On 9/3/05, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/3/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
James D. Forrester wrote:
And further, accessing a computer system without authorisation is illegal in the US, the UK, and Australia, to name but a few countries; given that you are banned from Wikipedia, any edits that you were to make would constitute such an illegal act. Several sysops, and not just Mackensen, have suggested that you may well be doing this, violating your ban order. Perhaps you might want to think about finding another place to play, Skyring?
I would have a hard time using this to justify the publication of someone's personal information on Wikipedia.
Skyring's name and address were removed pretty sharply. They are no longer on Wikipedia. James was pointing out that [[user:mackensen]] was justified in accusing Skyring of criminal acts.
On examination, this turns out not to be the case. James (Forrester) talked of accessing a computer system without authorisation. Mackensen was talking of something quite different, namely my relationship with James Duffy, which he regarded as real-life stalking, based on a letter written to the editor of an Irish newspaper. Given that the letter was about a statue given by Ireland to the people of Sydney and had nothing to do with Duffy, Mackensen's accusation of criminal acts was without foundation.
Jim Duffy [[user:jtdirl]] published my <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jtdirl&diff=prev&oldid=22298881">name and address</a> on his user page.
I complained, it was removed by another editor, then Duffy republished it, protected his page and attempted to justify his action. The information was then permanently <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=22313009&oldid=22303046">removed</a> by Mark Ryan.
My question for the Arbcom is this. In what circumstances is an admin justified in maliciously publishing, without permission, the personal details of another editor?
Duffy was in a snit because his submission to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAME">Lamest Edit Wars</a> wasn't judged lame enough. He doesn't have a good record with this page, possibly because he lacks the sense of humour required to laugh at some of the ridiculous edit wars people get into.
Duffy tends to see things in black and white terms, and is quite unable to admit to making an error, which is the basis of our conflict, because I like finding and fixing them. When my personal information was removed from his page, he cleared his user and talk pages and has made no further overt contribution. I think he is active "under the covers", but more of that in a little bit.
[[User:Mackensen]] then made an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=22349545"> extraordinary post</a> to the Administrator's Noticeboard page. He stated that he had "often reverted Skyring's vandalism". I took a look at his contributions and found that although he had certainly reverted vandalism by others he had had very little to do with me in any guise, and nothing that could reasonably be seen as vandalism. He would be hard pressed to produce a single diff to back up his claim.
Far more seriously, he then said: "<i>What Skyring has done to Jtdirl is quite likely a prosecutable crime in many countries.</i>". He used as his justification for this statement a letter written to an Irish newspaper, which he seemed to imagine was an attack on Duffy. In fact <a href="http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=53&si=1455981&issue_id=12906">this letter</a> concerns a statue now standing in Sydney which was a gift from the Irish people. I quote it in its entirety:
<blockquote><i>Sir - I recently visited Sydney in Australia, where I was pleasantly surprised to find that the statue of Queen Victoria in the city centre was a gift from the people of Ireland, and that the old Queen had stood outside Leinster House for many years until 1947.
On researching the statue's history, I found myself fascinated by Dublin's other statues, especially their witty nicknames. One rumour I am trying to confirm is whether the statue now standing outside the Queen Victoria Building once had the marvellously Joycean nickname of 'The Auld Bitch'.
If any of your readers have memories stretching back to those days, I would be delighted to hear them.</i></blockquote>
The link to me is through my contributions to the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria_Building">Queen Victoria Building</a>" article. The statue may be seen <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:QVatQVB.JPG">here</a> and I am charmed that the statue has a colourful history.
Nevertheless, neither this letter nor anything else I may have done amounts to any sort of criminal offence. Mackensen repeatedly removed responses pointing this out.
My second question to the Arbcom is this: Is an admin justified in making allegations of criminal behaviour against another editor without good evidence?
Mackensen's user page was then <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AULDBITCH_LOVES_YOU">vandalised</a>. The use of the term "AULDBITCH" is clearly a reference to the letter. I am sure that David Gerard can check on the source of this vandalism and I am equally sure that he will find nothing to link it to me. In fact, judging by this extremely interesting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=83.71.15.181">series of edits</a> I suggest that it will turn out to be Duffy.
02:03, 2 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Skyring) 01:34, 2 September 2005 (hist) (diff) User:AULDBITCH LOVES YOU (top) 01:30, 2 September 2005 (hist) (diff) User:AULDBITCH LOVES YOU 01:01, 2 September 2005 (hist) (diff) User:AULDBITCH LOVES YOU 22:21, 23 August 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (→HRH) 22:21, 23 August 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (→HRH)
Take a look at those earliest two edits on 23 August - an <a href="http://www.webyield.net/cgi-bin/ipwhois.cgi?addr=83.71.15.181">anon in Dublin</a> did the four tildes to check on his signature, and removed the edit a few seconds later. Further, if you check on the history of this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Camilla%2C_Duchess_of_Cornwall&action=history">article</a> , you will see that only four edits were made on 23 August 2005, all within the span of a few minutes.
<i>(cur) (last) 22:24, 23 August 2005 Jtdirl (→HRH) (cur) (last) 22:21, 23 August 2005 83.71.15.181 (→HRH) (cur) (last) 22:21, 23 August 2005 83.71.15.181 (→HRH) (cur) (last) 22:20, 23 August 2005 Cooldoug111 (HRH)</i>
It might be worthwhile checking where [[user:Cooldoug111]] is posting from, but I suggest that the sequence of events is highly indicative of the anon and Duffy being the same person, with the two minutes intervening between the anon removing his sig and Duffy posting his contribution being the time needed for composition.
Looking at the final four edits made by this anon, I think I can rest my case on this. Duffy vandalised another editor's page and then made a crude attempt to link me to this vandalism.
My third question to the ArbCom is this: In what circumstances is an admin justified in forging evidence against another editor?
And my final question: I have complained about Duffy's behaviour for months now, providing evidence in the form of diffs, as requested. When are you going to start looking at the facts, and can you see why I have no faith at all in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process?