting like a professional (whatever), and then using this professional "persona" to make pronouncements? Has Cas shown his real life credentials to arbcom? Or do they ask him to make professional psych pronouncements based on an Essejay-like faith?

Is arbcom really as stupid and naive as these emails make them seem?

And aren't there codes of ethics for psychiatrists that they don't make psychiatric opinions on people they don't know and haven't even seen? Especially on a site like wikipedia where no one is who they seem they are?

[Kelly Martin]

And aren't there codes of ethics for psychiatrists that they don't make psychiatric opinions on people they don't know and haven't even seen? Especially on a site like wikipedia where no one is who they seem they are?

Why would that have those? The APA's code of ethics is intended to protect psychiatrists and the APA; it is not intended to protect patients or the public generally.

[Anna]

Kelly --

If that is so, it would explain a lot.

In my completely non-professional opinion, there do seem to be a lot of really incompetent psychiatrists in the world, or at least in the parts of the U.S. where I have lived, and a fair number of incompetent psychologists too.

One would think that giving a professional psychological diagnosis without extensive contact, preferably in-person contact, with the patient would be generally considered unethical, but that doesn't seem to stop people.

[Milton Roe]

One would think that giving a professional psychological diagnosis without extensive contact, preferably in-person contact, with the patient would be generally considered unethical, but that doesn't seem to stop people.

Where have you seen a professional psychological diagnosis given without in-person contact? Such suggestions are not "professional diagnoses" simply because they use the same words. By definition they are NOT professional diagnoses, but rather suggestions for consideration. Though such evaluations are not secure, a professional can sometimes get a good idea of what is going on, without actually seeing a patient. Also, there are plenty of situations in life where one doesn't need to be a professional at all, to understand what is happening. You don't need to be a weatherman to tell when ... ah... there are presently large amounts of precipitatation outside. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Anna]

Milton --

Mostly New Mexico, but a few times in Virginia. But you're right! It is an oxymoron when you think about it.

Well, right, but when I say, "That guy's alcohol addiction is making him do things he probably wouldn't do otherwise," I don't add, "and I'm a psychiatrist, so what I say is incontestable by you commoners." Because I mean it as a concerned citizen, not as a professional. Besides, in that example at least, it really does help to smell the alcohol and see how he's acting, which isn't something I can do online. Online, perhaps all I could say would be, "that person is acting oddly."

[A Horse With No Name]

.

You're a man of few words. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

And it's a gross insult to assume that I'm taking any drugs whatsoever; I am not.

Good for you! Drugs are bad for you. Malt liquor, on the other hand, is quite therapeutic. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Sxeptomaniac]

Trite insults don't help. Not much helps right now. Maybe I'm not as well as I should be right now, and maybe I'm not getting the help I should be. So, who the fuck are you? If you don't like me, ignore me. Is that so difficult for someone purporting to be superior in some way? I don't t'ink so.

And maybe if multiple people say your posts come across as a little crazy, you should reconsider what you post (unless you prefer coming across crazy). It goes both ways.

[Anna]

It isn't Encyclopedist's responsibility to entertain us. It's not as if it's hard to scroll past his or her posts if you don't like them.

[Milton Roe]

And it's a gross insult to assume that I'm taking any drugs whatsoever; I am not.

Good for you! Drugs are bad for you. Malt liquor, on the other hand, is quite therapeutic. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Yep. And malt does more than Milton can to justfy God's ways to man.

Although, actually, I'm dealing with a horribly alcoholic friend at the moment, and should bite my tongue about that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

You know those know-it-alls that say that drugs are tools if used therapeutically, but devils if used recreationally? Well, alcohol is one of those drugs for which the opposite is true. Just to remind how fucked up conventional wisdom is. Therapeutic users of alcohol are exactly the people who get into trouble, and whose lives are ruined by the stuff.

[powercorrupts]

It isn't Encyclopedist's responsibility to entertain us. It's not as if it's hard to scroll past his or her posts if you don't like them.

He is a 'he' - perhaps you should read up on him before judging on whether people should read/react to him or not?

The thing is that (most) people here genuinely want WR to be credible, if not perhaps always 100% 'serious'. That is why it matters if the place fills up with un-questioned bilge from nutters like Rodhull&Emu (Encyclopedist). WR doesn't have the best of names as it is, we can't let it be seen as complete loony bin.

Obviously countering the fruitcakes can be something of a battle at times (ignoring doesn't always work – look at Karting and that other similar account), especially as everything happens under the lingering-distrust caused by a total rogue who gets off on creating male and female accounts, and manipulating innocent people. Nut-defenders like Abd would say "well it's up to people on WR to feel paranoid or not" - but that is a similarly poor argument for a website like this. You just can't let the loonies run wild. (When Poetlister, for example, arses-around unchecked for a sustained period, we know things eventually will get out of hand).

Like it or not, WR is the main place to go to criticise Wikimedia – and so the whole world (you could say) needs it to maintain at least a smidgen of credibility.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Anna]

It's not about whether or not what he writes is worth reading. That's for each man or woman to decide for him or her self.

I'm just not a huge fan of censorship, and going around calling people "fruitcakes" really doesn't sound like a comprehensive criticism. Not that I'm going to stop you, but I'm not going to start thinking someone's a fruitcake just because you say so.

Personally, I prefer Encyc for pointing out flaws in articles on Wikipedia.

[chrisoff]

Is Cas Liber another Essajay. He says he is a psychiatrist, a la Essajay, so everyone believes him and solicits his "psychiatric opinion" on virtual suicide cases?

No one asked Essajay to "prove" his credentials. Here arbcom seems to be doing the same thing. "He says he is a psychiatrist, so he must be one!" Disregarding the low level of his "psychiatric opinions", is he a bona fide psychiatrist? Or is he anonther Essajay?

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[EricBarbour]

WR doesn't have the best of names as it is, we can't let it be seen as complete loony bin.

I don't see why not, it's a forum dedicated to discussing the biggest loony bin on the Internet.

[powercorrupts]

It's not about whether or not what he writes is worth reading. That's for each man or woman to decide for him or her self.

I'm just not a huge fan of censorship, and going around calling people "fruitcakes" really doesn't sound like a comprehensive criticism. Not that I'm going to stop you, but I'm not going to start thinking someone's a fruitcake just because you say so.

Personally, I prefer Encyc for pointing out flaws in articles on Wikipedia.

But I'm not asking you to see him as a fuitcake just because I said so am I? My advice was to check him out yourself before you tell other people how to treat him. You might be surprised perhaps at some of his exploits. And his ban from Wikipedia was in the end straight-forward (whatever he says) and actually 'community based' too (or around as good as that gets) - they only dodgy thing was the venal way arbcom went about communicating with themselves and him over how to go about doing it beforehand. But arbcom are a dodgy outfit - we all know that.

[Anna]

I don't really care if you call people fruitcakes.

It just seems a bit excessive to try to make someone shut up without a better reason than that.

There's lots of people I find annoying. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the chance to say whatever it is they want to say, so long as it doesn't involve waking me up at 3AM in the morning or something like that to say it.

I am not terribly familiar with why Encyclopedist was banned from Wikipedia, nor much interested. It's not as though I'm going to start thinking "oh my god, he must be a horrible person, because he was banned from a website".

