On 9/2/05, Jtkiefer <jtkiefer(a)wordzen.net> wrote: Judging by this edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_not… may still be around, playing some game of his own and unwilling as ever to admit he's done anything wrong. Perhaps David Gerard can take a look at the interesting series of edits at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AULDBITCH_LOVES_YOU and let us know his thoughts about this stuff coming out of Dublin? Nothing I've done amounts to the criminal behaviour of which Mackensen has publicly accused me, nor do my actions warrant having my name and address published by an admin, and I certainly don't deserve having my name attached to the crude vandalism of Mackensen's user page. Be fair, please!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 geni 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? Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james(a)jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Skyring wrote: Which shows just how much you know about such laws. :-) Seriously, Wikipedia's very openness means that blocking and banning are highly visible and obvious instructions to people to not access the system, and IMO would be very easy to point to in court as opposed to merely unadvertised computer systems that have an open port on them that people connect to (which has landed people in gaol in several locations, especially when said computer systems are military in nature). Not that we have any intention of having you prosecuted, so this is all by-the-by and rather irrelevant. However, wikien-l is not the place to query your ban by the Arbitration Committee; it is not a community matter, but one for the Board, and Jimbo in particular. Feel free to email them about it. Certainly, feel free to cease emailing /us/ about it, unendingly and pointlessly. Yours, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james(a)jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com

Skyring wrote: You seem to forget that [[WP:NOT]] the USA. Best wishes, Nick -- Nicholas Boalch School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3420 University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421 New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/

On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 12:24:07PM +1000, Skyring wrote: I can't see as "real-life identification" matters. Permission to access the system is withdrawn from a person, not an "identification". Once that permission is withdrawn, access is unauthorized. A shop does not require "real-life identification" before allowing you to enter, either. But if you behave in a manner which offends the shopkeeper and she orders you to leave and never come back, and you fail to obey, you are trespassing. Identification doesn't enter into it: the shopkeeper withdrew _your_ permission to be on her property -- not your _name's_ or _ID card's_ permission. It isn't your "identification" that's breaking the law by continuing to edit Wikipedia (if you are so doing). It's you. -- Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>

I apologise to the list. I am the one responsible for these emails of Skyring's reaching the mailing list despite him being banned from the mailing list. I won't let it happen again. ~Mark Ryan WikiEN-l mailing list administrator

Hi there, So I take it you are a pissy inclusionist then? :) In all seriousness though it is a difficult issue. I think the more recent controversial ones like Stardestroyer.net (its 3rd VfD which finally resulted in its demise) and trekbbs one or whatever highlight this. VfD itself is an interesting mentality that is really easy to get sucked into. Even though are many fairly notable websites that get canned because they fall just short of WB:WEB for example, many other articles that don't meet it get kept for other reasons, such as because they are entertaining (GNAA, List of Ethnic Stereotypes etc. etc.). The system does work in a sense though. For example, a couple a put up there that were of somewhat non-notable websites, but were written very well, got deleted rather soundly with a surprising turnout given the subject matter (and some funny but demeaning jokes from the voters). Of course, I say it works in the sense that you're making a strict encyclopedia, which tends to go against the wikiway (I mean the C2 wikiway not the wikipedia wikiway :)). In fact when I first came to WP a long time ago I thought that was the way it worked... and was surprised to see VfD and other venues to removing content. I myself got sucked into it earlier on (admittedly its quite fun and a great way to inflate your edit count), plus there are a lot of old-timers there (who probably are deletionists themselves ;)). Lately, I've been realizing that there needs to be more inclusionists voting there (although some self-described inclusionists seem to vote delete on everything anyway...). Maybe it gets back to the old argument that you need people who are really familiar with the subject to judge it. Who knows...

On 9/5/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: Specialist wikis are to be expected. We shall see. Forks of wikipedia don't tend to do too well in the long run -- geni

Snowspinner (Snowspinner(a)gmail.com) [050906 06:07]: Tch! And I remember you ranting on IRC about how rude the inclusionists were on VFD and how the deletionists would never be so obnoxious ... Note, by the way, that the spurious deletion criteria for webcomics is a symptom of the spurious criterion of "notability". Which has repeatedly been rejected as policy. I move: 1. VFD or AFD or whatever it's called be shut down entirely. No article deletion other than CSD, copyvios and similar. VFD is sufficiently damaging that *nothing at all* would be better than it existing in any present form. 2. A month to discuss new deletion mechanisms. 1 should get the keen deletionists very interested indeed. 3. A vote. Nothing passes with under 75% support. - d.

On 9/6/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: As sad as AfD can occasionally be, it's an effective tool for band vanity, etc. If we're going to get rid of AfD, we need to do one or more of the following things first: 1. Expand CSD to include things like band vanity, etc. that get submitted to AfD on a daily basis. 2. Replace AfD with something better and easier. 3. Allow administrators to delete pages on site, replacing them with a notice similar to {{deletedpage}}, and allowing all relevant debate on VfU (controversial, but perhaps an easier system than VfD is right now). I don't think removing AfD entirely will solve anything; rather, I think accomplished trolls will start to add nonsense that *barely* passes CSD, but is unencyclopedic, or even non-factual in nature. The United States nearly collapsed until the Constitution was written, because the Articles of Confederation were as well as having no policy at all. Such would be the case if we deleted the main deletion mechanism. -- Sincerely, Ral315 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ral315

VFD certainly won't pass, why don't we put ''it'' to a vote? ;) Jack (Sam Sp;ade) On 9/6/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 9/6/05, Ryan Norton <wxprojects(a)comcast.net> wrote: This is a question to which I don't know the answer. If we can get an answer (and I doubt we will), then it would determine the whole future of Wikipedia. The question is fundementally "what is more important, wiki-, or -pedia?" I think I believe that the encyclopedia should trump all else. But I am by no means sure of this. It may in fact be in the encyclopedia's very interest that a pure wiki philosophy is kept. I don't know. I would, however, be interested to hear what others think. Sam

On 9/6/05, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis(a)gpsports-eng.com> wrote: "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. And we need your help." The line between knowledge and trivia is becoming smaller. As the power of computers to store, sort, retreive, and present information in meaningful ways increases, our need for exclusivity, born in the days of chiseled stone slabs, clay tablets, and painted pottery, fades rapidly. Something revolutionary has begun. Until we face media shortage, a real relevant question is "At what point does a combination of data become knowledge worth recording?" -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

Fastfission wrote: So that's the ultimate standard? As soon as nobody is surprised that we have an article on a subject, we need the article? I love it! :) -[[en:User:Humblefool]]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, David wrote: I guess this is an application of a rule that Jimbo mentions in his emails from time to time: the Principle of Least Astonishment. That is, if you consider Wikipedia's coverage of a given topic definitive, authorative, &/or exhaustive, it would reasonably astonish the reader if there was not an article about a specific subject. After all, I haven't seen anyone argue on VfD that a village of 100 people in Africa or Asia is not notable: that's difficult to claim when there are so many existing articles about communities of that size -- or smaller -- in the U.S. Geoff

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Andrew Gray wrote: I missed that -- but I'm not surprised. My primary complaint about VfD is that there are so many articles to wade thru: just to read the articles listed for one day can take the better part of an hour, & should I decide to add to the discussion or even research a given entry . . . But FF put it quite well elsewhere in this thread. It is the duty of the original author of an article to make a case for notability. A contributor needs to be her/his own stringent critic, & always offer as many reasons to convince the rest of us keep a given article, rather than assume we'll accept any contribution. I still don't why I did a Google search on [[Asrat Woldeyes]], & was able to take an article that clearly failed to establish notability (it merely said his father had been killed by the Italian occupation forces), & add an entry to Wikipedia about a man who was not only a major activist in Ethiopian medicine, but also an important opposition leader whom Amnesty International had classified a "prisoner of conscience" -- but I'm glad that I did. orphaned Geoff

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Geoff Burling wrote: Well, I have been shown to be wrong. Check out the debate at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drigluidjunbl�gruidjundlei]], where instead of first making an effort to see if the village actually exists (or focussing on things like who created the article or does any other article link to it), the debate is another version of "if I haven't heard of it, & can't find it with Google, then let's delete it" argument. Geoff

On 9/6/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: Part of the problem is that we don't currently distinguish between criteria which do not change and are not useful to anyone ("nonsense, vandalism, or unverifiable statements,") and things which change over time, or are useful to a small audience ("non-notable, needs massive cleanup, or unencyclopedic"). Should we distinguish these, we could tell the rest of the world not to index or give search-engine juice to the latter set of articles, without deleting them. There are dozens of small towns around the world setting up their own local wiki projects to document every location and aspect of their town. I would like to see Wikipedia encourage that. We shouldn't have to fight over this month's notability standards to let them create useful, verifiable, neutral information within Wikipedia, rather than on a separate site that may not know anything about free licenses or how to run a public wiki. +SJ -- ++SJ

