User talk:Rodhullandemu

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Fucking ridiculous. When I first came here, it was a difficult learning curve, but I mastered it, and cut my content-editing teeth on Wikification. Within six months, I ran for Admin, and achieved that, despite one (and only one) sockpuppet objection, and a few neutrals. Since then, my whole focus has been on improving this encylopedia, whilst occasionally being focussed enough to add content: 120,000 edits, 23 DYKs and six GA's is all I have been able to manage, although I have also uploaded multiple free images to Commons. I have given helpful advice to those new editors when necessary, and blocked those whose only agenda seems to be vandalism. But it seems that total commitment to this project isn't enough; you have also, apparently, to suck the right dicks, make the right noises, if not placate the ruling classes. I'm not prepared to do either. So, thanks to those who have supported me, wholly or partly, but in reality, I have better things to do with my life, such as it is. Cheers, and goodbye, but I'm out of here. Rodhullandemu 00:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A clarification: I am still unconvinced that I am going to receive a fair hearing from ArbCom, given their previous disreputable shenanigans; however, I am only prosecuted, judged and sentenced by them in the absence of input from the community; however, the support I have received from the community would seem to indicate that on balance, I am welcome here as an editor but not as an Admin. On that point, I have been monitoring my watchlist and seen vandalism to articles upon it persist for longer than is strictly necessary, given that I would normally deal with it within a minute or two. That's perhaps neither here nor there in the big scheme of things, but it helps to perpetuate the myth that we are dealing effectively with vandalism. We aren't. Meanwhile, sorry, but unless I see libel, I'll leave vandalism to other editors, despite my principles (remember them?), and concentrate where I can on dealing with my ArbCom case. In net terms, I see this as a loss to the encyclopedia, as I will be demonstrating. Rodhullandemu 23:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Click here to leave me a new message. If you start a new thread here, I'll reply here. Also, please remember to always sign your messages with ~~~~ If this page is currently protected due to excessive nonsense, please post here

Tip of the moment... Navigate faster using Wikipedia shortcuts Many of the pages in the Wikipedia namespace have specialized redirects called "shortcuts" that can be entered into the search box. Most shortcuts start with WP: followed by a capitalized abbreviation of the page name. Some common shortcuts are: WP:HELP, WP:WELCOME, WP:IMAGE, WP:5P, and of course, WP:TIP. A semi-complete list of shortcuts is available at WP:CUTS. A shortcut can be used in the search box or in a link. To jump to the talk page of a page with a shortcut, start with "WT:" instead of "WP:". Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more: Wikipedia:Shortcut   Wikipedia:Shortcut directory   Become a Wikipedia tipster To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}

...

I'm back

Thanks to all who have supported me by email, but I have to ask you to stop for now, because it impacts on my download limit from my ISP. It seems that the "torches and pitchforks" brigade will not just let this go, so I am under some pressure. However, I do appreciate your messages of support. Rodhullandemu 01:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Announcement by Arbitration Committee

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#User:Rodhullandemu

I'm sorry it has come to this, I really am. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Unjust and disgusting. Knee-jerk reactions are almost never justified, especially when I have not been given a chance to meet all the allegations against me. There was an ongoing discussion between the ArbCom and myself, but it seems to have been short-circuited. I repeat, unjust and disgusting. The Arbitrators who voted for this should hang their heads in utter and unmitigated shame. This is not why I came to Wikipedia. Rodhullandemu 04:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that must feel horrible, but if you try hard enough [it'll probably take time so I won't take offence if you react negatively to this suggestion...] you might be able to see a bright side: adminship seemed to have a created a sense of responsibility which at times looks to have weighed quite heavily on your shoulders. Without that, you might be better able to focus on content (be it gnoming, writing or discussion) and you might find you enjoy it more. Rd232 ^talk 07:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No Due Process?

I am not familiar with the details of your case, and I have no opinion on whether you would have deserved some appropriate sanction as the outcome of a fair proceeding in which you were afforded due process. What interests me about your case is that it seems to reify the observation that Wikipedia doesn't do Due Process, full stop:

Hidden in en.wikipedia's Administrator's Noticeboard, there is a quote from User:Lar:

The thing is, the project doesn't DO due process. There is no reason to expect it. This is not a governance experiment, a society, or even fair.

