Hengist Pod, Rod's back. Options

[Encyclopedist]

Poor Rod can't even get his sockpuppet's professions right, first he's a psychologist, next he's a criminologist.

Well, not quite. I studied some psychology as part of my master's degree in criminology, although I'm not that expert on pigeons pecking at buttons! It was more behavioural psych related to criminal behaviour. After that, I did work as a criminology researcher for the UK's Lord Chancellor's Dept; and presented a paper at the 1987 British Society of Criminology conference at the University of Sheffield. That, I think, makes me a criminologist, since I've maintained an interest since moving careers.

Please try not to read between lines that are not there.

[powercorrupts]

User:Hengist Pod is obviously Rodhullandemu, a quick look through his contributions will pretty much confirm this.

All seems very obvious, I can't believe it's gone unnoticed on Wikipedia, so I wonder why he's being allowed to carry on?

I had seen that account a day earlier and thought it looked odd, but it didn't twig who it was until I read this thread.
I then did a checkuser to confirm it, informed arbcom, and the rest is history.
Thank you.

So you thought it a good idea to put someone's life at risk, rather than just let him get on with reverting vandalism and minor copy-editing of articles? Good move. You're all heart, but your priorities as regards the encyclopedia are nowhere. I hope you're proud of yourself.

So you really think people are entitled to bullshit about their life experiences? It's the way you've gone about things, hasn't that sunk in yet? Your'e not well...you need to edit...you need to smell the coffee.

I found it genuinely sweet the way you mosied up to your old vexed lover Malleus with the 'psychologist' cuddle btw. You both could be bum chums in bullshit, as neither of you have ever been psychologists in your lives. Only on Wikipedia! I see that Malleus replied that he graduated in 1975, which would put him about your age. Sticking 'pod' is your username was pretty cruel though - do you realise how angry a chap like that could get when jealous!

[RMHED]

Poor Rod can't even get his sockpuppet's professions right, first he's a psychologist, next he's a criminologist.

Well, not quite. I studied some psychology as part of my master's degree in criminology, although I'm not that expert on pigeons pecking at buttons! It was more behavioural psych related to criminal behaviour. After that, I did work as a criminology researcher for the UK's Lord Chancellor's Dept; and presented a paper at the 1987 British Society of Criminology conference at the University of Sheffield. That, I think, makes me a criminologist, since I've maintained an interest since moving careers.

Please try not to read between lines that are not there.

If you really want to get back on da 'pedia horse you gotta learn the art of subterfuge. I've had dozens of sockpuppet accounts mostly they were throwaways used for amusement. The important accounts, ie the ones with admin rights, I only use those ones sparingly and always from a different computer with a different ISP.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Rod as Encyclopedist ...

how are things going for you anyway?

Last thing we heard, you were dying and spending the last of what good you left in you editing the Wikipedia as it was all your strength could muster.

How long do you have left to go?

If it is all true and it is only computer based voluntary work you can deal with, I was going to suggest an alternative hobby for you ... moderating local Freecycle groups.

Why put up with the abuse and yourself through it? You're tarnished goods now. Persona non grata to them.

[Malleus]

I found it genuinely sweet the way you mosied up to your old vexed lover Malleus with the 'psychologist' cuddle btw. You both could be bum chums in bullshit, as neither of you have ever been psychologists in your lives.

That would be fairly easy to check should you be interested in the truth.

[jayvdb]

So you thought it a good idea to put someone's life at risk, rather than just let him get on with reverting vandalism and minor copy-editing of articles?

If that is all he did, nobody would have noticed. You stand out like a bull in a china shop.

Good move. You're all heart, but your priorities as regards the encyclopedia are nowhere. I hope you're proud of yourself.

You've had Jimbo tell you to get help before you come back to Wikipedia. Either you're an automated unbelievable terminally ill story machine, or you are inches from your death bed. In either case, you're days of 'protecting' the 'encyclopedia' are over.

[Encyclopedist]

Rod as Encyclopedist ...

how are things going for you anyway?

Last thing we heard, you were dying and spending the last of what good you left in you editing the Wikipedia as it was all your strength could muster.

How long do you have left to go?

If it is all true and it is only computer based voluntary work you can deal with, I was going to suggest an alternative hobby for you ... moderating local Freecycle groups.

Why put up with the abuse and yourself through it? You're tarnished goods now. Persona non grata to them.

I've seen this suggestion before. I'm not convinced that it is for me. "How are things going for me?" - Badly, otherwise you wouldn't ask. My major concern is some sort of self-preservation, although I am in a situation where I am not that interested in doing it for myself, even if I were mentally, physically and emotionally capable of that. But, being alone now, I'm not. I have given my all to Wikipedia, and now received nothing in return. That's disappointing. Unsubstantiated rumours about my previous life do not help, although ArbCom seem to have accepted them at face value. Nothing I can do about that, for various reasons.

As to "How long do you have left to go?": I don't know, but I know my liver is pretty shot, my kidneys likewise, and those and my heart and lungs I have compromised by my lifestyle. I resist treatment until I can no longer function effectively.

I came to Wikipedia knowing that I had little time left, but determined to make a contribution as long as I could. I think I've managed that, in some ways. If I die tomorrow, I will still be proud of the content I've added, and the vandalism I've reverted. I know it's not perfect but for what it is, it's the best it could be, since all other competitors have failed in capturing popular interest.

That's about it. The cynics will ask "why?", but then, they are not me. Without Wikipedia, arguably I am nothing, and although some might think me a "dick", tough. Perhaps I think them also to be dicks, and may even have said so in the past. That does not mean that I disrespect them, it's just that they've failed to make their case for changing Wikipedia, and that tells me that they have been barking up the wrong tree. Change needs to come from within, not without, and a simulacrum of belonging is the minimum requirement for that to happen.

Goodnight.

[Encyclopedist]

So you thought it a good idea to put someone's life at risk, rather than just let him get on with reverting vandalism and minor copy-editing of articles?

If that is all he did, nobody would have noticed. You stand out like a bull in a china shop.

Good move. You're all heart, but your priorities as regards the encyclopedia are nowhere. I hope you're proud of yourself.

You've had Jimbo tell you to get help before you come back to Wikipedia. Either you're an automated unbelievable terminally ill story machine, or you are inches from your death bed. In either case, you're days of 'protecting' the 'encyclopedia' are over.

Both. I am quite ill, but not receiving the help I should be getting. That's the UK NHS for you. Your final sentence is too provocative to warrant a sensible reply, since it is both ungrammatical and unhelpful. Meanwhile, if you think a good-faith, experienced editor should not be able to combat vandalism, you're missing the point, because my experience is that sometimes, I am the only editor that watchlists some obscure article. We haven't been sued yet for a BLP violation. One day, we will be. That's when due diligence will become an issue. I have no qualms about my record in that regard. Do you?

[jayvdb]

... my experience is that sometimes, I am the only editor that watchlists some obscure article. We haven't been sued yet for a BLP violation. One day, we will be. That's when due diligence will become an issue. I have no qualms about my record in that regard. Do you?

Yes. You missed one article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/l...t_n_859499.html

p.s. Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia chapters and contributors to WMF projects have all been sued.

[melloden]

... my experience is that sometimes, I am the only editor that watchlists some obscure article. We haven't been sued yet for a BLP violation. One day, we will be. That's when due diligence will become an issue. I have no qualms about my record in that regard. Do you?

Yes. You missed one article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/l...t_n_859499.html

p.s. Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia chapters and contributors to WMF projects have all been sued.

How can you force the WMF to reveal a user's identity when they don't even know it themselves? The only thing they've got is a list of IP addresses--which could be all Tor nodes, for all Bacon knows.

Will WR get sued if I call him silly for pursuing this? What about something stronger...?

[EricBarbour]

[jayvdb]

... my experience is that sometimes, I am the only editor that watchlists some obscure article. We haven't been sued yet for a BLP violation. One day, we will be. That's when due diligence will become an issue. I have no qualms about my record in that regard. Do you?

Yes. You missed one article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/l...t_n_859499.html

p.s. Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia chapters and contributors to WMF projects have all been sued.

How can you force the WMF to reveal a user's identity when they don't even know it themselves? The only thing they've got is a list of IP addresses--which could be all Tor nodes, for all Bacon knows.

Will WR get sued if I call him silly for pursuing this? What about something stronger...?

If the WMF provides the IP address, the ISP can be subpoenaed to identity the customer using that IP at the time.

[Malleus]

If the WMF provides the IP address, the ISP can be subpoenaed to identity the customer using that IP at the time.

IP addresses don't identify customers or computers, they identify networks. Ever heard of NATP?

[melloden]

... my experience is that sometimes, I am the only editor that watchlists some obscure article. We haven't been sued yet for a BLP violation. One day, we will be. That's when due diligence will become an issue. I have no qualms about my record in that regard. Do you?

Yes. You missed one article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/l...t_n_859499.html

p.s. Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia chapters and contributors to WMF projects have all been sued.

How can you force the WMF to reveal a user's identity when they don't even know it themselves? The only thing they've got is a list of IP addresses--which could be all Tor nodes, for all Bacon knows.

Will WR get sued if I call him silly for pursuing this? What about something stronger...?

If the WMF provides the IP address, the ISP can be subpoenaed to identity the customer using that IP at the time.

I suppose I'll have to start using Tor to defame prominent individuals now, huh?

If the IP is registered to a large institution, though, isn't dear Mr. Bacon still out of luck?

[jayvdb]

If the WMF provides the IP address, the ISP can be subpoenaed to identity the customer using that IP at the time.

IP addresses don't identify customers or computers, they identify networks. Ever heard of NATP?

Sure, it is possible that the person responsible cant be identified, but more often than not they can be. Once identified, the lawyers still need to prove that the person responsible was, or should have been, in control of the computer. By that stage the person is under oath to tell the truth.

[Malleus]

If the WMF provides the IP address, the ISP can be subpoenaed to identity the customer using that IP at the time.

IP addresses don't identify customers or computers, they identify networks. Ever heard of NATP?

Sure, it is possible that the person responsible cant be identified, but more often than not they can be. Once identified, the lawyers still need to prove that the person responsible was, or should have been, in control of the computer. By that stage the person is under oath to tell the truth.

The computer? The point about protocols like NATP is that there can be many computers using the same public IP address simultaneously.

[gomi]

If the WMF provides the IP address, the ISP can be subpoenaed to identity the customer using that IP at the time.

IP addresses don't identify customers or computers, they identify networks. Ever heard of NATP?

Sure, it is possible that the person responsible cant be identified, but more often than not they can be. Once identified, the lawyers still need to prove that the person responsible was, or should have been, in control of the computer. By that stage the person is under oath to tell the truth.

US Judge: an IP address is not a person

In what could be a landmark decision, US Judge Harold Baker has ruled that an IP address is not adequate evidence to pin a crime on someone. For years, the recording industry has sued individuals for copyright infringement based solely on their IP address. This reached a new level when lawyers began collaborating with independent filmmakers to attack large quantities of suspected BitTorrent pirates. ... Baker ruled that IP addresses do not equal persons and cited a recent child pornagraphy case where US authorities raided the wrong people because the true offenders were piggybacking on their wireless connection. "The infringer might be the subscriber, someone in the subscriber's household, a visitor with her laptop, a neighbor, or someone parked on the street at any given moment," he said.

Of course, Wikipedia has lower standards. It just needs to look like a duck, or sound (to those with finely honed linguistic skills) somewhat like a duck, or perhaps have two legs or feathers, or maybe have once seen, heard, or emailed a duck.

A new motto: Wikipedians: they know duck-all!

[jayvdb]

If the WMF provides the IP address, the ISP can be subpoenaed to identity the customer using that IP at the time.

IP addresses don't identify customers or computers, they identify networks. Ever heard of NATP?

Sure, it is possible that the person responsible cant be identified, but more often than not they can be. Once identified, the lawyers still need to prove that the person responsible was, or should have been, in control of the computer. By that stage the person is under oath to tell the truth.

The computer? The point about protocols like NATP is that there can be many computers using the same public IP address simultaneously.

So? Many routers keep a log of the activity, and it is trivial to identity which computer accessed an internet site at the given timestamp. The discovery process may run into a brick wall, but more often than not the IP is sufficient to identify an individual person.

US Judge: an IP address is not a person

You need to read/understand the case you are quoting. It is good that judges are starting to clamp down on fishing expeditions using large nets, but a good lawyer with a specific request will still be able to justify requests for consumer data and later prove that it was a specific person responsible for doing something on the internet.
I am surprised that you appear to be supporting 'Internet speech' being more protected because people are able to act irresponsibly on the internet and hide from being identified and brought to a court to defend their actions.

[gomi]

I am surprised that you appear to be supporting 'Internet speech' being more protected because people are able to act irresponsibly on the internet and hide from being identified and brought to a court to defend their actions.

That is not at all what I am saying, and it is a typically Wikipedia asshole tactic to suggest, rhetorically, that I am.

[melloden]

That is not at all what I am saying, and it is a typically Wikipedia asshole tactic to suggest, rhetorically, that I am.

It's a typically WR tactic to retort with lame attacks like that, too.