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?

They rarely go after socks unless they do any harm, or the person really is public enemy number one. Even then I wonder sometimes.

This (on the talk page) made me laugh:



Sometimes the simplest phrases are the best! Typcially RH fudged his way out of it.

What I didn't like so much was seeing an admin called Mjroots give a big lickeroonie up RH's arse after blocking someone for 48 hours. But they can't pull the cock block without involving some kind of other sexual act can they. But it was simply my fault for looking I supposed. Oh how easily these people uh uh net-work.

You've got to feel sorry for an orphan. But of all the tags to give this article!

Wikipedia is getting full of this kind of 'article'. Theoretically there can be an article on anything, as long as it gets lucky in the first few stages of its life. It's the 'essay' articles that particularly piss me off - When X v's Y, N on a cloudy day in R, A in B (like here) etc. However well the idea might fit into other publications, it's all somebody's OR at best, and they are never unbiased on Wikipedia, or written without some particular intent.

At the end of the day, Wikipedia doesn't really have a clue about what cannot be a suitable subject for an article. Articles spawn others, and theoretically never ends.

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

It's an unspoken/unwritten rule that anyone can come back to Wikipedia as long as they don't draw attention to themselves or continue the same behavior that got them banned before.

Of course, if Wikipedians absolutely hate you no matter what good your socks do for Wikipedia, you'll never find peace or redemption. That's the unfair part. Rod can come back because he still carries respect among many Wikipedians, but if Greg came back in any form, his socks would blocked even if they provided benefits to Wikipedia.

The fairest thing to do would be to shut down the whole "anyone can edit" thing, make everyone use their real names, and restrict them all to one account. A man can dream, can't he?

A psychologist eh? He's clearly trying to bond with Malleus there, hey.

He says "I'm not a lawyer, as such. "

'As such'? Was he ever?

Actually, one way of making absolutely sure someone has a decent excuse to dig you out and get you blocked is to claim authority via an invented profession. ie start seriously bullshitting to get yourself an edge again.

Hopefully they'll get the prick. Wikipedia has enough twats pretending they are/were psychologists, without such obvious freudulents fannying around.

Are you sure he still has that much respect? Most of it was for arse kissing, which is about as deep as a layer of runny cum.

Not sure about Kohs (as I hinted above) - I expect they've resigned to the fact that he's going to be doing what he is. They can't stop it can they? Not that they won't miss the chance to block him if they suddenly had clear proof, but do they really chase likely cases up? Or even care all that much?

It has its various little dramas, but as long as the shit keeps churning over in the big fairy cake making machine that is Wikipedia I'm sure the employee class and their 'wanabee' fags are happy.

Arse kissing ... well, he had lots of respect for himself ... (see comments on SarekOfVulcan's RfA) ... but he did not last long.

Surely anyone interested in ass kissing should really stick to Playboy bunnies, like SarekOfVulcan, rather than Wikipedians?


If Rod is not in his full mind, at this point I would start to become concerned. This business has all the element of a cultic banishment or outcasting, just like the Jehovah Witness or Scientology.

Indef blocked is the lowest of the low ... equals wog or apostate.

It must hurt and humiliate to be expelled and forbid to pipe up in favor of an old ass that used to be an online friend. Given that he must have invested a huge amount of time and effort into the Piss-pedia, at the expense of other real life relationships ...

what does he have left now?

Rod used to go on about how close to 'the end' he was, how he was suffering and dying and doing the Wikipedia was all he could manage. Do we get to watch them push him to a suicide?

Egad, I feel sorry for any Playboy bunny that has big, fat, sweaty ol' Sarek stuck to them!

And speaking of soft core, how fitting that Arbcom's resident pornographer, Coren, took heed of Rummy's sleuthing and plucked the emu's feathers. Which leads to the ultimate question: does Coren actually have carnal relations with the nude women he exploits?

OK, I guess RH&E was some kind of dick, but does it leave anyone else feeling slightly unsettled that we're doing Wikipedia admin work here, revealing socks? Maybe we're incidental, but I always wonder when, just a day or so after a Review post, someone gets (re) blocked.

Really, it was his fault for pretending he was qualified whateveritisthistime (from WR's more-highminded point of view I would say), and for giving himself away so easily.

I don't think you can look inwardly at WR for this. The admin class look here for a number of reasons. I'd be more uncomfortable if WR somehow took sides and protected certain editors.

The fact it is all such a crazy situation is essentially down to Wikipedia.

Well, Coren claims that he was unaware of the WR discovery, but we already know he is a liar.

Besides, it is kind of funny that he complains of WR's "obsessive-compulsive behavior" when the arbitrators blatantly abuse the checkuser tools to go fishing for perceived enemies of the Jimbo-state. Not the kind of behavior one expect in "building" an encyclopedia "that anyone can edit".

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.

If Rod wanted to return to editing Wikipedia he could easily do so without notice. Trouble is that would require him to change his editing behaviour, something he doesn't appear capable of doing.

This is a poorly equip and ineffective Wikipedia Ravage, by design.
As a Review site, publishing problems is a necessity, and WP and WR often have similar objectives.
What would be nice is a WR-zine, which contains stories that Signpost either doesn't cares for and/or wouldn't be permitted on WMF property.

Po' Rod - the blunder from down under sniffed him out.

At least Law/The Undertow was lucky - JVB knew about that sock dance but let it slide, and then he got away with lying that he never read the e-mail from Keegan which detailed what was going on.

Theoretically, we have the blog for that (click in the URHC, where it says "blog"). Care to author a piece?

Someone really needs to add a new entry to the blog, considering that there hasn't been a new one since June of last year.

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.

It's a crap article, and if I still cared about Wikipedia, or its structures, I'd have tagged it with merge to "nudity", because it's a shed. It might merits paragraph, and a short one at that, in the main article. On its own, however, it's unnecessary, but perhaps I hoped someone might take it on board as a defensible topic- I am not an expert on either nudity or Singapore, and I'm not bothered about whether the article remains or not.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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


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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

US Judge: an IP address is not a person
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!

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.

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.

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.

And your father smells of elderberries!

I'm glad you're not. It seemed out of character for you to be waving that flag. Sorry I misread your intentions in posting that.