[powercorrupts]

I don't really care if you call people fruitcakes.

It just seems a bit excessive to try to make someone shut up without a better reason than that.

There's lots of people I find annoying. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the chance to say whatever it is they want to say, so long as it doesn't involve waking me up at 3AM in the morning or something like that to say it.

I am not terribly familiar with why Encyclopedist was banned from Wikipedia, nor much interested. It's not as though I'm going to start thinking "oh my god, he must be a horrible person, because he was banned from a website".

No better reason than being a fruitcake?! That's hardly a technical term is it? I'm not suggesting he is actually made of fruit, though I'm sure his room smells a little salty.

You know, all the time you write stuff like that you could be actually finding out about what you are writing about.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[No one of consequence]

No one asked Essajay to "prove" his credentials. Here arbcom seems to be doing the same thing. "He says he is a psychiatrist, so he must be one!" Disregarding the low level of his "psychiatric opinions", is he a bona fide psychiatrist? Or is he anonther Essajay?

Arbcom and Jimmy got badly burned by the Essjay scandal. As a result, they began insisting that anyone who was elected to Arbcom, plus anyone else who was requesting access to Oversight or Checkuser, identify themselves to the Foundation. Ostensibly, this is to make sure that anyone with access to information protected by the privacy policy is over the legal age of responsibility wherever they live. In reality, this is a secondary reason at best, and the primary reason is to make sure people are who they say they are.

A quick google search turns up a psychiatrist in NSW whose hobby is mushrooms by the name "Cas Liber." If you want to be conspiratorial, all the user identification proves is that the user "Casliber" had temporary access to Cas Liber's drivers license or passport, to fax a copy to WMF. But I think that in the wake of the Essjay business you can be fairly certain that anyone with Checkuser or Oversight is who they claim to be (if they claim to be anyone at all).

If on the other hand you are not convinced, then you might as well just stop playing the identity game and assume that everyone on Wikipedia is Essjay, because there is unlikely to be any practical verification procedure that will satisfy you.

[Anna]

powercorrupts --

If convincing me is so important to you, you might try a detailed critique of Encyclopedist, or a link to such a critique, rather than simple name-calling and a vague suggestion that I should research something.

But please, don't feel obligated. It's not as though I really have much interest in whether someone's a fruitcake or not. It isn't a hobby of mine to go around judging how fruitcakey people are.

[chrisoff]

No one asked Essajay to "prove" his credentials. Here arbcom seems to be doing the same thing. "He says he is a psychiatrist, so he must be one!" Disregarding the low level of his "psychiatric opinions", is he a bona fide psychiatrist? Or is he anonther Essajay?

Arbcom and Jimmy got badly burned by the Essjay scandal. As a result, they began insisting that anyone who was elected to Arbcom, plus anyone else who was requesting access to Oversight or Checkuser, identify themselves to the Foundation. Ostensibly, this is to make sure that anyone with access to information protected by the privacy policy is over the legal age of responsibility wherever they live. In reality, this is a secondary reason at best, and the primary reason is to make sure people are who they say they are.

A quick google search turns up a psychiatrist in NSW whose hobby is mushrooms by the name "Cas Liber." If you want to be conspiratorial, all the user identification proves is that the user "Casliber" had temporary access to Cas Liber's drivers license or passport, to fax a copy to WMF. But I think that in the wake of the Essjay business you can be fairly certain that anyone with Checkuser or Oversight is who they claim to be (if they claim to be anyone at all).

If on the other hand you are not convinced, then you might as well just stop playing the identity game and assume that everyone on Wikipedia is Essjay, because there is unlikely to be any practical verification procedure that will satisfy you.

So he is the official psychiatrist for arbcom? (But the quality of his "consultations" is so low, a joke really.) Plus, does Arbcom insist on seeing his license? Licenses are normally hanging on the office wall. Shouldn't we all be allowed to see his?

Does he have liability insurance covering his "consultations" on wikipedia? (Doubtful, as what company would cover such foolishness.)

Or just the fact that some one called Cas Liber who lives in NSW and calls himself an psychiatrist is enough? And is he competent in making diagnoses over the internet.? (Almost never would a psychiatrist claim such expertise, as it would be a speciality for which one would need a certification.)

And isn't it frightening that arbcom is engaging in psychiatric analysis?

[Vigilant]

And isn't it frightening that arbcom is engaging in psychiatric analysis?

And isn't it frightening that arbcom is engaging in psychotic analysis?
FTFY

[powercorrupts]

powercorrupts --

If convincing me is so important to you, you might try a detailed critique of Encyclopedist, or a link to such a critique, rather than simple name-calling and a vague suggestion that I should research something.

But please, don't feel obligated. It's not as though I really have much interest in whether someone's a fruitcake or not. It isn't a hobby of mine to go around judging how fruitcakey people are.

Is "convincing you important to me"?! Well not really - and especially if you claim not to have much interest anyway(!) I just think you should at least have some idea of what you are talking about before you chastise others. There's enough around on him at the moment - I find you a tad on the lazy side to be honest. I've not said anything 'out of the blue' (or anyone else) - you just haven't picked up on him and haven't bothered to look. If you use the search tool (you can filter by member) - you'll find a few recent threads. Or just look here. He's got his own thread in Support now too (as you know as you've posted there), which is where shit like this should go really.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[SB_Johnny]

He is a 'he' - perhaps you should read up on him before judging on whether people should read/react to him or not?

As long as you're demanding that people read up on him before offering an opinion on his rants, perhaps you should also seek a research grant to determine the exact degree to which your shit can be objectively described as lacking stink? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by SB_Johnny:

[Anna]

powercorrupts --

I did see Malice's post, but was insufficiently interested to bother responding. Besides, there were a lot of acronyms and other mumbo jumbo I didn't really understand and probably wasn't important anyway. In my completely non-professional opinion, the poor guy doesn't sound like much of a threat to anyone, except possibly himself.

It's not as if I don't have a life outside the internet, and even on the internet, it's not like there aren't websites I have spent far much more time on than either here or Encyc.

[Somey]

If convincing me is so important to you, you might try a detailed critique of Encyclopedist, or a link to such a critique, rather than simple name-calling and a vague suggestion that I should research something.

But convincing you is absolutely vital to the success of our massive international conspiracy! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

The thread Mr. Corrupts linked to is a start, or you could use the "Search" function (which, admittedly, isn't the finest you'll find). Seach for "Rodhullandemu" - that's Mr. Encyclopedist's WP username.

The "short version" is that Mr. Encyclopedist/Emu was a WP administrator who started out being fairly content-oriented and perhaps a little "eccentric," but mostly harmless. Later, he became increasingly erratic, unpredictable, and to some extent abusive, often doing things (in particular, blocking) unilaterally when he should have consulted with others. He also became frustrated and disillusioned with WP over time - some would say this was largely because of WP's inability to control sock-puppet accounts of people he had already banned. (Also, Giano.) This ultimately led to him being banned/blocked himself, mostly for refusing to shut up, and for attracting/generating drama of the "bad" kind. He has, I believe, claimed that much of his objectionable behavior during the past 2 years has been due to an incapacitating illness, which may be life-threatening - however, it did not cause him to resign his adminship, and most admins (for fear of something similar happening to them) didn't call on him to do so either, until long after he'd reached the point of no return with the WP hierarchy.

