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

[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!

[Gary_Niger]

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

Thank you, Alexander Graham Bell!

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: Wed 3rd August 2011, 10:19am

[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: Wed 3rd August 2011, 7:30am

[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: Wed 3rd August 2011, 7:11pm

[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.

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.

Hey...considering where this conversation is going, I may as well add that to the chat wave.

[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:

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

[radek]

Ah, Sandstein. We must discuss Sandstein.

This is good:

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: Thu 4th August 2011, 5:24am