Re-instatement of Dave Connelly

Post by **administrator** » 17 Nov 2006, 22:19

Charles wrote:Alison says she no longer posts here because she was fed up with being harassed by you, and by you making false allegations about her abusing various connections. She requested that she be removed from the member list, but her initial requests were ignored, so she deleted her posts. A further request to be removed from the memberlist was finally actioned.
Dave no longer posts here because he has been barred. He said on the schools topic some time ago that he didnâ€™t intend to post on it again, and after Alison deleted her posts, the administrators were so cheesed off at her that they deemed it necessary to barr Daveâ€™s login, so that he doesnâ€™t do the same!! He has asked that he be re-instated, as he would still like to post on some of the other topics, but he has been told that he must promise that he wonâ€™t delete any posts before they will let him back on. As a point of principle, he is not willing to make such a promise, as he should have the same rights as every other registered user to edit his posts as he sees fit.

As a rule, we do not comment on matters relating to individual accounts. However, since Charles has chosen to make this public, the administrators feel obliged to set the record straight.

Alison asked to be de-registered on 6 November. This matter was discussed at a meeting of the administrator team on 7 November and it was agreed that we would de-activate her account, which we did the following day. Unfortunately, Alison had already decided to delete every post she had ever made. On 9 November, Alison asked to be removed from the member list and we agreed to and actioned this request.

Dave had already made it clear that he was unhappy with the way that the â€˜Schoolsâ€™ thread was being moderated and that he did not wish to post again. You may recall his comment, â€˜See you on the real forumâ€™.

In view of Alisonâ€™s recent actions, and according with his wishes, we decided to suspend Daveâ€™s account. At the same time we decided to de-activate the account of Rex Mundi, which we felt sure was being used as an alter ego by Dave, in contravention of posting guidelines. Dave continues to deny that this is the case, although the IP addresses match up.

We informed Dave of these actions and explained that we would be happy to re-activate his â€˜Dave Connellyâ€™ account if he could give us his word that he would not follow Alisonâ€™s suit by deleting all of his posts â€“ a reasonable request, given the circumstances. Alternatively, he has the option of re-registering under a different username.

So, the truth is that Dave has not been barred and Alison has been de-registered at her own request.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 17 Nov 2006, 22:38

Thanks for that Mods but I am puzzled by one point?

If Dave, or indeed any member, wants to delete their posts then so what? It is not an action I would condone, but I cannot see how a request to do so is reasonable given that most POL'ers are not subject to the same conditions. Un bar him and let him post/delete etc like everyone else.

2 x IP addresses is a different issue.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Nov 2006, 23:10

Pop, my personal take on this is that once you hit the 'Submit' button you are putting your personal views into the public domain. And in doing so, you are implicitly giving the site owners license to make your post available to anyone who chooses to visit this particular slice of the world wide web.

The intellectual property may reside with the author, but the content of the database to which you have just contributed belongs to the site owners. In the case of Alison Connelly, by removing all of her posts she has disturbed the continuity of the posts on this particular thread and, perhaps deliberately, devalued the debate.

As administrators, we feel justified in taking measures to ensure that no-one else follows Alison's example by removing posts on this thread.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 17 Nov 2006, 23:19

I was suprised old posts could be deleted. Most of my discussion forum experience has been on a fairly feisty site where you only had an hour in which to make an edit before your post was permanent.

On that site it was an absolute neccesity to avoid threads becoming unintelligible. People could go back and alter their posts, making subsequent responses seem unreasonable, or otherwise every post responded to had to be quoted in full, which itself is tedious and disruptive to the flow of discussion.

moderators · Post by **moderators** » 24 Nov 2006, 13:35

Charles wrote: Dave no longer posts here because he has been barred. He said on the schools topic some time ago that he didnâ€™t intend to post on it again, and after Alison deleted her posts, the administrators were so cheesed off at her that they deemed it necessary to barr Daveâ€™s login, so that he doesnâ€™t do the same!! He has asked that he be re-instated, as he would still like to post on some of the other topics, but he has been told that he must promise that he wonâ€™t delete any posts before they will let him back on. As a point of principle, he is not willing to make such a promise, as he should have the same rights as every other registered user to edit his posts as he sees fit.

Dave's membership has now been reinstated. We acknowledge that Dave should have the same posting and editing rights as other members.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Nov 2006, 13:42

Hello Dave.

I'm glad they have opened the pod bay doors for you.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Nov 2006, 14:04

Yep, forum members should all have the same right and play be the same rules, so reinstatement is the right thing to do.

What's happening wirh Rex? Did anything happen with Rex?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 24 Nov 2006, 14:08

Welcome back Dave - I thought the action taken against you was unfair.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Nov 2006, 22:09

Yeah, welcome back.

$\:D/$

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 27 Nov 2006, 23:49

I realise that there has been some debate regarding me being allowed to post on this forum. I would like to publicly thank those who agreed that I should have the same rights as any other person posting here online.

Democracy would appear to be working

I am posting from the same computer as normal, however, you, (mods) will see that I am posting from a different IP address. My goodness the wonders of modern science.

I will post online again after my complaint has been dealt with thoroughly, and the data protection request resulted. The POL site is subject to data protection laws and as such the moderators have to, by law, comply. It was good of Porty to confirm that the backups were kept as this helps tremendously. Ta Porty.

I realised after the anouncement at this evenings community council that there are problems with the complaints procedure and I understand that it does take time. I would include the reasons for me being barred here but I dont want to embarrass anyone. Suffice to say I have been reinstated, (so far).

I was sorry to hear that POL is distancing its self from the community council, (May have picked that up wrongly though) and forming a public interest company, could someone please explain what that means in lay persons terms. How will it change POL and the rights of those who have an interest in it/post on it?

I would like to emphasise that I do not hold any personal grudges or ill feelings towards the moderators/admin staff/tech people who maintain the site. But I expect to receive a reply in writing from POL within 28 days of my data protection request.

Cheers

Dave

P.S.

Email from Rex_Mundi why barred please?

Porty and Ali would appear to know

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Nov 2006, 00:39

Dave, if you would like copies of posts that you have made I would suggest that they will remain available for you or anyone else to view for as long as you decide not to delete them. If you would like your very own copy you may wish to copy and paste them into a Word document.

What else do you imagine we are required to furnish you with and what exactly do you hope to achieve from your request?

PS Please give my regards to Rex next time you see him.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Nov 2006, 11:50

Dave Connelly wrote: It was good of Porty to confirm that the backups were kept as this helps tremendously. Ta Porty.

Erm...why such faith in what Porty said Dave? Remember when I deleted the whole of the Bath Street thread when moving it into the Portobello Matters forum?

I was sorry to hear that POL is distancing its self from the community council, (May have picked that up wrongly though) and forming a public interest company, could someone please explain what that means in lay persons terms. How will it change POL and the rights of those who have an interest in it/post on it?

I've posted a reply over on the Portobello Online and the Community Council
thread Dave.

But I expect to receive a reply in writing from POL within 28 days of my data protection request.

Not 40 days?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Nov 2006, 12:40

Dave Connelly wrote:P.S.

Email from Rex_Mundi why barred please?

Porty and Ali would appear to know

Appearances can be deceptive and until now I didn't ken for sure that Rex was barred.. It is widely thought that yourself and Rex are one and the same, there are references dotted around the forums. It may appear to some that I know that you are Keir Hardie too. Indeed I have been accused of knowing that you were also Charles and Jean Douglas, at least here on the forum, I have no such knowledge but the subject reared its head again when Charles all of a sudden started posting when you were suspended.

Dave Connelly wrote:
I am posting from the same computer as normal, however, you, (mods) will see that I am posting from a different IP address. My goodness the wonders of modern science.

I may have picked this up wrong but if one takes a laptop to various different locations does the IP address change? I really don't know

I imagine suspicions are aroused if two or more people posted from the same IP address, like myself and Stephen McIntyre. It is not uncommon for us to post from home and work, as we are one and the same person.

Dave Connelly wrote: It was good of Porty to confirm that the backups were kept as this helps tremendously. Ta Porty.

I fear you have too much faith in me, I don't hold any position here on POL and am not a techy bod. I believe that the site is archived and that requires back-ups. Perhaps Wangi or Paul could confirm or otherwise? I also know that copies can be taken of specific threads but this is not done as a matter of course.

Dave Connelly wrote: I realised after the anouncement at this evenings community council that there are problems with the complaints procedure

Thats a bit of an assumptive jump there Dave, what makes you say that?

Dave Connelly wrote:I was sorry to hear that POL is distancing its self from the community council,

Why are you sorry Dave? What impact do you see this change having?

You mention the Data Protection Act, how does that apply to Nelson Hatstand? What are his/her rights?

Nelson Hatstand · Post by **Nelson Hatstand** » 28 Nov 2006, 13:35

Porty wrote:You mention the Data Protection Act, how does that apply to Nelson Hatstand? What are his/her rights?

Pretty much the same as anyone else's I imagine, whatever they are. I do know that when you register on this forum, you have to agree with the following:

You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered above being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent the webmaster, administrator and moderators cannot be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.

So maybe that's it. Big deal.

All my other accounts have been suspended as well. JP. Bearcub's Bezzy Mate. Roger Twongle (though what that has to do with me I'm not sure.

). So poor old Rex Mundi isn't alone.

I do think if Dave wants to delete all his posts, then it's up to him, but it would be a shame. Especially the ones on this forum, which have me rolling laughing out loud on the floor at times, and the games he has made up as well, which are never less than excellent.

CHEERS,
NELSON.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 28 Nov 2006, 23:59

Bob,
you, the moderators, and the sub committee have my written requests regardinbg the data protection issue. I expect them to be treated professionally and expect a full reply covering all of the information requested. If you are unsure what I requested, please read the email again. You will see that it covers more than the posts which I put on the forum.

Whether the posts have information has been deleted from the forum or not, it is still held on your servers/computer. In fact even if you delete it off the server, it is still there.

I have also made similar requests to the council, who have accepted my requests and will reply in due course.

I would suggest that you also take, Rex's complaint seriously. But hey its up to you!

Marya, thanks for that.

Porty, my point was that I/anyone can make their Ip address appear top be whatever they want if they have the correct software. Anyone suffering paranoia about posters is the problem of the person who has the paranoia, however, If POL is banning people by IP address then they should really ban anyone who uses the same computer at an internet cafe, library etc etc.

Regarding the complaints procedure, Marya covered that at the meeting, you were sitting next to her, maybe she could explain.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Nov 2006, 00:06

Dave, rest assured that I will be giving this matter all the seriousness it deserves.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Nov 2006, 12:09

Dave Connelly wrote:
Porty, my point was that I/anyone can make their Ip address appear top be whatever they want if they have the correct software.

I accept that. The thing is tho, why would one POL member purchase/steal software just to mimic another POL members IP addresss? I'm guessing the only reason its not against forum rules is that no-one was perverse enough to rule against such deviousness.

In any case, what is the relevance of IP address faking to yourself and Rex? Do both of you post from the same IP address (es), if so why and how often?

(I am quite happy to answer the same questions about myself and Stephen. Why? -I asked permission and. How often?- always.)

Mods can you help in the case of Rex and Dave?

Dave Are you suggesting that Rex is mimicing your IP addresses or is it the other way around?

You got to admit Dave, if yourself and Rex are the same person its pretty bad as you have often had conversations with each other anongst other things and we have an email from Rex into the bargain, (see above)

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Nov 2006, 13:44

Having a spoof IP address would add an interesting slant to E-petition entries - if someone had Dave's software then they could :

(a) be in Portobello and pretend to be an American golfer and sign the PPAG petition in an attempt to fuel a debate on wider-community constitution

(b) be outside Portobello and sign either petition under the auspices of locality in order to avoid view-devaluation

(c) be in Portobello and pretend to be a concerned ex-pat in, say, Haddington, Lilithgow or Lusaka and sign either petition

(d) come up with multiple names and addresses (say, from the electoral register) and appear to come from Portobello to bloat either petition

etc

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Nov 2006, 13:50

Yes, the thought had occurred to me but not quite the number of options you came up with there.