That may be the best I can do in one paragraph...! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Anna]

SB Johnny --

:-D

Somey --

Oh, you flatterer you! ;-)

In that case, now that Encyclopedist or Rod or whatever I'm supposed to call him isn't an administrator of a website purporting to be an "encyclopedia" anymore, it would seem that the threat has been neutralized.

[Sxeptomaniac]

And isn't it frightening that arbcom is engaging in psychiatric analysis?

Why would it be frightening? It doesn't matter if the guy's a real psychologist/psychiatrist or not, he's got no more or less power than any other random person on the internet, other than being having a bit of power on WP.

Really. Why does that scare you? Do you have some kind of deep-seated fear of internet strangers judging you, or is it that they claim to be psychiatrists, even though it has absolutely no bearing on what they can do?

[powercorrupts]

He is a 'he' - perhaps you should read up on him before judging on whether people should read/react to him or not?

As long as you're demanding that people read up on him before offering an opinion on his rants, perhaps you should also seek a research grant to determine the exact degree to which your shit can be objectively described as lacking stink? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I'm not 'demanding' anything of the kind you eternal idiot Ronnie. I simply said read up on him before telling other people how to react to him. There is a world of difference between telling people how to react to something and offering an opinion yourself - which I'm not sure she actually has done.

If Anna is someone who does need to hold back a little before posting you are the last person on WR she needs to listen to.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[chrisoff]

And isn't it frightening that arbcom is engaging in psychiatric analysis?

Why would it be frightening? It doesn't matter if the guy's a real psychologist/psychiatrist or not, he's got no more or less power than any other random person on the internet, other than being having a bit of power on WP.

Really. Why does that scare you? Do you have some kind of deep-seated fear of internet strangers judging you, or is it that they claim to be psychiatrists, even though it has absolutely no bearing on what they can do?

The scary part is this pseudo-psychiatrist has power over the fate of wikipedia editors by being an arb, and even more power because the arbs solicit his flaky "psychiatric advice" and appear to give it credence.

Now granted this is all a game, but you don't think there are real people behind these screen names?

And Malice's leaked emails shows how flaky their thinking is and how they give preference to certain editors. Oh, and also, how much they just plain gossip, while unfortunately having power over people's ability to edit the encyclopaedia "that anyone can edit."

This post has been edited by chrisoff:

[powercorrupts]

SB Johnny --

:-D

Don't follow Ronnie's advice for god's sake - you'll end up with your hand permanently stuck to your head.

You don't have to thank me for the link btw.

Somey's thrilling appraisal says about as much as Somey does on these occasions. He's ignored all the reasons that people call him flakey- and for those you really need to do some reading yourself if you want to know what they are. If you don't, don't.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[No one of consequence]

Post removed by author

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[SB_Johnny]

SB Johnny --

:-D

Don't follow Ronnie's advice for god's sake - you'll end up with your hand permanently stuck to your head.

Yeah! At least PC did enough research to look at my avatar and realize that I'm actually Ronnie! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Anna]

powercorrupts --

Thanks for the link. Now I have confirmed that I am disinterested in Encyclopedist's level of fruitcakiness. It seemed to me that the Arbitrary Committee members were overly obsessed with gossiping about someone, but that was hardly unique to that particular conversation.

And no, I'm not going to offer an opinion on how fruitcakey Rod is. If I don't perceive any threat, I fail to see how it would accomplish anything other than gossip.

Sxeptomaniac --

Mostly, it just looks pretentious on the part of the Arbitaries.

[SB_Johnny]

But three pages ago you turned the discussion to Casliber, who is apparently the most dangerous arbitrator of all, because his psychiatric opinions hold such sway over the others.

Pretty much anyone who offers off the cuff psychological diagnoses or theories on the interwebs is going to be annoying to pretty much everyone else, regardless of their actual qualifications. Or perhaps you've forgotten all about the redhead theories once popularized here on WR?

[No one of consequence]

But three pages ago you turned the discussion to Casliber, who is apparently the most dangerous arbitrator of all, because his psychiatric opinions hold such sway over the others.

Pretty much anyone who offers off the cuff psychological diagnoses or theories on the interwebs is going to be annoying to pretty much everyone else, regardless of their actual qualifications. Or perhaps you've forgotten all about the redhead theories once popularized here on WR?

Agreed, at least in part, although you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who has never said "you must be crazy" in reply to someone else. Or something of that ilk. When I was involved in WP, I didn't put much weight to people's explanations of why someone was acting like a dick. I just asked them to stop it, and occasionally invoked the "Wikipedia is not therapy" mantra.

My point, though, was that chrisoff seems to be taking this unusually personally.

But upon reflection, it doesn't seem to be a point worth making.

[powercorrupts]

powercorrupts --

Thanks for the link. Now I have confirmed that I am disinterested in Encyclopedist's level of fruitcakiness. It seemed to me that the Arbitrary Committee members were overly obsessed with gossiping about someone, but that was hardly unique to that particular conversation.

And no, I'm not going to offer an opinion on how fruitcakey Rod is. If I don't perceive any threat, I fail to see how it would accomplish anything other than gossip.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) I really don't expect you to offer an opinion on anything!

I merely pointed out to the muddled SB_Ronnie that you haven't actually given your opinion - as he just assumed I was reprimanding you for giving a poor one. Of course I was simply telling you that people have reasons for having the opinions they do, and you need to look into it before saying they shouldn't have them, or shouldn't express them.

Whether RodHull/Encyclopedist was really linked to child porn or not (complete with conviction) isn't something I'd want to debate on this site, and I think Peter Damian probably put it best - just lay out the facts as we know them, and form you own opinion. Maybe his various fruitcakery (inc working for British Intelligence etc) is just a kind-of double 'front' to make him appear like he could 'delusionally' pretend he was into distributing child porn (as he claims - somehow without 'technically' admitting to it) - while simultaneously claiming it was in the service of the Queen as well. It's all so changeable and wobbly it's hard to remember (or indeed follow) how it is supposed to work - or work in theory, I should say.

If you simply see it as uninteresting gossip then OK - we all have our own levels with these matters. But I would expect you to at least understand that others have a right to a strong opinion on him - on his unquestionably unbalanced comments at least - even if you don't agree with it, or have no opinion yourself.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[powercorrupts]

Post removed by author

Balls - you deleted one of your posts before I properly read them!

Anything juicy?

[Encyclopedist]

powercorrupts --

Thanks for the link. Now I have confirmed that I am disinterested in Encyclopedist's level of fruitcakiness. It seemed to me that the Arbitrary Committee members were overly obsessed with gossiping about someone, but that was hardly unique to that particular conversation.

And no, I'm not going to offer an opinion on how fruitcakey Rod is. If I don't perceive any threat, I fail to see how it would accomplish anything other than gossip.

Thanks, and quite right too. Let's not forget that the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley was thrown out of Oxford University in 1811 on the basis of his pamphlet "The Necessity of Atheism", which, if not actually being regarded as fruit-cakery, was not far off in being interpreted as at least a minor heresy. These days, we'd say "who gives a fuck?" because arguably the idea of tolerance has moved on somewhat- except in my case, which is why what the ArbCom did to me, and the way they did it, was, and remains, indefensible. You'd have to read the full emails between myself and ArbCom to get the full flavour of the situation, and I published them following this: . I'm sorry this is so lengthy a discussion, but you should be able to see the level of community opposition to the way ArbCom went about this and the flailing around by ArbCom in an unseemly attempt to defend their own faulty procedures. Not sure I can get round right now to providing a link to the emails that I posted on WP, because they seem to have been well-hidden.

