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!

[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.

[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.