I don't known if there has been a thread on this one. This group of British establishment types include the eccentric Major Bonkers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Major_Bonkers

He enjoys opera - all 4 of them (geddit). He actually has a box saying 'This user supports your right to hunt down and kill foxes'. Another saying 'This user eats Marmite' and yet another saying 'This user eats Lobster. It goes very well with Chablis'. The comments on The Titanomachy are very funny and best read in full. Bonkers, strange to say, is an admirer of both WR and Guy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maj...about_people.29



Other members of the group include

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:W._Frank

whose sock 'Alice' (an attractive Singaporean)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alice

has just been revealed, and appropriate block enacted.

There was some suspicion that Frank was himself a sockpuppet of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gaimhreadhan

Since they share the same workplace computer, and even the same email address, and have similar editing patters. This refers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:W._Frank...ockpuppet_block

However the sock allegation was disproved in May:



Sadly however Gaimhreadhan died of terminal cancer in August 2007 (there is a long list of condolences in Frank's talk page.

Other members of the group are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kittybrewster

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Lauder

There is a deep acrimony between this group and the Giano/Bishonen axis. Giano (I'll find some quotes) despises them either because he feels they are too posh or not posh enough or whatever. (Giano feels it is very naff to write about members of the British aristocracy, like it's not naff to write about a whole bunch of houses once owned by the British aristocracy). He has a particular dislike of Lauder because he claims to know the Duke of Buccleuch. Thus they all naturally voted against him in the recent election.

There is a similarly deep hatred between the group and the Wikipedia 'Irish republican' group whose members include

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:One_Night_In_Hackney

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vintagekits

'20 blocks and still standin!'. The KB group regards them as IRA supporters and there was a huge row over the article on The Troubles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

which itself was a sort of reenactment of the sad affairs in Northern Ireland. Frank's main contribution was to change every occurrence of 'IRA' to 'PIRA' which would promptly be reverted back to 'IRA' then there would be 3RR, multiple blockings &c. Such is progress.

I eat Marmite. And lobster (though admittedly not with wine).

Who does - Giano or Lauder? Actually, I know the Duke of Buccleuch, and he's a very nice chap.

Watch out, soon it will be, "knowing the Duke of Buccleuch in a similar way"....

We should pin a thread with an explanation of the origin of "living in England in a similar way," which has given us all so many pleasant moments of comic relief.

Lauder. There was a particularly venomous remark by Giano, on a report by Lauder about a conversation with said peer. Giano seizes on this and makes all sorts of cruel fun. Sadly I can't locate it again without going through Giano's voluminous edit history.

- Sir Peter Damian

No, I can't find the remark either - pity. I do remember it though. You see I always knew something about them, that no one else ever seemed quite able to grasp, or wanted to grasp. (I did mention it to the Arbs). However, I see it has finally come out in the wash though, things always do in the end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Case/Sussexman. God, I hope this works, I have never posted here before - I can't see how to save.

Giano

Hello, Giano. Welcome to WR.

The most disturbing aspect of that whole clique was how a bunch of British nitwits, barons, and people-posing-as-barons managed to get their teeth into the articles on the Northern Irish Troubles. Causing so much ..er.. trouble themselves. A testament to how crazy WP had become. It got so bad even Squeakbox appeared to be a voice of reason.

Aha! That is what you are suposed to think, they are far from "nit wit barons" - very far indeed. The sort of person they attempt to personify, would never edit Wikipedia, they can barely send an email, editing an internet site would be more downmarket to them than prostituting one's wife. Kittybrewster (who is a 1st generation baronet) is in fact the brother of a rightwing politician, but it is Lauder who is the leader of the pack, and the one to watch.

Giano

OMG it's Giano! :-D

You mean he was created a baronet? I didn't think there were any living people who can claim that.

No, his father was created a baronet, so he is the first generation, 2nd baronet. The English do still create them, I thnk Margaret Tatcher's husband Denis was one of the last. IF you follow the links for a while, from their pages, you can see quite clearly what the game is - very British Establishment POV, they are what is known as High Torys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Tory as promoted by http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...ry_Lauder-Frost (I hope that link is allowed here). This was half the problem with "The Troubles" which did not help when trying to acheive a balanced view.

Giano

In Kittybrewster's defence (a phrase I never thought I'd use), he - and ironically his arch-enemy BrownHairedGirl - do a lot of the dull-but-necessary hackwork that's needed if Wikipedia's ever to be credible; checking birth/death dates and places, writing stub articles for minor politicians, and so on. Kittybrewster & co's great problem is a total lack of ability to understand that "family friend" (or indeed, "member of my family") does not translate to "notable" — skim through any of his contributions to these debates.

In my experience, he's always been perfectly polite, even when I was plodding through his contribution history deleting around a third of it. His problem is that the "Irish Republican Cabal" (his phrase) tend to deliberately needle him (and vice versa) until one or the other is blocked. I think Giano would admit that he was not the most calming of influences on the whole sorry mess, either.

For Pete's sake — Get A Room!