But I am quite prepared to forward them to anyone interested enough, and all of them, since I have nothing to hide. Apart from what happened on WP- which, I point out, wasn't preceded by the usual RFC and I still see no cogent argument from ArbCom that my desysop was "urgent", even if they purported to apply a "temporary" desysop, which was actually permanent, although none of them had the balls to say so, there was also some completely unsourced and circumstantial mudslinging, possibly from some anonymous vandal I'd previously blocked, but still unsourced, that took things off at a tangent, and I was by then getting snowed under by the whole stupidity of the thing.

Anyone who thinks that these goons deserve to remain in office is either too lazy to go through the evidence and evaluate it properly or has no sense of fair play- and that includes Jimmy Wales, who, er, is not known for taking an independent view from that of ArbCom.

In short, it sucked, it still sucks, and ArbCom, having found a peg onto which to hang my desysopping, had no problem, given the slightest reason, to impose a ban. What a bunch of cunts!

This post has been edited by Encyclopedist:

[Encyclopedist]

powercorrupts --

Thanks for the link. Now I have confirmed that I am disinterested in Encyclopedist's level of fruitcakiness. It seemed to me that the Arbitrary Committee members were overly obsessed with gossiping about someone, but that was hardly unique to that particular conversation.

And no, I'm not going to offer an opinion on how fruitcakey Rod is. If I don't perceive any threat, I fail to see how it would accomplish anything other than gossip.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) I really don't expect you to offer an opinion on anything!

I merely pointed out to the muddled SB_Ronnie that you haven't actually given your opinion - as he just assumed I was reprimanding you for giving a poor one. Of course I was simply telling you that people have reasons for having the opinions they do, and you need to look into it before saying they shouldn't have them, or shouldn't express them.

Whether RodHull/Encyclopedist was really linked to child porn or not (complete with conviction) isn't something I'd want to debate on this site, and I think Peter Damian probably put it best - just lay out the facts as we know them, and form you own opinion. Maybe his various fruitcakery (inc working for British Intelligence etc) is just a kind-of double 'front' to make him appear like he could 'delusionally' pretend he was into distributing child porn (as he claims - somehow without 'technically' admitting to it) - while simultaneously claiming it was in the service of the Queen as well. It's all so changeable and wobbly it's hard to remember (or indeed follow) how it is supposed to work - or work in theory, I should say.

If you simply see it as uninteresting gossip then OK - we all have our own levels with these matters. But I would expect you to at least understand that others have a right to a strong opinion on him - on his unquestionably unbalanced comments at least - even if you don't agree with it, or have no opinion yourself.

Let me make this quite clear: I have no criminal convictions in relation to child pornography or anything like it. I cannot comment on Peter Damien's post in relation to that, because that is currently with my counsel for consideration. He's unlucky in that (a) he lives in the same legal jurisdiction as myself, (b) has made no attempt to retain his anonymity, and © has assets within that jurisdiction. I know a weak position when I see it.

There is a different argument as to how some *other* fruitcakes might want to denigrate someone whom they think is me (IRL), and that, too, is outside the scope of this discussion board. Let's just say that it won't happen again.

This post has been edited by Encyclopedist:

[powercorrupts]

Let me make this quite clear: I have no criminal convictions in relation to child pornography or anything like it. I cannot comment on Peter Damien's post in relation to that, because that is currently with my counsel for consideration. He's unlucky in that (a) he lives in the same legal jurisdiction as myself, (b) has made no attempt to retain his anonymity, and © has assets within that jurisdiction. I know a weak position when I see it.

There is a different argument as to how some *other* fruitcakes might want to denigrate someone whom they think is me (IRL), and that, too, is outside the scope of this discussion board. Let's just say that it won't happen again.

You clearly don't even remember what Peter said, you nob. He didn't offer a 'position' at all. No 'council' would spend a second looking at it that way (even ones taking the money you don't have), though they might be interested in following up the various leads. And neither did Arbcom offer a postion, despite Anna calling it "gossip" (though I doubt she properly read it somehow).

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Anna]

Philip Nash is hardly an uncommon name.

https://ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cg...ip+nash%22&l=en

Gossip.

[Encyclopedist]

Let me make this quite clear: I have no criminal convictions in relation to child pornography or anything like it. I cannot comment on Peter Damien's post in relation to that, because that is currently with my counsel for consideration. He's unlucky in that (a) he lives in the same legal jurisdiction as myself, (b) has made no attempt to retain his anonymity, and © has assets within that jurisdiction. I know a weak position when I see it.

There is a different argument as to how some *other* fruitcakes might want to denigrate someone whom they think is me (IRL), and that, too, is outside the scope of this discussion board. Let's just say that it won't happen again.

You clearly don't even remember what Peter said, you nob.

- Oh yes I do, and since it's still recorded here, I can still refer to it, as can my legal advisers, although obviously there is now an offline copy forming part of the case papers. And I think you mean "knob", meaning "incompetent", rather than "nob", meaning "heads" or "person of nobility".

He didn't offer a 'position' at all.

- The effects of his edit are open to interpretation, particularly in relation to a part of defamation law called "innuendo". Let's just say that I offered him an opportunity to withdraw his post, but, er, he hasn't taken that opportunity.

No 'council' would spend a second looking at it that way (even ones taking the money you don't have),

- You're confusing "counsel", meaning a legal adviser, normally in the UK referring to a barrister, with "council", a body, usually elected, having the function or purpose of reaching decisions of some sort of other. As regards the finance, as a former legal practitioner myself, what on earth makes you think that I can't call in a few favours? Get real!

though they might be interested in following up the various leads. And neither did Arbcom offer a postion, despite Anna calling it "gossip" (though I doubt she properly read it somehow).

- ArbCom should have been more careful; but they weren't, because they thought they could ride roughshod over me due to their perceiving me as weak. Well, hot dog, they should have foreseen perhaps, that I might not remain so forever! I'm in daily contact with my solicitor, and am going up to Liverpool for a case conference in a week or so. After that is when the excrement hits the rotating air-conditioning device in a very real and meaningful sense.

This post has been edited by Encyclopedist:

[RMHED]

Let me make this quite clear: I have no criminal convictions in relation to child pornography or anything like it. I cannot comment on Peter Damien's post in relation to that, because that is currently with my counsel for consideration. He's unlucky in that (a) he lives in the same legal jurisdiction as myself, (b) has made no attempt to retain his anonymity, and © has assets within that jurisdiction. I know a weak position when I see it.

There is a different argument as to how some *other* fruitcakes might want to denigrate someone whom they think is me (IRL), and that, too, is outside the scope of this discussion board. Let's just say that it won't happen again.

You clearly don't even remember what Peter said, you nob.

- Oh yes I do, and since it's still recorded here, I can still refer to it, as can my legal advisers, although obviously there is now an offline copy forming part of the case papers. And I think you mean "knob", meaning "incompetent", rather than "nob", meaning "heads" or "person of nobility".

