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

[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: Mon 1st August 2011, 8:38pm

[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: Mon 1st August 2011, 9:09pm

[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: Mon 1st August 2011, 10:13pm

[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?

This post has been edited by SB_Johnny: Mon 1st August 2011, 10:19pm

[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!

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...!

[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?

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: Mon 1st August 2011, 10:55pm

[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: Mon 1st August 2011, 10:58pm

[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: Mon 1st August 2011, 11:06pm

[No one of consequence]

Post removed by author

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Mon 1st August 2011, 11:18pm

[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!