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.

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.

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."

You're a man of few words.

Good for you! Drugs are bad for you. Malt liquor, on the other hand, is quite therapeutic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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...!

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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

Post removed by author

Yeah! At least PC did enough research to look at my avatar and realize that I'm actually Ronnie!

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.

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.

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.

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

Anything juicy?

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!

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).

Philip Nash is hardly an uncommon name.

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

Gossip.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No I meant nob, as in rod.



Lets just say you are full of it Phil.



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).



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

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

Let her answer that herself.

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.

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.