He didn't offer a 'position' at all.

- The effects of his edit are open to interpretation, particularly in relation to a part of defamation law called "innuendo". Let's just say that I offered him an opportunity to withdraw his post, but, er, he hasn't taken that opportunity.

No 'council' would spend a second looking at it that way (even ones taking the money you don't have),

- You're confusing "counsel", meaning a legal adviser, normally in the UK referring to a barrister, with "council", a body, usually elected, having the function or purpose of reaching decisions of some sort of other. As regards the finance, as a former legal practitioner myself, what on earth makes you think that I can't call in a few favours? Get real!

though they might be interested in following up the various leads. And neither did Arbcom offer a postion, despite Anna calling it "gossip" (though I doubt she properly read it somehow).

- ArbCom should have been more careful; but they weren't, because they thought they could ride roughshod over me due to their perceiving me as weak. Well, hot dog, they should have foreseen perhaps, that I might not remain so forever! I'm in daily contact with my solicitor, and am going up to Liverpool for a case conference in a week or so. After that is when the excrement hits the rotating air-conditioning device in a very real and meaningful sense.

Phil/Rod, I do rather admire your capacity for bluster and bullshit, I can see why you felt so at home on Wikipedia.

[Encyclopedist]

Let me make this quite clear: I have no criminal convictions in relation to child pornography or anything like it. I cannot comment on Peter Damien's post in relation to that, because that is currently with my counsel for consideration. He's unlucky in that (a) he lives in the same legal jurisdiction as myself, (b) has made no attempt to retain his anonymity, and © has assets within that jurisdiction. I know a weak position when I see it.

There is a different argument as to how some *other* fruitcakes might want to denigrate someone whom they think is me (IRL), and that, too, is outside the scope of this discussion board. Let's just say that it won't happen again.

You clearly don't even remember what Peter said, you nob.

- Oh yes I do, and since it's still recorded here, I can still refer to it, as can my legal advisers, although obviously there is now an offline copy forming part of the case papers. And I think you mean "knob", meaning "incompetent", rather than "nob", meaning "heads" or "person of nobility".

He didn't offer a 'position' at all.

- The effects of his edit are open to interpretation, particularly in relation to a part of defamation law called "innuendo". Let's just say that I offered him an opportunity to withdraw his post, but, er, he hasn't taken that opportunity.

No 'council' would spend a second looking at it that way (even ones taking the money you don't have),

- You're confusing "counsel", meaning a legal adviser, normally in the UK referring to a barrister, with "council", a body, usually elected, having the function or purpose of reaching decisions of some sort of other. As regards the finance, as a former legal practitioner myself, what on earth makes you think that I can't call in a few favours? Get real!

though they might be interested in following up the various leads. And neither did Arbcom offer a postion, despite Anna calling it "gossip" (though I doubt she properly read it somehow).

- ArbCom should have been more careful; but they weren't, because they thought they could ride roughshod over me due to their perceiving me as weak. Well, hot dog, they should have foreseen perhaps, that I might not remain so forever! I'm in daily contact with my solicitor, and am going up to Liverpool for a case conference in a week or so. After that is when the excrement hits the rotating air-conditioning device in a very real and meaningful sense.

Phil/Rod, I do rather admire your capacity for bluster and bullshit, I can see why you felt so at home on Wikipedia.

Now I know why you were kicked off Wikiipedia.



You didn't get it then, and you don't get it now. Unless you have anything constructive to offer, which I doubt, your best contribution to this discussion is probably silence.

[powercorrupts]

Philip Nash is hardly an uncommon name.

https://ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cg...ip+nash%22&l=en

Gossip.

Well I suppose that certainly constitutes an opinion now, assuming (as I will) that you've read-up at least that thread at this stage. So you wouldn't even put it to him then? The mere name (ie a 'Phil Nash') isn't the only connection is it? And why can't Phil simply deny it without defending the person in some way, and conjecturing on why he might do it (even did it - what's all the covert stuff about?)

Do you have a WP account incidentally? Sorry if you've answered that before.

[RMHED]

Now I know why you were kicked off Wikiipedia.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RMHED" target="_blank"></a>

You didn't get it then, and you don't get it now. Unless you have anything constructive to offer, which I doubt, your best contribution to this discussion is probably silence.

I've never been kicked off Wikipedia.

User:RMHED is de facto banned, but that hasn't stopped me from 'contributing' to da 'pedia.
I like to make lots of little 'contributions' all over da 'pedia rather like an incontinent dog leaves their 'contributions' around the house.

[Encyclopedist]

Philip Nash is hardly an uncommon name.

https://ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cg...ip+nash%22&l=en

Gossip.

Well I suppose that certainly constitutes an opinion now, assuming (as I will) that you've read-up at least that thread at this stage. So you wouldn't even put it to him then? The mere name (ie a 'Phil Nash') isn't the only connection is it? And why can't Phil simply deny it without defending the person in some way, and conjecturing on why he might do it (even did it - what's all the covert stuff about?)

Do you have a WP account incidentally? Sorry if you've answered that before.

1. As far as I know, we don't know each other IRL, so, as in my comment to Milton Roe, I see no reason why you should refer to me as "Phil", unless you're prepared to buy me a pint or two in the Black Horse, Frome Road, tomorrow, when we can discuss this, and maybe even come to some sort of arrangement. If you were watching carefully, you will have taken a note of my mobile(cellphone) number.

2. You shouldn't assume that no denial = no acceptance. In the murky area of black ops, it is often helpful to muddy the waters, and even more so when seeking to deflect from the truth. Am I the Chief Financial Officer of Torfaen District Council, a photographer based in Oxfordshire, a respected historian with respect to the Cold War, or have I even picked a name at random off of the web behind which to hide? Fact is, you will never know, and never can know.

3. Anna seems to have some common sense, so by prevailing standards here, may not necessarily have a WP account. Bottom line is that you do not need to know, and shouldn't ask.

[powercorrupts]

I think you mean "knob", meaning "incompetent", rather than "nob", meaning "heads" or "person of nobility".

No I meant nob, as in rod.

The effects of his edit are open to interpretation, particularly in relation to a part of defamation law called "innuendo". Let's just say that I offered him an opportunity to withdraw his post, but, er, he hasn't taken that opportunity.

Lets just say you are full of it Phil.

You're confusing "counsel", meaning a legal adviser, normally in the UK referring to a barrister, with "council", a body, usually elected, having the function or purpose of reaching decisions of some sort of other.

No, I just spelt it wrong. It's late. I didn't think you took it to your local councilors, or expect them to charge you for directing you somewhere else (like your doctor).

I'm in daily contact with my solicitor, and am going up to Liverpool for a case conference in a week or so. After that is when the excrement hits the rotating air-conditioning device in a very real and meaningful sense.

Sorry I thought you were bound by poverty and terminally ill.

[powercorrupts]

Philip Nash is hardly an uncommon name.

https://ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cg...ip+nash%22&l=en

Gossip.

Well I suppose that certainly constitutes an opinion now, assuming (as I will) that you've read-up at least that thread at this stage. So you wouldn't even put it to him then? The mere name (ie a 'Phil Nash') isn't the only connection is it? And why can't Phil simply deny it without defending the person in some way, and conjecturing on why he might do it (even did it - what's all the covert stuff about?)