The question, in response to quotes like this, is: Should Wikipedia reform its regulatory structure to better respect modern society's concept of Civil Rights and Due Process?

--Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 13:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested to note that some years ago, I asked ArbCom whether I had been afforded Due Process in an otherwise obscure and little noticed RfC. At the time, ArbCom simply declined to answer the question. By asking ArbCom whether I had been afforded Due Process (rather than asking them to overturn the outcome of a questionable RfC), I sought to understand how Wikipedia defined Due Process. It turned out that not only is Due Process not defined, it doesn't even exist as an operational theoretical concept within the governance model of Wikipedia. To my mind, the inexplicable absence of the fundamental concepts of Due Process and Civil Rights in the governance model of Wikipedia is a far bigger issue than the question of whether any one person would have plausibly deserved the treatment meted out at the conclusion of a quasi-judicial procedure.

Moulton 12:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Going forward

Hi. I have been watching this over the last couple of days, and I really think you needed a break from the mop side of stuff - the desysop might have been a "sharp remedy, but a sure cure...". I suggest that you take this opportunity to move away from reviewing and reverting other editors, and get back to building articles and content. Perhaps a change of perspective and approach will give you a fresh challenge, and make this stuff enjoyable again (remember fun, the reason most of us started this malarky?) Get out there and tart up a couple of mediocre articles, help a few uncertain editors out on a talkpage, stick a few barnstars on content editors pages - do the up things that also improve the project.
What you don't need to do is start one of those downward spirals we have both seen happen to established admins/editors, who have lost a bit of perspective. You have been here too long and done too much good stuff to chuck it all away, and I don't think that if you do start going to the "dark side" that you are going to have a couple of short duration blocks; it will likely be indefinite. Best that you re-establish yourself as an editor than fight against the inequities that are an unfortunate factor of this place.
Anyway, there is always the 2012 ArbCom elections if you still feel a need to campaign - and a good recent contrib history never hurt anyone when running for that office. Think it over, please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure I want to be here, or anywhere, any more. Rodhullandemu 18:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You will have your own reasons for leaving and I will respect your decision to leave or stay. But if you are leaving because this situation has made you think you are unwelcome or unwanted here, then know that that is not true. One can be a bad admin and a fantastic contributor. Just think about it, eh? AGK [•] 21:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I managed to get about a couple of hours sleep this afternoon, out of the last 48, so I'm not at my best right now. And I'm no longer that keen on being trolled by vandals, sneered at, ganged-up on, misrepresented, misunderstood, railroaded, treated unjustly, or having the goalposts moved by ArbCom to attempt to justify a botched decision, so I hope you'll understand if I tend to feel a tad bitter about the whole situation. Sorry, but the implication that I'm a "bad admin" doesn't help, especially given the failure of ArbCom to provide general evidence of that; I've only rarely seen my blocks overturned, maybe one in 500. I've never, to my recollection, seen a page protection overturned, nor a deletion of an article per CSD, nor deletion of a non-free image... etc. I could go on but you get the picture. The problem is that nobody wants to spend the time going through over 120,000 edits to sort the wheat from the chaff; they just want to concentrate on the chaff. But thanks for your concern anyway. Rodhullandemu 22:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think AGK just got their "bunny ears" and formatting mixed up - I don't believe they were inferring a viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but this is a situation that of its nature should require sensitive treatment and language. Overall, I've yet to see it except in a very few cases. While the policy wonkery goes on elsewhere, I'm unable to deal with vandalism or even incompetent edits fully, and that affects, albeit slightly, the Mean Time to Repair of Wikipedia, and puts unnecessary work on to others. I am more altruistic than to wish that to happen. Rodhullandemu 22:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• The vandalism can be dealt with by use of warnings and AIV reports, just like the ones we have responded to back in the day. The "incompetent" edits are a different challenge, and one where you might "explain and demonstrate" the proper way to the wayward editor and maybe even make a decent contributor out of them - something that would benefit the project even more, ultimately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well that, traditionally, is what I've done. Rodhullandemu 22:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, then it shouldn't be difficult, should it...? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

During a past discussion at the talkpage of the Prisoner, I was impressed with your sensitivity to opposing arguments and your fairness. I still remember the exchange as an example of decency. Good luck with whatever you choose to pursue. Best wishes. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. That's the main reason I'm here. If I'm not here, you may find me on Commons. Rodhullandemu 00:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, take your time to assimilate this issue. I totally agree with LessHvanu's comments, your opinion and experience is greatly valued whether you are an admin or not. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Rod, I've just come across the happenings of the last few days and have no intention of posting my thoughts on the matter, but I will say that I sincerely hope that you stay on the project. I also wish you all the best in 'real life' which is rather more important than what goes on here. Regards Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rod for your reply. I think I forgot to add another point to my comments above. Decency is not dependent on how many tools you have. Otherwise a toolbox would be the most decent thing extant. It is a function of your character. This, you have in spades. I expect and hope to see you here and in Commons. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rod... I don't know you well though I have seen you around a few times. To be honest, I have doubts about some of your admin actions. However, I am outraged at the ArbCom actions because I see the precedents established are to the detriment of all editors. I am sorry to see you treated as you have been, and I want you to know that even editors who have concerns about you are outraged by what has happened. I am particularly irritated by the statements about you requesting a case, which all seem predicated on the notion that (a) you are guilty before any case is held; and worse, (b) ArbCom will bury you is crap to prove how right they were and how unwise you were to challenge them. I think any "case" would be an excuse to validate ArbCom no matter what, and that the thinly-disguised threats are that they will play prosecutor / persecutor to your victim. I think that would be very bad for you and I urge that you consider carefully whether you can cope with what some of the arbitrators will do to you. I have posted at WT:ACN on one issue, FYI, but I don't actually expect that ArbCom will actually stop and reflect on what they have done. I can't tell you how to cope, but I can wish you well in dealing with the mess by which you find yourself surrounded. Regards EdChem (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rod. We've barely exchanged a couple of messages, but I hope you won't mind my shoving my oar in anyway to say that I'm just so sorry you've gone through such crap over this whole thing. Probably any attempt at solace will sound trite, but I'll risk that to just remind you that if a thousand people say you're a horse that doesn't make you one. Or to put the same thing in a more respectable way, just because some lot can't see a man's shining parts at a given time, it most emphatically doesn't mean they're not there. Same thing applies when one can't find them in the mirror at any given time, too, mate, if it helps at all to hear that.

Still, it must have been very extremely troubling to feel oneself treated with so much disrespect: I wish I could just wind the clock back and undo all that led up to that for you. I don't know who's right in the strictly legalistic sense - I'm nothing like familiar enough with the applicable policies to even try to guess, and I wouldn't want to, anyway - but I do feel the community as represented by ArbCom (over the years) bears a very considerable measure of responsibility for allowing editors who are, in effect, an attractive nuisance ( it's hard not to want to engage when someone is very ornery or offensive ) to offend over and over and over again with no real consequence.

Our dispute resolution boards operate like the gangs of New York, in my opinion. If your gang is big enough it doesn't matter to the outcome whether you're right or wrong: Even if you're 100% in the wrong you know one of your pals will unblock you in an hour or two, or that no one will block you in the first place, because they know it too. It's just an appalling situation, utterly ridiculous, and shameful, imo. I'd personally be in favor of allowing admins to perform no more than one reduction in another admin's block every two years or so.

I'll repeat that I'm sorry all this has been so very rough. I wish I could buy you a pint or six, but I'm on the other side of the globe just now. You do have all the good will I know how to send curving through the aether, though. Keep your chin up as best you can, and stay away from this childish place until you can care just a little less about this stupid episode, until it stings less and doesn't demand to be replayed over and over in your head. You have far better uses for it, for that noggin. And please remind yourself often that there's a multitude of us here who know of an absolute certainty that you're no damned horse, nor anything remotely like. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Emails

Hi Rod. There's a suggestion here that the emails you exchanged with Arbcom members be published so that those of us who have qualms about the seeming lack of process with which you were desysopped can see the evidence for ourselves. Will you consent to that? --John (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I was still considering that, but it seems the discussion has now been unilaterally closed. These have been a terrible few days for me, but even more so for ArbCom, because it is now very difficult to see how the community can have any confidence in them if they are prepared to pull stunts like that. I'll say it again: utterly shameful, and to an outside observer, does Wikipedia no credit at all. I am considering whether I want to be any further part of this. Rodhullandemu 22:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's been reopened. Please think about what I asked. --John (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm still unconvinced that this is a venture that any principled person would wish to be associated with. Rodhullandemu 23:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

" These have been a terrible few days for me." Don't give them the satisfaction. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm too weak in many ways to deal with this adequately, so it's beyond my current capabilities. If they are going to be satisfied if I decide to leave, then they should examine their own human consciences: if any. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If they'd wanted you to leave they'd have had the discussion onwiki. I can't imagine how hard it is in this situation to gain the distance needed for some perspective, but for your sake, I hope you find it soon. The best suggestion I have is for a minimum of 24 hours to completely put this issue aside, make no comments at all (try to not even think about it) - just go and do some editing in a nice quiet corner of Wikipedia. Really - try it. What have you got to lose? Rd232 ^talk 08:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Per discussions elsewhere, it appears that some people are in support of you having admin privs back, and to be honest, judging how arbcom have treated you, so am I. Please consider doing what has been suggested, not just as a result of their procedure, but by one of their own, reapply for your adminship, and let's get you back on the road you belong on - I want you to have your mop and bucket back. :) BarkingFish 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks to all above, but I am going to try and step back for a couple of days. Decisions in these circumstance should not be taken lightly, and I need to try and recover some sleep, get to my GP, and start trying to get rehoused. We've had a cold winter here and it has impacted my health. Rodhullandemu 20:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you don't mind a quick word from me. I've only just noticed this whole thing, but I haven't dug into it and don't intend to, so I'm not offering any judgment. But what I do want to offer is my moral support and my thanks for all the great work, both editorial and admin, that I've seen from you over the time I've been here. I'd echo the suggestions to take a short break to alleviate the stress a little, especially as it seems you have health issues to deal with too - I hope it works out for the best for you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

With regards and respect for many of your past contributions. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Cassie Claypole

Why not just redirect it instead? HalfShadow 23:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm tired, and still trying to WP:AGF. There may be sources out there, but I can't be bothered finding them, and neither should I be. But there is no CSD criterion that covers this sort of thing, and if you want to redirect, I wouldn't object to that. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably the best thing to do. I've asked for semi-pp on the page, as it seems editors are recently jumping the gun and taking the article outside standards and guidelines. Rodhullandemu 23:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's just with a prod, it'd have to sit there a week and would probably get reverted to a redir anyway. HalfShadow 00:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but just maybe the editor knows something we don't, but doesn't know how to add it. As if! Good move, and s/h can always undo it, with sources. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

• News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news

• In the news: Egypt and Jordan likely candidates for Wikimedia office; Sanger interview; brief news

• Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times

• WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases

• Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Rodhullandemu and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

I don't personally hold a grudge against you, just trying to get the issue resolved one way or annother. Hasteur (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is now up to the ArbCom to defend themselves. Rodhullandemu 01:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you review my post and make sure that I have assumed correctly with regards to you? NW (Talk) 04:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remove any comments you've placed in anyone else's section. "Reply to another person's comment in your section.". Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

John Lee Hooker's year of birth

I am frustrated beyond belief at how quickly and easily people keep changing back my well-researched conclusion on John Lee Hooker's year of birth. After carefully checking every piece of source material I could locate in print and online - as well as at the state and local level - I could find no documentary evidence of JLH's birth (neither could his biographer). As an amateur genealogist however, I naturally looked into the federal census records and was able to locate him and his family in Tutwiler, Mississippi in the 1920 census. This is the only extant record documenting JLH's year of birth. The only one. All other claims are pure hearsay, including Hooker's and the caretakers of his estate - his website included. There is an old saying in genealogy: "Genealogy without documentation is mythology", and it certainly applies to the matter of JLH's birth. He had, I believe, good reason to keep his true age blurry, for one not wanting to appear as old as he truly was in order to impress people with accomplishments at an artificially reduced age. Your rejection of my conclusion due to "synthesis" is unfounded, as this requires "reliable" sources. Word of mouth, hearsay, and anecdotal "evidence" are the epitome of unreliability and as I am certain you well know would be thrown out of court if presented. Why do you have a different standard for JLH's Wikipedia entry when the only unbiased documentary evidence suggests otherwise?Brprivate (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably best in this case to open a discussion on the article's Talk page, and see what other editors think. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 20:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That is precisely what I did and precisely where you put your comment that it would be best to revert to JLH's claimed date. Are you going to respond or just bury your head in the sand, counselor?Brprivate (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

