Hengist Pod, Rod's back. Options

[RMHED]

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?

[jayvdb]

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.

[Encyclopedist]

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.

This post has been edited by Encyclopedist: Tue 10th May 2011, 11:30pm

[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]

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...?

[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?

[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.

[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.