Do you have a WP account incidentally? Sorry if you've answered that before.

(snipping the nuts)

3. Anna seems to have some common sense, so by prevailing standards here, may not necessarily have a WP account. Bottom line is that you do not need to know, and shouldn't ask.

It pains me to say this but I hope it's not RodHull&Anna Phil I really do!

Let her answer that herself.

[Encyclopedist]

I think you mean "knob", meaning "incompetent", rather than "nob", meaning "heads" or "person of nobility".

No I meant nob, as in rod.

- ORLY? I think you should get some sleep right now, because you've stopped making sense.

The effects of his edit are open to interpretation, particularly in relation to a part of defamation law called "innuendo". Let's just say that I offered him an opportunity to withdraw his post, but, er, he hasn't taken that opportunity.

Lets just say you are full of it Phil.

- Or just knowledgeable. But it is noted that you offer nothing to rebut what I said. If you are going to associate yourself with Peter Damian (a.k.a Dr Edward Buckner)'s comments about me, please feel free to do so. The bigger the party, the bigger the damages, as I learned early in my legal career.

You're confusing "counsel", meaning a legal adviser, normally in the UK referring to a barrister, with "council", a body, usually elected, having the function or purpose of reaching decisions of some sort of other.

No, I just spelt it wrong. It's late. I didn't think you took it to your local councilors, or expect them to charge you for directing you somewhere else (like your doctor).

-It's late here too; but I can still control what I write, and how I write it. Which important difference means that if necessary, I can still go on for another few hours should I need to. However, you're losing it, so I don't need to.

I'm in daily contact with my solicitor, and am going up to Liverpool for a case conference in a week or so. After that is when the excrement hits the rotating air-conditioning device in a very real and meaningful sense.

Sorry I thought you were bound by poverty and terminally ill.

- See above; sober up; get a grip, and if it really matters to you, deal cogently with the issues I raise, if you can. Meanwhile, I'm in remission for now, so have enough energy to deal with cretins, should I wish to- but doing so entertains me, so please feel free to continue making an utter foo' of yourself.

[Anna]

powercorrupts --

It's not impossible. But I don't have access to government records. I don't have the details of the original case -- not the some Usenet posting, but the official records. (Assuming there was an original case, and the thing wasn't written by some impersonator trying to destroy the target's reputation.) Particularly the part with the full identity of the person, which should be more specific than just a name. Nor have I seen Encyclopedist's ID.

However, I do know that it's legally risky to accuse someone of a major felony, at least when speaking publicly. Mostly, people talk about suing more than they actually do it, but it's still a risk. Actually, it's probably not a huge risk with Encyclopedist -- when people actually have legal counsel, they are often advised to avoid whomever they are in conflict with and let the lawyer handle the communications. A lawyer would probably be concerned that Encyclopedist might hurt his case by continuing to talk. But even so, it's not a good habit to get into saying legally risky things.

Presumably, if the official records were located, and if Encyclopedist were willing to show legal ID to someone, suspicions could be confirmed or denied with far better accuracy than guessing based on Usenet posts.

It would seem to be helpful to contact authorities with access to the ViSOR database, perhaps the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre. In my completely non-professional opinion, that would seem to be something a concerned citizen could do with minimal risk of getting sued.
http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10510.htm

But, as it stands now, I see suspicions, similarities, but not enough to come to any solid conclusions. Not solid enough to take the legal risk of publicly accusing someone of a felony, in any case. In other words, gossip.

As for whether or not I have an account on Wikipedia, I already discussed that on Encyc.
http://forum.encyc.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=278

The fact that I am, in fact, a woman could be easily confirmed by phone. Not that I would give my phone number out to someone I would not expect to have a pleasant conversation with. Herschelrustofsky, Emperor, and Somey seem reasonably nice, although I'm not sure if they're the sorts to exchange phone numbers. And I would expect a name -- a first name, at least -- and a phone number in exchange for a name and a phone number. None of that hidden caller ID stuff.

[Anna]

Alternatively, if a concerned citizen doesn't think the authorities are likely to give the matter proper attention, a concerned citizen might consider a more old-fashioned method of investigation -- a background check. I have no idea if Encyclopedist would be willing to provide the necessary identifying information to give to an investigative agency, or if you could find the necessary information some other way, but it would seem reasonable to ask before jumping to conclusions.

[A Horse With No Name]

The fact that I am, in fact, a woman could be easily confirmed by phone.

Thank you, Alexander Graham Bell! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Gary_Niger]

The fact that I am, in fact, a woman could be easily confirmed by phone.

Thank you, Alexander Graham Bell! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Alexandra Graham Bell, even.

[Sxeptomaniac]

And isn't it frightening that arbcom is engaging in psychiatric analysis?

Why would it be frightening? It doesn't matter if the guy's a real psychologist/psychiatrist or not, he's got no more or less power than any other random person on the internet, other than being having a bit of power on WP.

Really. Why does that scare you? Do you have some kind of deep-seated fear of internet strangers judging you, or is it that they claim to be psychiatrists, even though it has absolutely no bearing on what they can do?

The scary part is this pseudo-psychiatrist has power over the fate of wikipedia editors by being an arb, and even more power because the arbs solicit his flaky "psychiatric advice" and appear to give it credence.

Now granted this is all a game, but you don't think there are real people behind these screen names?

And Malice's leaked emails shows how flaky their thinking is and how they give preference to certain editors. Oh, and also, how much they just plain gossip, while unfortunately having power over people's ability to edit the encyclopaedia "that anyone can edit."

I'd be surprised if a private mailing list with little oversight and no real guidelines regarding professionalism didn't devolve into gossip. (As Anna commented, it does come across as fairly pretentious, too.) It's another example of WP's poor leadership structure; It's less the people involved than the lack of decent guidelines and oversight (resorting to cliche: power corrupts).

That still doesn't make it scary.

[powercorrupts]

Anna - I just don't think terms like 'jumping towards conclusions' and 'gossiping' accurately represent people's reaction to RodHull (ie Encyclopedist) here. Like Arbcom (who naturally didn't want to make it public and simply asked him the question), people here are entitled to be concerned, and WR is all about bringing to light these kind of matters. Arbcom and the admin class actually kept Rod afloat for a very long time, largely because they simply hate to relieve themselves of powers - despite his hunting and blocking of obvious vandals being an only net positive surrounded by increasingly-nutball negatives. Their previous lack of action/interest became one of their problems in the end, as they appear to admit in the leaks that they ran out of excuses to keep him going as a credible admin under any circumstances. Rod completely ignores all the reasons Arbcom had for banning him, and didn't even put up a defence on Wikipedia in the end - despite being given loads of time to get it together. He just kept trying to bargain with (and blackmail essentially) Arbcom on the mailing lists.

As it goes, I think Encyclopedia has been having pretty easy time of it on WR really, given that he chooses to contibute and post what he does. Remember that the word you objected to above was simply "fruitcake" - hardly a libellous term. I've not seen anyone call him anything worse directly - in fact (despite all the evidence of the first post - and the extended detail of Peter's second post for added seriousness) - most people seem to see him as someone who is more delusional than anything else. You make the excellent point that any true legal 'counsel' would tell him to keep away from all this, and stop mentioning Black Ops etc - supposing and especially(!) if it were actually true. So you don't need to worry about him taking legal action, despite all his (typically for Rod) empty promises.