When sources are so varied that the exact truth may be unascertainable, it is appropriate to say so in the article. However, what Wikipedia relies upon is what any reliable sources may say, as opposed to the truth. However, I am of opinion that back-calculating from a census to a birthdate is impermissible as it constitutes original research, however logical it may seem to do so. For one thing, I am not convinced that census returns in rural America at that time are reliable, since they depend upon what the census-taker has been told, presumably by the head of the household, and there is no way of independently verifying that. However, I'm not going to argue the point further, because it is too minor to be interesting to me, and you may regard this discussion as closed. And, if it matters, I was never legal counsel, more a part of the judiciary. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 21:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Some words

Hi Rod. I've not commented directly on any part of the ARBCOM process so far, but have followed it closely. I will comment, but I'm choosing my time; as it appears they will be forced into a proper on-wiki case the time may well be then. Apart from that, this is simply a message of personal support. I have read your on-wiki comments about your health concerns and struggles IRL. I wish you well, and hope that you will try in some way to mitigate the angst/stress you are currently enduring through other activites or if nothing else some rest. I was going to send this via email, but frankly there's nothing here I consider private or am ashamed to say in public so it's probably best here. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I seem to remember you gave me my very first Barnstar, all those years ago, which gave me some confidence to carry on. That confidence is now rapidly evaporating, but cheers anyway. Rodhullandemu 21:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program

Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I already have two mentees elsewhere and currently am unsure whether I can spare the time to take on any more right now. Rodhullandemu 04:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, 'tis cool. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Oh man.. "twattitude"? In an AN/I thread that is supposed to be about promoting a higher standard of civility. It's disappointing to see; please try and think about the language being used in future, that only served to inflame. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry and you are entirely correct to chide me. It is difficult, however, to maintain a sense of proportion when it becomes clear that one's life has been rendered utterly worthless. Rodhullandemu 18:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Rod we need you around here, you do great work, please don't over react. Happy to help out if there are concerns you want addressed but where it would be better to avoid another editor. --Snowded ^TALK 21:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I should hope that life is not "utterly worthless" without Admin tools. I fear to contemplate the worthlessness of my own life, having never handled the tools. --RSLxii 22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"The community giveth, and the ArbCom taketh away" (paraphrasing Job 1: 20-21 (KJV)). Rodhullandemu 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A message of support

I should've done this before, but I've been a little busy all week; you got horribly treated by AC. Seems to be a trend with AC; they say they're not a judicial system only to deflect criticism when they act like it and screw someone over (when I was banned for "harassing" Kmweber, they claimed they asked for my side; they didn't). Good luck off-Wikipedia: maybe I'll finally get that Genesis book, and hopefully we won't get as massacred as we did last night in May. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Rodhullandemu 18:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

copyvio on The Secret Garden

Hi, I noticed you removed the summary from The Secret Garden on the ground of it being a copyvio. However, I am pretty sure they copied from us. Looking through the history of the page you can see the summary changing and as far back as this 2005 version there are clearly elements which are the same (see for example the sentence about lifeless roses, which survived almost intact). Yoenit (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's usually difficult to decide which version is the first, so I tend to err on the side of caution. I'd have no objection to a revert, since I think the most that can happen is a DMCA takedown notice. Rodhullandemu 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted comment

looks like an edit conflict Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In the current climate, I can't revert Malleus lest I be accused of edit-warring. Rodhullandemu 22:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should cite this: in the early 1970s, I had friends at Bradford University, and I used to go and visit them, and we'd go for a decent cheap curry in the Kashmir restaurant, which was somewhat suspiciously located next to the city morgue. On the way there, there was a famous piece of graffiti on a nearby wall: "It's a mean old scene". So it is, especially here, and although I cannot claim to be a hippy any more, not that I ever was that much, some truths persist. If I still had a photo of that graffiti, it would be on my wall right now. Rodhullandemu 23:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you still had that photo I'd gladly pay you for a copy... --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll go through my photos again in the next few days, assuming I am still permitted to edit here. I'm pretty sure I took a snap at the time. Otherwise, I'll upload it to Commons and email you. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can find it that would be fantastic. I'll try to dig up something equally as interesting. Quid pro quo and whatnot. And of course you're permitted to edit here - has there been any grumblings otherwise? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Haven't found it yet- sadly it may have gone the way of a lot of old photos I may have lost when moving house- but there's a (poor) version here. Actually, there might be enough there for an article, but I haven't the time or the concentration right now. Meanwhile, perhaps this will do:

.Rodhullandemu 21:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The graffiti featured on this book cover and this record sleeve. At some stage, it was amended with the addition of "Blacks rule". Somewhere I have a postcard of this; if I find it, I will scan and try to upload it. I moved to Bradford in 1976; could our paths have crossed? RolandR (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that, sometimes I forget about adding things like that. I'll try to remember to add the cite next time! 68.91.132.226 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing

Hello. Okay, I understand. But how do i post sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantrobotjesus (talk • contribs) 00:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to look at WP:CITE as to how to cite sources, and WP:RS as to what are acceptable as sources. However, I'm not going to be here any longer, so you'd be better asking another editor. There are plenty around. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What!!!

Not you too? This is really starting to get up my nose. It seems that all the sensible people who get pissed-off by idiots are steadily getting persecuted; you're the 3rd admin and 5th editor that I have regularly interacted with over the years that has pulled up stumps in the last 3 or 4 months.

As with them, I am very sorry that you are leaving us. Thank you for all your help, humour and excellent work. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who will miss you. Best wishes for the future! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There comes a time when being kicked in the face begins to lose whatever pleasure it may have had, even for a masochist, and I, for one, have had enough of that. Rodhullandemu 01:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please, Rod, don't leave. We've already lost so many great editors, don't make us lose you too. Giving up in front of persecution is not the right way to go, you've got to fight against it. There's so many of us that support you. Can't we all just stand together, with you? Silverseren^C 01:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry, but it's not negotiable right now. I hope I've been able to help you, and other well-intentioned editors here, but the situation is that I am not prepared to kick against the pricks any longer. Rodhullandemu 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, i'll miss you. We might not have had the best interactions when we ran into each other (remember the Noah Ringer AfD way back when? Good times. :P ), but I have always respected you as a great editor and a valuable contributer to Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 02:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been an oasis of sense, good advice, support, back-up and humour amidst an ocean of insanity. I will miss your presence more than you can possibly realise. I hope those responsible can still sleep at night. Any faint desires I may have held for future adminship in these parts have been crushed while watching the unwarranted treatment dealt to you these last few weeks. Stay well Rod and good luck with whatever you choose to do. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 02:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't advice any well-intentioned editor to seek to be an Admin right now; it's a poisoned chalice given the current climate, and isn't guaranteed to make you any friends. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A Personal Analogy - When I was in high school, I was elected student body secretary in a landslide election. I did a good job, but I forgot to write a certain "thank-you" letter on behalf of the school to a woman who had put on a show there (I was busy making the Dean's List and Honor Roll and I stupidly overlooked it). I was called in to the office of a teacher who had been there all of two months and informed that because I didn't write that letter, I was already removed as the secretary and my runner-up now held the office. The decision was made by her alone and unalterable. "You can't do that!", I exclaimed. "I was elected by popular vote! It's not fair for you to just remove me from office like this!" Didn't matter - there was no due process to be had. When that same teacher left the school about a month later to teach elsewhere, I really felt like I had gotten the shaft. I made a mistake, but it wasn't egregious enough to take away the community's trust in me without even asking them, right? Wrong.

What happened to you (and especially the way it happened: in a closed boardroom meeting) is seriously lousy, IMHO, and I echo the sentiments of other editors above. Hopefully you'll reconsider leaving, as you are unquestionably an asset around here, but the decision is yours alone, obviously. Good luck to you, Rod. Doc talk 06:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Wikibreak and oppose retirement I know I dont get a say but I think its the thought that counts.... The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 02:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Rd232 ^talk 16:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Cheers, and goodbye, but I'm out of here"

I'm sorry to see you leave, but pleased to see you say that you have better things to do with your life (better than hang around here protesting your value to the project and other people's corruption, I assume you mean). Wikipedia should be abandoned without a qualm when we no longer enjoy it. Meanwhile, a combination of self-praise, aggression and obscenity is an unappealing spectacle, inconsistent with WP:User pages and likely to bring the project into disrepute. Please be considerate and remove at least the most objectionable phrasing in the text at the top of this page — below the "Retired" box. I think you know which part I mean. Best wishes, and good luck in your future endeavors. Bishonen | talk 05:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC). Apparently not. I have now removed the objectionable text myself. Bishonen | talk 10:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen, if you see a personal attack here, then go to ANI and request an uninvolved review, and leave the editting of Rod's user page to other users. Given the circumnstances of his retirement, and how this exact same intervention by Rod would be received were the circumstances were reversed, your involvement here is hypocritical at best, baiting at worst. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to spell out your nasty hints, conditional cases, and mud-throwing, MickMacNee? Bishonen | talk 14:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

If it's not considered important enough to examine in an arbitration case, then no, not really. You're an intelligent girl, I'm sure you can figure out to what it is I was referring. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Pdfpdf's revert of my removal of offensive language and personal attacks[1]

Where's your sense of proportion, pdfpdf? "Who is it personally attacking"? How should I know? I'm not familiar with Rod's off-wiki communications (though I have studied his on-wiki posts quite attentively). Obviously his offensive remark is intended as an attack which the attackee will recognise, that's the point. The obvious target of the attack would be ArbCom, especially since Rod has procrastinated and IDIDNTHEARTHAT'ed ad infinitum about publishing his e-mails to them [2] plus perhaps Jimbo Wales, whose response doesn't seem to have satisfied Rod either[3]). Further: anybody who is remotely serious about making Wikipedia a welcoming place for women shouldn't revert back to that kind of language. And also: the time that I called a user a "shit", I was blocked for it, without warning and by the "public face of Wikipedia", no less. You know, our comportment ideal? Kindly note, by contrast, that I haven't blocked or even warned Rod; I've first given him an opportunity to remove it himself, and then I've removed it. I'm reverting you, since I had actual arguments for removing the PA. Please try to think of an argument or two for not removing it if you're going to revert me back. Bishonen | talk 13:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

For the record, there is no point in threatening a block - LHvU has already indef blocked Rod, firstly for disruptive editing and then for a "leave of absence". I would characterise that action but I am struggling for suitable words, so I will simply say I strongly disagree with the action and think Rod does not deserve this metaphoric shoving out the door and screaming "and stay out". *slam!* EdChem (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@Bishonen: please don't put words in my mouth. If you want to respond below my comment, you type out the WP:IAR thingy like you did, then you sign it as your own contribution. Making it seem as if I added it as an afterthought is really poor form, especially for an admin. Thanks :> Doc talk 13:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Words in your mouth? The WP:IAR thingy? My first post, ""Cheers, and goodbye, but I'm out of here" (a quotation from Rod's text below his "Retired" template) was a request to Rod to remove his offensive wording in that text, plus a note that I was going to do it myself, after waiting a reasonable amount of time. My second post, "Pdfpdf's revert of my removal of offensive language and personal attacks" (quoting my edit summary) was a comment amplifying this edit in the History, where I explain what IMO was wrong with pdfpdf reverting me. (That's why the edit summary in the History says "See note on talkpage".) Both my posts begin with a new section header, and end with my sig, all per standard talkpage layout. Neither of them has anything to do with you or your post. Please explain what the problem is. Bishonen | talk 14:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

Sure. In this edit, see how you added the sloppy WP:IAR diff right after the sig from my comment? I know I didn't add it, and it appeared as part of your edit. I reverted that part after you reinserted it again here. So that's what I was referring to :> Doc talk 14:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Yes, I see you didn't add it, and that it appears as part of my edit. I didn't add it either, though. I've asked the better coders on #wikipedia-en-admins what on earth it could come from, and they think it must have to do with the somewhat annoying "Ignore All Rules" banner in the lower right-hand corner. I can't say I understand the situation any better for that information. Also I don't understand what benefit you think I'd expect from adding that at the end of your edit. Never mind, you're obviously convinced it's part of a dastardly plan. (P. S., in case you understand this stuff, which I don't, the code for the banner is under the archive box.) Bishonen | talk 15:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm convinced of no dastardly plan, and I'm glad you understand why I naturally thought you added it. I wasn't speculating on the "why", just the fact that it was there. Thanks for clearing that up :> Doc talk 15:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

O RLY ? Bishonen | talk 20:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

I have removed this page from my watchlist - I find it just too depressing. If you see a "retired" on my pages, it will be the direct result of this and other stupidities that seem to be "in fashion" at the moment. Bye bye. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock

Hasn't lifted, and it should have done. There is gross BLP violation on 1992. Rodhullandemu 23:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock lifted. –xeno^talk 23:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, someone else got to in the meantime, but we really cannot afford the risk. I say "we" in the loosest possible sense, obviously. Rodhullandemu 23:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and all the best!

As a rank-and-file editor I'd like to say how much I've appreciated your efforts. Best wishes! Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:411Dumb.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:411Dumb.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have taken care of this. A sockpuppet user removed the image from the article. I have restored it and removed the deletion request from the image file. Silverseren^C 06:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

• News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news

• In the news: "Truth in Numbers?" interview; 94% women; Google algorithm update; brief news

• Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community

• WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a break, come back refreshed

The labyrinth and the in-fighting can be maddening. I don't know the particulars of the case against you or whether stripping janitors' tools was justified or unjustified. What I can see is that you're an active and dedicated Wikipedian who has hit the snapping point.

Take some time, take a break, refresh yourself, and please do come back again as a content-creator. Being an "administrator" isn't the meaning of life, after all. Who cares about whether one is in or out of that particular exclusive club? The important thing is the Wikipedia project — and losing you from that is clearly a loss to us all.

All the best. Come back soon! Carrite (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well said. The "silent majority" of editors who have no interest in the world of admins or cabals need people like RH&E around. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - an editor and administrator who helped me, and many other editors, with practical day to day problems, rather than theorising in an ivory tower. Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I use klingon pain sticks when I'm frustrated. Anyways, don't let Wikipedia ruin your life, it's only a cyber world. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

regarding your message(s) at the top of the page..

Hi Rod: I've noticed a couple statements at the top of the page I wanted to bring up. First off, almost no one (including us on the Committee) wants to "run you out of town". Even Elen herself in her evidence states that "(RHE) is a prolific admin and anti-vandal fighter, and is often very helpful to new editors,". The only thing the Committee is ruling on is that right now, there's been enough missteps with the tools that we did not have the necessary confidence in your use of them. As you note above, that seems to be the sense of the community as well..

The second part, and I'm not doing this to be confrontational, is one of the statements that people have to "suck the right dicks" to stay here. I'm not going to get in an argument on the meaning behind that phrase, because we'll disagree.. but here's the point I'm trying to make.. there HAS to be a better way you can say that without offending others. If you get a chance, could you review that part of your statement above, and come up with a better way to put it? SirFozzie (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but in many ways, it is too late for me now to retract those words, much as I felt them at the time. They are there in the history forevermore, and nothing is going to remove them. As I see it, ArbCom are not going to move one inch towards understanding my position, however much I advocate it, and although I may have much support in the wider community, as an editor, if not an admin, I maintain my dignity, little though it may be. If people are offended by my words, without looking behind the words to the person, I can take no blame for that. However, to avoid the Mary Whitehouse effect, I will refactor those words. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 02:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rod, I'm going to be brutally honest. Your reactions, leading up to, and during this case.. I don't think there's a way for you to get back the administrative tools anytime soon, except for an RfA, which you've stated isn't an option. We (The Committee, but as you note above, the Community feels a lot of the same way) just do not have the necessary confidence to budge on that. However, not having a few extra buttons does not mean that you're any less worthwhile as an editor.

As to your situation, I speak from experience here. I burned out in a rather spectacular fashion myself... or at least I would have spectacularly burned out if my friends online hadn't pulled me out and made me realize that I was doing my self no good and just exacerbating health issues. I took a break, came back and was better for it. So if you feel you need time to get things straight and then come back? Take the time you need. If you want to stay and continue to improve the encyclopedia, that's great too.

Anyway, thanks for considering my words, and I hope that you understand where I'm coming from. SirFozzie (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'll willingly make my Watchlist available to any editor who wants to take it over; 4500 pages may be large, but they are selected to be the most vandalised articles I've encountered. Rodhullandemu 02:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

more attacks

I removed your comment from Jimbo's page[4]; whether or not it is true, it is a personal attack. Talk page watchers are people who provide assistance, rather than people who disparage the person on whose talk page they are watching. It has now been restored[5], so I ask you to see that your post is inappropriate, and doesn't help Jimbo, Lettertojw, or yourself by remaining there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Rodhullandemu/Henry Curtis-Bennett

User:Rodhullandemu/Henry Curtis-Bennett, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rodhullandemu/Henry Curtis-Bennett and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Rodhullandemu/Henry Curtis-Bennett during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)