Jonny

Denis Thatcher was the only one created in recent years and he's no longer with us. Kittybrewster's father was created a baronet in 1964 for services to Parliament. He himself has never done very much but hey, that's what hereditary titles are for.

Before I start letting rip - can I say what I want in this place with recourse on wiki?

Depends upon what you say. If it's something critical of any of the "higher-ups" or of those they protect, they will label you a troll or worse and may attempt to make your life hell on-wiki.

Wow! VK is here Welcome to WR ...



lol - I wouldn't worry about that, somehow. Check out his block log. VK has quite the reputation.

Well, someone's been busy. I haven't seen a block log like that in months.

That's because most editors with records like that get indefinite blocks.

Been there - done that - how many times???

Sadly, VK's many talents are not appreciated on Wikipedia. Not only has one of his very informative biographies been reverted JzG has now just reverted the history too http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history. Now why could that be I wonder?

Giano

Entire sockfarm's being banned.
Discussion on at AN here. There's a link to an undeleted ArbCom that gives us a reason why Guy deleted the history of this article.

I feel bad for Giano out of this one. Lauder and his socks/pals did his best to nuke his arb vote and then denied it all. Giano has every right to be annoyed on this one.

The way things are, they would have blocked him for unseemly happiness, as they're considering with One Night in Hackney.

Don't feel bad for me, the Arbs and I knew exactly who he was a long time before the election. The problem was, I was the only one unhappy with the situation, which of course caused a little resentment on my part.

Giano

That's got to be one of the most ignorant comments I've seen in awhile.

Fortunately for VK, he has admin friends (Alison and Sir Fozzie) who have protected him from being indefintely blocked. Fozzie has recently blocked David Lauder indefentely, while only a few months ago, he supported VK- who has multiple sock and meat puppets.

A little reminder, Astro. I indefinitely blocked VK and fought long and hard to have it maintained against a lot of pressure, not least of all from Giano. You know this.

Furthermore, Lauder was caught socking by checkuser for an editor who was banned for making legal threats off-wiki. It's was one of the clearest-cut RFCU cases I've ever run. Seriously. And it was Lauder who was socking in an attempt to nuke Giano's chances at ArbCom. BTW - I campaigned strongly on WP:AN to have Counter-revolutionary unblocked even though it was I who ran the checkuser. Go figure.

BTW, welcome to WR.

I think this is one the most classless things I have ever seen. Of course, you have to admire such breathtaking arrogance. Unfortunately, the opposition isn't any above it either.

I know that you blocked VK to begin with, but also know you unblocked him after Hackney campaigned for him to be allowed back.

As for the checkuser, the point is you are known to be a friend of Hackney, and from a review of your talk page, you often have off-wiki correspondance with him. Indeed some of the talk suggests that Hackney and Fozzie are contacting you to do checkuser requests for them. How can we believe you are acting independently if you have links to these people, and have already taken sides in the Troubles dispute.

It took literally months before VK was unblocked and it was done under the strict conditions that he only edit Wikipedia to participate in the ArbCom case. Plain and simple. It got to the point at one stage when Giano got highly offensive and began talking about the Spanish Inquisition (ya, really!) and comparing me to Tomas de Torquemada. It was actually Giano who spearheaded the unblocking of VK and I held out for the longest time - go ask him yourself.

I was always opposed to unblocking VK, and this is probably why the guy still won't really speak to me to this day.

Hackney does not contact me in private to do checkuser requests, nor does Fozzie. Even if they did, that's not against rules. Go check. BTW - I've also checkusered people on that side of the fence, too. When are the Unionist camp going to file a checkuser request, BTW? If one is filed for valid reason, I'll certainly run it.

And for the record, I've not "taken sides" in the Troubles dispute. Indeed, I actively strive to keep away from those articles. I've better things to be doing than fighting inane turfwars on WP.

Should we just take your word for it? This checkuser request should have been handled by an independent admin, and not one involved in Troubles Arbcom. Hackney is known to have a history of trying to discredit editors he opposes in the Troubles arbcom- he has even tried unsuccessfuly to slander me on a few occassions. You were a named person in the Arbcom, and you have a friendship with the other people involved (Hackney and Foz). It is obviously biased decision, hence why Counter's block was quickly reversed.

Well, without your even asking, I've put the case live again and requested a second checkuser evaluation. I've also contacted the Checkuser mailing list and requested review. Happy yet? Once again, ask yourself why I seem a little .. umm, confident ... here. I'm 100% straight on checkuser with everyone - ask any of the regulars on here. You're short of facts and full of baseless accusation.

And quit trying to link me to Hackney.

And another thing, I campaigned for Counter-revolutionary's unblocking, even though I ran the checkuser. Duh!

Anything else you'd like to get wrong?

I don't follow any of these claims about a "manipulative", "pro-IRA" Hackney, based on his contributions.

I do observe a bunch of right wing British nitwits sabotaging the Troubles articles and presenting arguments not seen in mainstream British life since about 1974 -- which I have assumed is the problem. Unless anyone shows evidence to the contrary?

Actually, like most people in the UK, I don't care about Northern Ireland much. The Troubles dispute began when several Republican editors started creating articles on dead terrorists, which were send for deletion. They then began attacking articles on nobility created by some of those editors who voted to delete minor terrorist articles.

A bunch? Try one guy and his foxhound.

Astrotrain,

I don't care for your baiting of Alison, though I have seen her around here long enough that I am confident that she will not associate some of your intemperate comments with WR as a whole.

What I do find very offensive is your suggestion, which I assume is due to your youth, that most people in the UK do not care about Northern Ireland. While many people may wish to put it from their minds, anyone who lived through the 70s and 80s could not help but care about Northern Ireland, whether on one side or another. You might be surprised how many people were personally affected by bombings - one friend of mine had his family seriously injured in the Tower of London bombing, where a close family friend of theirs was killed, still marked with a small sign in the Armoury if you care to check, and another friend lost her father in the Brighton Bombings.

The point about Torquemada was that he was of Jewish ancestry yet was more brutal to his kinsfolk than almost anyone else. Which relatives is Alison charged with being brutal to?

Most people in the UK, of all nationalities, care very much about the Irish problems, most of us over 20 can still remember clearly the horror of the Warrington bombings, and the many other similar atrocities that should have shocked the world, and cut off the IRA's funds. I can see both sides of the coin but blowing up children never seemed much of a way to win a war to me. It would be interesting to know the exact numbers killed during the Troubles, but it must run into thousands. So please Astrotrain do not make light of a subject you clearly do not understand.

Yes, I did do my best to have Vintagekits unblocked, not for any political reasons, but because the evidence presented against him was clearly false. I was, perhaps, the one person on Wikipedia capable of realising that, presenting it fairly. Others could have, but VK is not the most beloved of people, and perhaps others feared for their reputation. VK was innocent of the charges of which he was accused and he was acquitted, end of story. Except of course being Wikipedia, if one cannot have a public execution at least shoot the learned counsel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...eafter_mentored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._every_24_hours, for once even Bauder could not dream up horrific fate forme there.

Regarding the present sad situation with "Lauder et al", well that to can firmly be laid at the door of an Arbcom who either were unable to, or did not choose to, address the problem earlier. They certainly were warned and aware that there was right-wing infiltration of POV by a seemingly organized group. I have no idea whether they are one or twenty - guilty or innocent - but they certainly do seem to sing from the same hymn book and, we are told, the same computer, although I expect that computer is several in the same system sharing a common IP. We must draw our own conclusions - who knows the truth?

Giano

Yeah, I campaigned for VK to be allowed back. Obviously. That would be why I said his conduct was deplorable in my statement to the ArbCom case, and it would also be why I supported a one year ban for him.




Why would I ever need to slander you? You make yourself look foolish every time you speak, there's no need for me to even make an effort.

Note to all unfamilar with Astrotrain, he's big on accusations and short on facts and evidence. In terms of unintentional hilarity, he's quite good though

Welcome, Hackney!

Has anyone noticed that a ton of people seemed to have joined in the last week or so?

Resistance is futile.

Gregory Lauder-Frost is a [redacted by moderators] right-wing extremist on the fringe of the fringe, who launched off-wiki legal action against at least one other editor who dared to tell the truth about him in his puff-piece hagiography that Wikipedia is much better off without. You think I'm not going to mock his downfall, which ironically came at the hands of someone who he'd probably consider to be a violent, unpatriotic working class thug? You're more likely to find holy water in an Orange Hall...



Why thank you. I've been lurking for a while (mostly laughing at Barber's protestations of innocence), but yesterday I saw there were some Jackanories that needed to be addressed.



On the subject of Star Trek, it's nice to know the BBC are totally neutral isn't it?

It's important to call admins when they need to disengage, need to recuse, need a second opinion, but the notion that as soon as an admin gets involved in something they are tainted forever is not a good approach. Alison is not tainted, she's quite impartial, and you're not going to get too far barking up that particular tree.

To be fair, RTE in Ireland also banned the Star Trek episode.


Eh?

JB196.

Second checkuser result is in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...7/Vote/Giano_II

Oppose - wrong temperament, too quick to condemn, and prone to unjust extreme solutions. A bad judge. David Lauder 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[Oppose]--Counter-revolutionary 12:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, ten minutes examining this bloke's contributions history and his sarcastic comments leads me to think he would be an appalling arbitrator. Too self-opinionated and too keen to force his views on others. --Christchurch 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: Any candidate who admits the following faults: "I have strong views, and don't suffer fools, at times I am abrupt and tactless" (preamble above) and "is nasty and bad tempered" (header warning at [14]) should not be putting themselves forward as a candidate here. Chelsea Tory 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm .... How do you know how much the new members weigh?

Curious, isn't it? The interesting thing, I felt at the time was, as I had alerted the Arbs (via Bauder and Mackensen) to the Lauder situation months earlier, why they allowed this vote stacking to happen. perhaps they would like to offer an explanation?

Giano