I know you are still new here, but WR really isn't known for giving flowers to spurned badmin, especially the block-happy variety. Rod was the admin who suddenly infef-blocked the pretty mild-mannered Larry Sanger (one of the co-founders of Wikipedia) simply for criticising it once too much for his taste. No grounds in civility etc - Rod just thought it was un-Wikipedian and felt Die Project would do better without him around.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Milton Roe]

I know you are still new here, but WR really isn't known for giving flowers to spurned badmin, especially the block-happy variety. Rod was the admin who suddenly infef-blocked the pretty mild-mannered Larry Sanders (one of the co-founders of Wikipedia) simply for criticising it once too much for his taste. No grounds in civility etc - Rod just thought it was un-Wikipedian and felt Die Project would do better without him around.

That's Larry Sanger (not Sanders) that RH&E indeff blocked May 9, 2010 without warning, for "disruptive editing." Ah, sweet karma. But yes, the cofounder of WP.

Here's all the bad stuff, hidden under piles of courtesy blanking, but not gone, as it's not been oversighted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=419058112

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...losed_by_motion

And incidentally, not being Australian or British, I didn't know there was such a guy as Rod Hull who had an arm-puppet Emu, which was the dark side of his personality. Hmmm.

[radek]

I know you are still new here, but WR really isn't known for giving flowers to spurned badmin, especially the block-happy variety. Rod was the admin who suddenly infef-blocked the pretty mild-mannered Larry Sanders (one of the co-founders of Wikipedia) simply for criticising it once too much for his taste. No grounds in civility etc - Rod just thought it was un-Wikipedian and felt Die Project would do better without him around.

That's Larry Sanger (not Sanders) that RH&E indeff blocked May 9, 2010 without warning, for "disruptive editing." Ah, sweet karma. But yes, the cofounder of WP.

Here's all the bad stuff, hidden under piles of courtesy blanking, but not gone, as it's not been oversighted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=419058112

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...losed_by_motion

And incidentally, not being Australian or British, I didn't know there was such a guy as Rod Hull who had an arm-puppet Emu, which was the dark side of his personality. Hmmm.

"No. You're either with us or against us. But you have made it quite plain, and that is why you are blocked."

"As an admin here, my duty, and my responsibilty, is to protect this encyclopedia from damage, from wherever it may originate, and that includes pointed edits from those who no longer subscribe to our collective values. "

"It's perhaps obvious that such a campaign isn't going to work on Wikipedia itself, and Wikipedia Review is largely populated by disaffected and banned users."

Prophetic words.

See also: Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolaj Yezhov.

(But since those two went to their death with loyalty on their lips, I was looking for a better metaphor and just realized how POV the article on Georges Danton is. Who'd expected it?)
(To be fair, the nonsense in the Danton article appears to be due to the fact that they copy/pasted it from the 1911 EB. "Moderating influence" my butt.)

This post has been edited by radek:

[Milton Roe]

(But since those two went to their death with loyalty on their lips, I was looking for a better metaphor and just realized how POV the article on Georges Danton is. Who'd expected it?)
(To be fair, the nonsense in the Danton article appears to be due to the fact that they copy/pasted it from the 1911 EB. "Moderating influence" my butt.)

I was thinking of Maximillian Robespierre, whose very last thoughts we don't know due to his fractured jaw from his suicide attempt. Hmmm. But he did say something very like RH&E sometime before he got eaten by his own machine:

We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror.

Society owes protection only to peaceable citizens; the only citizens in the Republic are the republicans. For it, the royalists, the conspirators are only strangers or, rather, enemies. This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny- is it not indivisible? Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without? The assassins who tear our country apart, the intriguers who buy the consciences that hold the people's mandate; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary pamphleteers hired to dishonor the people's cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fire of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by moral counterrevolution-are all those men less guilty or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?

I think Robespierre would have done better with an Emu or Lambchop hand puppet. That guy just took himself WAY too seriously.

[powercorrupts]

That's Larry Sanger (not Sanders) that RH&E indeff blocked May 9, 2010 without warning, for "disruptive editing." Ah, sweet karma. But yes, the cofounder of WP.

I keep doing that but normally correct myself! Ah Larry Sanders - sublime evidence how the yanks can do so much better than the bowel-dropping bass runs of Seinfeld. Unfortunately, every time the BBC bought Gary Shandling stuff it was always shown on a varying schedule, out of sequence, or with episodes missing.

And incidentally, not being Australian or British, I didn't know there was such a guy as Rod Hull who had an arm-puppet Emu, which was the dark side of his personality. Hmmm.

The real Rod was odd enough when Emu was quiet. His big joke was having the arm-necked Emu suddenly manically grabbing people with his beak and not letting go. According the veteran chat show host Michael Parkinson, it could actually hurt.

I love the way some Wikipedian has wiki-linked the Internazionale and Manchester United Champions league football match Rod was attempting to watch when he fatally fell off his roof trying to improve reception. There is nothing like informing the reader.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[Anna]

powercorrupts --

I don't object to you calling anyone a fruitcake, regardless of whether or not I would agree with that assessment. I just object to people being told to shut up because they are fruitcakes, because fruitcakes, or people perceived as being fruitcakes, have rights to opinions too.

In my completely non-professional opinion -- that is, as a concerned citizen, not a lawyer -- I think it is dangerous to go too close suggesting someone, particularly someone with an actual name linked to their internet name, may the same person as someone who once had a collection of CP, particularly without solid evidence. Not to say that it would be bad to seek further evidence in order to confirm or deny any suspicions that one may or may not have, but it's wise to avoid publicly voicing an opinion, particularly a "guilty" opinion, before all cards are on the table. Sometimes newspapers delay naming the guilty party until the courts have actually given a guilty verdict. Not that Encyclopedist sounds like someone particularly likely to sue, but that reserving judgment, at least publicly, would seem to be wise generally speaking.

Criticizing him for stuff done by an account we known he had on Wikipedia is of course entirely different. Since it is confirmed he owned the account in question, it is reasonable to assume that, absent any complaints of account theft, that he actually did the things done by the account.

[Milton Roe]

Criticizing him for stuff done by an account we known he had on Wikipedia is of course entirely different. Since it is confirmed he owned the account in question, it is reasonable to assume that, absent any complaints of account theft, that he actually did the things done by the account.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Okay, Captain Obvious. And moving on from there, if he shows up here on WR raving like Charlie Sheen, in very much the same way that he raved like Charlie Sheen on WP and got canned there for it, what are we supposed to do? Consider those to be "opinions"?

Did you look at the links I posted for Rodhull's behavior on WP? Did you see the ArbCom-l discussion about his behavior in real life on the webs, and toward ArbCom, that we did NOT see posted on WP? Do inform yourself.

Remember that this is NOT basically a nice guy who happens to be a little manic today. Not only is he completely into delusions of perfect universal competance at 1000+ milliOttavas, but when given any power over others (as we saw on WP) he had no problem being The Compleat Asshole about how he treated them, also. He was a WP Purple Flavor Aid Drinker, and he's still just as thoroughly unpleasant as a human being, now that he got a jolt of his own JimJones cocktail, and is Wikidead. The ONLY reason he's doing no damage on WR, is that he can't. Since has no power here. So (yes) he's an interesting scorpion specimen behind Plexiglas at our zoo, but don't fool yourself.

