Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:58, 9 May 2008

Hello

We can now edit this page again. Welcome back! --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Greetings Major. I do hope you are well. I would just like to resume my normal editing activities. I felt my contributions were good and always sourced. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! You might be interested in this lot coming up at auction; it would be good to add a copy to the artist's page on WP if you did decide to take a punt! --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not terribly good, are they! A tenner each at best is all they're worth to me. I am still banished to the Outer Hebrides so cannot edit his page anyway. So its all rather academic. David Lauder (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, you either like them or you don't. There's an article on the artist, Feliks Topolski. I like them; it's like the chap said of drawing, 'taking a line for a walk'. They're all mad on the Outer Hebrides, in my experience (too many religious nutters!); probably the diet - whisky and 'guga' (mummified baby gannet) . Now there's an article waiting to be written on your (eventual) return! --Major Bonkers (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Block

Having read the many things which have been said regarding the unblocking of User:Vintagekits and the references to myself I wish to point out that I have made certain disclosures to certain ArbCom Admins and I cannot do more. As regards the "Community" Ban against me (I was banned already by another administrator) I must reiterate that I am not User:Sussexman. I still refute the almost desperate bogus hypothesis which User:One Night In Hackney put together on several pages (often repeats of what he'd said elsewhere) linking me to users and events of almost two years ago. I see too that much is now being made of my "Community" Ban (which I was not permitted to contest). An examination of this ban page will show that everyone, bar six users, are the same people who also grouped together on "The Troubles" ArbCom to try and have me banned then also. So please excuse me if I don't see this as a real "Community" ban, rather an extension of a previous exercise. I have edited a wide range of intelligent subjects and I believe I have done well by Misplaced Pages. I see now that someone who appears to be far less worthy than myself with socks etc has been unbanned. It is therefore small wonder that I see myself as badly wronged. David Lauder (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Less worthy"?? - Alison 16:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So it appeared from what was said. I don't, of course, claim to be perfect, far from it. David Lauder (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, weighing in here, you can compare the two block logs: Apples and Oranges. I have to say that I don't particularly understand the difference in treatment, especially given Vintagekits' recent unblocking. --Major Bonkers (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially as the new admin who unblocked VK was quite recently profoundly arguing he should not be unblocked (and he seems to have jumped the gun in unblocking him anyway. See here: ). Given the vast array of socks, deliberate and extreme incivility, stalking, harrassment, and a host of other WP transgressions, not least umpteen previous blocks, you may now understand why I find justice on Misplaced Pages a bit wanting. David Lauder (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Forget about your notion of justice. Forget about other users. Forget about your accusations. This opportunity is not about anyone else You may have a chance to return to edit on the project. Look at your own actions. To my mind you have no business using this page to chat with Bonkers - nor is Bonkers right to be encouraging you to do so. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel there is merit in my comments. David Lauder (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There may well be but those comments won't get you unblocked. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen to what Kitty is saying. He's right, y'know - Alison 09:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then justice is dead. I have nothing further to add. David Lauder (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually you do. Your arguments are these.

1. That there is no such thing as indefinitely banned (see vk thread).

2. That there is no such thing as indefinitely blocked (see vk thread). Any admin can unblock you at any timee. They are less likely to do that until and unless you say sorry for having used socks.

3. Even if one of those statements is wrong, it doesn't apply to you because you are not User:Sussexman. You never have been him - but you do know him.

4. Furthermore you did edit Sussexman's user and talk pages at his request two months before you were blocked.

5. Maybe that was wrong in which case you are sorry and you didn't understand that rule.

6. You also had other socks which you used wrongly and you appreciate that and very much regret it and won't do it again.

7. There is precedent for this in the case of Vk.

8. You feel that your editing has generally been more constructive and has certainly been less aggressive than that of Vk.

9. You understand that the treatment Vk has received is largely irrelevant but you feel what is source for the goose should in all justice be sauce for the gander. The rules should be applied fairly and equitably to all editors.

10. You very much regret that Giano is against you and is helping vk because he is good at arguing some issues refocusing away from a tricky bit and completely ignoring other relevant issues.

11. You would like to edit again and please what do you have to do to get to do so.

12. You regret having used flat denial (and attack) on this page. You did so because you were indignant at having been confused with Sussexman when you have never been him (or counterrev) and because of that you lost all faith in the checkuser system.

13. So far as you are aware neither you nor Sussexman have any legal issues with any editor or with Misplaced Pages itself.

14. You feel you are a great and positive contributor to the project.

15. You will try to avoid political and Irish articles if you were to be reinstated.

16. Please would somebody spell out any other error so you can address them.

17. If another issue is relevant here which Kittybrewster is unaware of, please would an admin raise it here for you to respond to.

i.e. please, sorry and thank you will get you a long way further than flat denial.

Kittybrewster ☎ 11:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am wrong. Vk has never apologised for his appalling record -- why should you apologise for having behaved with great courtesy? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already 'confessed' (anyone would think this was akin to being a paedophile!) to an ArbCom admin that I was approached and asked to tidy up Sussexman's User and Talk Pages so that they would have a 'more friendly' appearance as an unblock was being called for. I saw nothing wrong in that. Obviously I was wrong, and naturally I apologise. But I also asked for all Sussexman's previous edits (of some 18 months or so ago) to be checkusered to confirm that he is not me (and visa versa). Furthermore, I don't "know him", I was merely introduced to someone who was blocked for what appeared to me an excessively long time, and so against WP policy, and I agreed to try and help by 'tidying' his two pages. Thats all.

I am not entirely certain that I have edited political articles but if I have what, exactly, is the complaint about my edits? That must surely be the crux of the matter - my edits. Apart from the couple of IRA AfDs (which I was canvassed to vote on) I don't recall editing anything concerning Ireland which would be remotely contentious.

Unlike another editor I don't believe that I have ever threatened violence, or legal actions, against anyone - on or off WP. regards, David Lauder (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

David, I think that KB's suggestions are very sensible. At some stage, if and when the Vintagekits situation gets resolved, you really ought to blank this page and simply put up a statement along the lines proposed by KB (even if it does mean losing some of my scintillating prose). I'd only add two points: you need to eat some humble pie over the sock-puppets and multiple voting (what on Earth were you thinking of?!) and some of your posts here, whilst obviously written with a sense of frustration, simply don't read well: you need to get the tone right, for which take KB's advice.

By the way, if you are still editing 'unlawfully' (as suggested here), stop right now. (Apart from anything else, it would be letting me down when I've stuck my neck out for you.) You've got plenty of room here to start drafting your statement, new article on the 'guga', or anything else that comes to mind. If that pales, you'll just have to surf the net for porn, like the rest of us - just don't edit in the main-space. --Major Bonkers (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Major, but we have to get this into an adult perspective. This entire business has been blown out of all possible proportion. Its like a playground battle. Two votes on AfDs and on an ArbCom election. The former were raised in 'The Troubles' ArbCom and I was rapped over the knuckles then. How many times do I get caned for that offence here? I gave some assistance, upon request, to another user. I didn't see this as a big deal. I stand by my edits on Misplaced Pages and have yet to be told that they are abusive or out of order. They are well-sourced and the sources are all available at the National Library. I will repeat until I go to the grave that I am not Sussexman. I have not been editing Misplaced Pages since being banned. I had an email discussion with the person whom you refer to. Thats all. Misplaced Pages's main issue seems to be controlling those whose main object on WP appears to be witch-hunts rather than seeking quality input. At the moment it seems the prime WP worries concentrate on trivia. I am tired of being treated like a major war criminal who has murdered ten thousand innocents. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, to a very large extent I sympathise; I roll my eyes whenever I see, yet again, Giano deploying his adjectives in your (/our) direction. I'm convinced that it'll all come out in the wash. I take it that you're following the discussion here? --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that Alison thinks I might have a point, while Giano thinks my suggestions are "less than wise". I look forward to reading Bonkers's essay Major_Bonkers/Manipulating the Community. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I note the Major's comments. The discussion here is quite beyond belief and reminds me of 'The Troubles' ArbCom (largely the same players). Myself I see numerous issues here which possibly reflect upon the accusations levelled against me.

1. Abusive sockpuppetry. Whilst sockpuppetry is one thing - and I accept it is against WP policy - has it been abusive or disruptive? Surely there must be a fundamental difference between that and the benign?
2. Has a user been deliberately threatening - even physically - and abusive to other users over and above normal adult discussion?
3. Has a user engaged deliberately in harrassment and stalking others and attacking their work which clearly they have no other interest in other than that?

Looking at those three issues alone, I feel there is no real comparison between myself and Vintagekits. Given my own situation, I find the arguments supporting his block being lifted incredulous. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano would agree with you on your "no comparison" perspective. And yes, his arguments either apply to both or neither. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just been reading Giano's comments about everyone being a sock of everyone else, about my/our "extreme views" (would that be extreme when talking about baronets or 14th century knights?) and how I am some sort of notorious gangland leader on WP. (How I am battling to keep everyone in the queue for my computer here in the middle of nowhere!) It has passed the bizarre point, surely? David Lauder (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Giano accepts the statement that you deny namely that you are Sussexman. Alison has said that Sussexman and D_L edited from the same computer within minutes of each other. If you do not know him as stated then there are only two other possibilities - namely that he has used your password or he has used yours. Alison has also said "I'd also note that David Lauder had a substantive history of constructive editing so to say he 'is not here to build an encyclopedia' is a little unfair". What that means imho is that if you email the arbcom or alison then you need to explain the connection with sussexman and ask if you could be reinstated under a new fresh username which will be known to the arbcom committee and the checkuser committee (which includes alison). It sounds to me they will then accept that your motives and intentions are good. But if you say there is no connection whatever and you continue to deny alison's findings and regard her as incorrigibly Irish then you are unlikely to get the ban overturned. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Giano accepts the statement that you deny namely that you are Sussexman" I think we need a diff for that one Kitty. I most certainly do not. This is all sounding horribly familiar isn't it. Giano (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to me that that is what you were saying when you made the post which is immediately above my post. You are saying D_L = Sussexman. Therefore he is banned. D_L is denying it with flat denial. He says checkuser is simply wrong. In which case I think there are 2 other possibilities, whereby S or D_L has logged into the account of the other. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The third, missing option, that he's clinging to is that checkuser is somwhat wrong. Unfortunately, that's far from being the case here as the Lauder case was particularly straightforward as these things go. Furthermore, at least three others have verified my findings with one checkuser, Thatcher, going further in revealing some of the other accounts I'd gone lenient on. Same applied when I assisted his appeal to ArbCom - Alison 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And stating that he "was approached and asked to tidy up Sussexman's User and Talk Pages" is not exactly credible, neither, given that Sussexman used the exact same IP from a dynamic pool within minutes of the Lauder account. Same useragent, too. I simply cannot explain that away, and didn't accept his "you blocked the neighbour and they called me to complain" excuse - Alison 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is true but that explanation isn't going to lead to an unban. The thing D_L has going for him is that he has made numerous very good contributions to the encyclopedia. But if he were to be unbanned maybe it would be subject to, inter alia, the conditions that he avoids "right wing" political articles that he uses one account only and reveals the name of that account to arbcom and the checkuser committee. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Then of course we have Bobby! Giano (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning what? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh i think you know the answer to that one very well Kitty. If not ask "David" Giano (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in your being deliberately obscure. Unless you are seeking to evade being accused of making a personal attack. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert I, I presume, Kittybrewster. Of RFAR fameBishonen | talk 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

That link led me back to which in turn led me to useful contributions and arguments put forward by User:Tyrenius and Guy. So I come back to my original point which is that David Lauder needs to email arbcom with some explanation of the Lauder checkuser link with Sussexman, an argument that he is a net benefit to the encyclopedia and a request that he be readmitted, probably subject to certain conditions. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, it's very telling. "Probably" is it? You reckon? I can't offhand recollect seeing worse behaviour in my four years at Misplaced Pages. By all means encourage him try to make the case to arbcom that he's "a net benefit to the encyclopedia," but I suspect they'll find the notion as laughable as I do. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

I have already emailed an ArbCom member explaining that I was contacted and asked if I would support Sussexman's unbanning as he couldn't even edit his User Page. I said I was not familiar with the case but I would be happy to tidy up/tone down his user and Talk Pages to make them more user-friendly but I would need his password to do that. I was afforded that and I carried out my promised task which I saw as one of goodwill. Obviously I carried out that task from my own computer! I have never edited anything else of Sussexman's, full stop. As for checkuser, it idenitified me firstly as Counter-Revolutionary and Christchurch and Immanuel Can't. All up here using my computer. Sorry but this is untrue. You cannot expect me to accept and confess to something I know in my heart is blatantly untrue. How many of your friends you get together to support each other in this obvious witch-hunt is your business but you are wrong. It appears I have never had any good points on WP and this whole business is just a ruse for a small band of like-mined people to get rid of someone they don't like. People they do like, who are clearly a far greater disruption to WP than I could ever dream of being, are having their blocks lifted. The proof is in the pudding. David Lauder (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)