Surely one would have to be pretty devious to deploy such tactics but the question remaons why would someone buy or steal software that spoofed IP addresses. Is their a legitimate reason?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Nov 2006, 13:53

Dadaist wrote:Having a spoof IP address would add an interesting slant to E-petition entries - if someone had Dave's software

Careful!!!!

Dave is hot on the various Acts that govern community forums. It may not be his software it could belong to Rex.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Nov 2006, 14:12

Porty wrote:Yes, the thought had occurred to me but not quite the number of options you came up with there.

Surely one would have to be pretty devious to deploy such tactics but the question remaons why would someone buy or steal software that spoofed IP addresses. Is their a legitimate reason?

There are whole avenues of thought which relate to the right to privacy and anonymity versus the right of the state to be able to monitor criminal activity. It's a big debate and IP addresses are a part of it now.

You can get "anonymizing proxies" - websites which you surf "through" which mean that nobody knows who or where you are.

Is there a legitimate reason? Somewhere restrictive like Saudi or China - sure - free speech is clamped down on there.

Here? I can't think of a legitimate reason offhand. Encryption yes - you might want to "hide" business-sensitive data and credit-card numbers, research, patents etc - but identity?

Unless you were some sort of spy then I can't think of one - except if you wanted to play a practical joke on someone and make it look like you sent them an email from the Whitehouse, or something.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Nov 2006, 14:21

So one could use this software to monitor or investigate crininal activity or to assist in spying. Rex almost exclusivley posted quotes from famous or well known people in other words adopted other identities, he also invented a whole family. Do you think its his software and that he is in fact a spy?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Nov 2006, 14:27

No. I'm satisfied enough that Occam's razor applies here and that Dave Connelly is Rex Mundi.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Nov 2006, 14:35

I must confess that does make sense.

Mind you. I feel one of these coming on:

Dave Connelly wrote:Last chance you are absolutely correct on that one.
You just can't see past the ends of your noses, thats the trouble with wee gangs.

I don't have to validate or justify anything. You are just struggling to find someone to be pedantic with

Edit yourselves happy, I have already saved the original pages along with all of the other posts, (edited after complaint and otherwise).

Wonder why Dave is so keen to have the mods provide copies when he already has them saved?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 29 Nov 2006, 14:43

Dave Connelly wrote:I would suggest that you also take, Rex's complaint seriously. But hey its up to you!

You're right, Dave, it is. In choosing to use the POL forums, you (I mean "one") accept the terms and conditions as laid out by the posting guidleines. The posting guidelines state very clearly:

Any member adjudged to be in breach of the guidelines may be suspended or barred as the moderators consider appropriate.

So although I appreciate your suggestion, and am shocked that you think we aren't taking his complaint seriously, we have acted within our rights in this matter. Taking someone's complaint seriously is not the same thing as upholding it.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 29 Nov 2006, 18:03

Porty wrote:.....blah, blah.........
Porty, my point wa..............

Porty/Steven,

If you can't think of anything better than the fairly weak insults and innuendo, I would suggest taking classes.

Even better, look up the ALLPORT scale, then look at your posts, then come up with something original and worth reading.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 29 Nov 2006, 18:08

Dadaist wrote:No. I'm satisfied enough that Occam's razor applies here and that Dave Connelly is Rex Mundi.

Like it

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Nov 2006, 11:32

Dave Connelly wrote:
Porty wrote:.....blah, blah.........
Porty, my point wa..............

Porty/Steven,

If you can't think of anything better than the fairly weak insults and innuendo, I would suggest taking classes.

Even better, look up the ALLPORT scale, then look at your posts, then come up with something original and worth reading.

Your full re-instatement is now complete, same old same old.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 30 Nov 2006, 15:03

ageist