We had SlimVirgin here for a while, too. But nobody put their fingers through the bars. There was a warning sign.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Is this thread still about ArbCom follies?

[A Horse With No Name]

Is this thread still about ArbCom follies?

If Arbcom were to put on "Follies," who would be given this tune to belt out?

[Encyclopedist]

In my completely non-professional opinion -- that is, as a concerned citizen, not a lawyer -- I think it is dangerous to go too close suggesting someone, particularly someone with an actual name linked to their internet name, may the same person as someone who once had a collection of CP, particularly without solid evidence. Not to say that it would be bad to seek further evidence in order to confirm or deny any suspicions that one may or may not have, but it's wise to avoid publicly voicing an opinion, particularly a "guilty" opinion, before all cards are on the table. Sometimes newspapers delay naming the guilty party until the courts have actually given a guilty verdict. Not that Encyclopedist sounds like someone particularly likely to sue, but that reserving judgment, at least publicly, would seem to be wise generally speaking.

I merely mention Hulton v Jones [1910] AC 20; it's a standard case in defamation law and is authority for the proposition that in defamation, UK law applies strict liability to a publisher apart from an innocent printer.

[SB_Johnny]

Is this thread still about ArbCom follies?

Damn straight. Mods are overpaid around here.

[Vigilant]

In my completely non-professional opinion -- that is, as a concerned citizen, not a lawyer -- I think it is dangerous to go too close suggesting someone, particularly someone with an actual name linked to their internet name, may the same person as someone who once had a collection of CP, particularly without solid evidence. Not to say that it would be bad to seek further evidence in order to confirm or deny any suspicions that one may or may not have, but it's wise to avoid publicly voicing an opinion, particularly a "guilty" opinion, before all cards are on the table. Sometimes newspapers delay naming the guilty party until the courts have actually given a guilty verdict. Not that Encyclopedist sounds like someone particularly likely to sue, but that reserving judgment, at least publicly, would seem to be wise generally speaking.

I merely mention Hulton v Jones [1910] AC 20; it's a standard case in defamation law and is authority for the proposition that in defamation, UK law applies strict liability to a publisher apart from an innocent printer.

I merely mention that you are a fruitbat.
A loon.
A maroon.
A dingbat.
A fruitloop.
A whack-a-mole.

You make the madhatter look sane by comparison.
You make Ottava look sane by comparison.
You make Jimbo look principled by comparison.
You make David Gerard look like an ideal person to watch young children by comparison.

You. Are. Crazy.

Craaaayyyyyy Zeeeeeeeeeee

Ta-ta and a frontal lobotomy for you.

Please inform me when your lawyers have reached my lawyers.

[Encyclopedist]

In my completely non-professional opinion -- that is, as a concerned citizen, not a lawyer -- I think it is dangerous to go too close suggesting someone, particularly someone with an actual name linked to their internet name, may the same person as someone who once had a collection of CP, particularly without solid evidence. Not to say that it would be bad to seek further evidence in order to confirm or deny any suspicions that one may or may not have, but it's wise to avoid publicly voicing an opinion, particularly a "guilty" opinion, before all cards are on the table. Sometimes newspapers delay naming the guilty party until the courts have actually given a guilty verdict. Not that Encyclopedist sounds like someone particularly likely to sue, but that reserving judgment, at least publicly, would seem to be wise generally speaking.

I merely mention Hulton v Jones [1910] AC 20; it's a standard case in defamation law and is authority for the proposition that in defamation, UK law applies strict liability to a publisher apart from an innocent printer.

I merely mention that you are a fruitbat.
A loon.
A maroon.
A dingbat.
A fruitloop.
A whack-a-mole.

You make the madhatter look sane by comparison.
You make Ottava look sane by comparison.
You make Jimbo look principled by comparison.
You make David Gerard look like an ideal person to watch young children by comparison.

You. Are. Crazy.

Craaaayyyyyy Zeeeeeeeeeee

Ta-ta and a frontal lobotomy for you.

Please inform me when your lawyers have reached my lawyers.

As something of an expert on (at least) UK defamation law, I am aware that (1) vulgar abuse is not actionable, however (2) your post arguably says more about you than it does about me. If you're happy with that, fine, but I suggest you take some Valium or whatever you normally use, calm down, and stop wasting bandwidth.

That's all.

[A Horse With No Name]

I'd like to take this opportunity to advocate Ron Paul for President in 2012. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Hey...considering where this conversation is going, I may as well add that to the chat wave. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[radek]

(But since those two went to their death with loyalty on their lips, I was looking for a better metaphor and just realized how POV the article on Georges Danton is. Who'd expected it?)
(To be fair, the nonsense in the Danton article appears to be due to the fact that they copy/pasted it from the 1911 EB. "Moderating influence" my butt.)

I was thinking of Maximillian Robespierre, whose very last thoughts we don't know due to his fractured jaw from his suicide attempt. Hmmm. But he did say something very like RH&E sometime before he got eaten by his own machine:

We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror.

Society owes protection only to peaceable citizens; the only citizens in the Republic are the republicans. For it, the royalists, the conspirators are only strangers or, rather, enemies. This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny- is it not indivisible? Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without? The assassins who tear our country apart, the intriguers who buy the consciences that hold the people's mandate; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary pamphleteers hired to dishonor the people's cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fire of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by moral counterrevolution-are all those men less guilty or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?

I think Robespierre would have done better with an Emu or Lambchop hand puppet. That guy just took himself WAY too seriously.

Yeah, but Robespierre is already taken.

[Milton Roe]

(But since those two went to their death with loyalty on their lips, I was looking for a better metaphor and just realized how POV the article on Georges Danton is. Who'd expected it?)
(To be fair, the nonsense in the Danton article appears to be due to the fact that they copy/pasted it from the 1911 EB. "Moderating influence" my butt.)

I was thinking of Maximillian Robespierre, whose very last thoughts we don't know due to his fractured jaw from his suicide attempt. Hmmm. But he did say something very like RH&E sometime before he got eaten by his own machine:

We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror.

Society owes protection only to peaceable citizens; the only citizens in the Republic are the republicans. For it, the royalists, the conspirators are only strangers or, rather, enemies. This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny- is it not indivisible? Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without? The assassins who tear our country apart, the intriguers who buy the consciences that hold the people's mandate; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary pamphleteers hired to dishonor the people's cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fire of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by moral counterrevolution-are all those men less guilty or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?

I think Robespierre would have done better with an Emu or Lambchop hand puppet. That guy just took himself WAY too seriously.

Yeah, but Robespierre is already taken.

Ah, Sandstein. We must discuss Sandstein.

This is good: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...#Knock_knock.21

[radek]

Ah, Sandstein. We must discuss Sandstein.

This is good: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...#Knock_knock.21
[/quote]

Ooohh, HJ Mitchell vs. Sandstein. That's a hard one.

Edit: I think I'd root for Sandstein at the end of the day, except that he's accused me of "bickering" before and that's exactly what he's doing here, way more than I ever did.

This post has been edited by radek: