User talk:David Lauder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This User is not a Sock of Sussexman. David Lauder (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We need proof, though. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What kind of proof and how would you suggets he offers it. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nor do I but as I would like to see David able to return to editing I think the issue should be addressed. Even if just saying, okay, we will unblock David and never unblock Sussexman. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano unpictured, leading the proles in their long walk to wiki-freedom

Oh I think we have a little hearing and judging to do before then Rockpocket. Giano (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This user is a Sock of Sussexman as confirmed by TWO seperate Checkusers. Let's make that perfectly clear. SirFozzie (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and lest I forget, the only folks who will overturn this is ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Can I ask what the difference is between this case and that of Vintagekits, who I am happy to see editing again, albeit in a very restricted way, and which was done without referring to arbcom. Any further clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

VK never was banned, as DL has (There was no formal discussion to the ban). Also, VK has admitted guilt. Mr Lauder has only offered further attacks. SirFozzie (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understand your second point, Fozzie. David, I am happy to try to assist you in getting unbanned if I can but suspect Fozzie is right about guilt admission. Thanks, SqueakBox21:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This current discussion is my fault. I was only being silly when I asked DL for proof of his innocents. Let's forget this & move on. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted ArbCom to ask what their position is on a community approved unblocking. If they are fine with it, then the community can decide, per Vintagekits. If ArbCom are not fine with that (and remember they may be in possession of information that us mere mortals are not) then that is that. Unless, of course, Giano is successful in his grass-roots insurrection, and leads us towards to a new world order holding the Arb's heads on a pike. Rockpocket 22:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed the picture of the armour of Giano II. Risker (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom will never be abolished; thankfully. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed not, Goodday. Count me on the side of the bosses, comes from being one. And I think any editor who has contributed constructively should be encouraged to come back. Does David have an equivalent interest to sport (re VK) that isnt political which he could edit to prove himself22:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

Oh - has David been truly away - I think not. Giano (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you got proof? give us the poop (the socks). GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, well that would make him equal to VK, no? Have these alleged socks been abusive? The only time I used a sock was when banned for a month but it was not used abusively, just to satisfy that editing addiction. I would much rather see David edit legitimately and under everyone;s eye rather than using unknown socks. One thing i like about VK's return is that we can all keep an eye on him. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone present DL's socks; where's the proof he's still active? GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, this "editors" problems are a little more complex. For a start VK admitted his faults - this "person" here seem to be in some form of denial, which makes rehabilitation quite impossible, at the moment. How I wish things could be different. Giano (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well i do not believe VK's problems were exactly simple but Fozzie ahd a good point about rehabiliation, and I agree as I said above. I am very glad you wish things could be different, Giano, that is a good starting point and one I hope David gives his full consideration. And if not, yes, as goodday says, he needs to prove it (given Fozzie's RCU statements). Thanks, SqueakBox 23:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think there is abusive sock-puppetry going on you should file a CU request, Giano (though I expect someone else may be doing just that in the near future). Before the community can decide whether DL is to unblocked, and under what conditions, we have to know that ArbCom would permit it. Otherwise we are all wasting our time and setting up more pointless drama. If and when ArbCom get back to me on that, I will be sure to let everyone know. In the meantime I suggest we leave DL in peace, lest this page regresses to the bear baiting of a few weeks past. Rockpocket 22:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I expect so too. I agree with completely Rockpocket, let us all just leave him alone for a few months to come to terms with things. Giano (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply puzzled by this. May I point out that at the time of the community ban there was extensive discussion, with past history, including an ArbCom case, looked at? I don't think that any proposal to unblock would receive consensus, and strongly recommend nobody waste any time on this. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that I have said to everyone, includes ArbCom, what I can. But in response to this last post might I just point out that I was actually banned by three people acting in concert. To cement their actions they subsequently converted it into the so-called 'Community Ban' and its 'discussion' was made largely by the same people who were opposed to me on 'The Troube's' ArbCom and who had failed to have me banned there. In addition it was based upon a hypothesis which I dispute. So the cases he refers to have nothing to do with me. Having examined his contributions it appears he has not been with us that long but nevertheless has some sort of political agenda on Wikipedia which he clearly feels one or more of my alleged socks may disrupt, hence his real objection, but I have not been editing overtly politically anywhere. If my, David Lauder, contributions to Wikipedia are so non-academic/factual, abusive and offensive, then you ought to ban me. David Lauder (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)