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

[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.

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: Tue 2nd August 2011, 12:01am

[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: Tue 2nd August 2011, 1:06am

[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.

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: Tue 2nd August 2011, 12:23am

[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: Tue 2nd August 2011, 12:42am

[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: Tue 2nd August 2011, 12:55am

[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.