James D. Forrester wrote: I would have a hard time using this to justify the publication of someone's personal information on Wikipedia. If it were some serious alleged crime, such as death threats, perhaps that would be warranted, but evading a ban doesn't rise to the level where I would be comfortable "outing" people. At least during the period when I was on the ArbCom, when we used evidence of people's real identies or even IPs to ban sockpuppets and reincarnations, we didn't publish that evidence publicly on the wiki. -Mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 steve v wrote: [Re. The Committee's decision on Skyring] All appeals of Arbitration Committee rulings are to be directed to Jimbo. This is made quite clear. :-) In this particular case, as can be seen from its page, Jimbo was the one who asked us to review the case in the first place in view of Skyring's highly disruptive and unhelpful behaviour. BTW, I'm troubled by your suggestion that we are harsh. This suggests, amongst other points, two things: firstly, that we're here to meet out justice, and secondly that we're here to do so fairly. Neither of these are true. The Committee is charged with maintaining the project and protecting it from disruption with the means at its disposal. We are not, have never been, and will never be here to punish people for things they do on the wiki. Instead, we look at things from the perspective of what is best for the project. In this case we decided that Skyring's continued presence was not only not conducive to the construction of an encyclopædia, but actively harmful, distracting worthwhile editors from actually writing and maintaining it. As such, we banned him. It is not and should not be thought of as a judgement on him personally, merely on his behaviour on the project as shewn in evidence before the Committee. In case anyone's wondering, we banned Skyring for a year rather than permanently because we have a (non-binding) informal agreement to only ban people for a maximum of a year, 12 months being such a very long time on the Internet. If someone comes back after a year and is /still/ disruptive to the project, it is no great issue for us to re-ban them for a year (as, indeed, we have now had to do, sadly). If you think that people do "wikistalking" to the detriment of the project, please bring them before the Arbitration Committee. It's what we're here for, but we can't be everywhere and rely on editors concerned with the project over petty recriminations to point out to us where our oversight may be required. Hmm. Sorry that this has turned into such a screed. Hopefully some will read it and remember what we're all about: building and maintaining the best encyclopædia we possibly can. Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james(a)jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 steve v wrote: I would disagree. If what we do is fair and just, then that is not our intent, merely a happy by-product. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and not a bureaucracy, and the Committee serves to upload neither potential set-up, nor any other community model. There is a massive range of options to go through in the dispute resolution processes before that of Arbitration is reached, all of which in their own ways are fair and just (and, in most cases, disproportionately, but not inappropriately, unfair, being weighted towards the wronger and against the wronged, as it were); by the time one is in Arbitration, the application of fairness and justice has seemed to have been unproductive. On the other hand, we seek as much information as possible from all sides when evaluating cases. This is fair and just and a form of due process, if you will (for example, we have suspended cases temporarily whilst participants are unable to continue to edit for a short period due to being ill or away), but it is done not for their own sake but so that we can reach the most accurate decision possible. The distinction may only be theoretical, but I feel that it is important (and, as these principles are only there to act as aides to the process, they can and are by-passed when we feel that they are being "gamed"). It was? This is news to me, and, well, given that I helped form it... We already have "an institution of review by peers for peers", except we generally just call it the "community". The reason why the entire dispute resolution process has grown up over the past two or three years is that the community wishes things, when they get out of hand, to be handled in a more formal way. Indeed. This is why we're forever eager to hear complaints, suggestions, and cases. We on the Committee are, I think, all aware of the burden of duty on our shoulders, and would hope that others would guide us onto the path of the straight and narrow, e'er we err. Nonsense, I repeatedly emplore people to criticise us so that we can learn from our mistakes and serve our function more suitably. What I found "troubling" was that your comments belied a failure of communication as to what the Committee's job is, and instead suggested your ascribing to us a court-like system of "due process" and "justice" and "fairness" (to quote from your words, above). This just simply isn't true, and it's not in anyone's interest for people to be mis-informed, lest they indeed become dis-informed and act in ways that not only isn't in the project's and the community's interest, but not in theirs. Thank you. :-) I hope that this follow-up has clearly put across the point that this illogical step is not one that I have taken here. :-) Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james(a)jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com

I know that Skyring specialises in Wikistalking, but reading his preposterous edits, maybe we should have a new category for him - "Wikisqualking". It seems to be his new technique, endless complaints with himself as the victim, given that he cant stalk me right now on Wikipedia. Suffice to say that as with Pete's standard claims in all the various edit wars he had been involved with, and the arbitration committee discussions that his behaviour has necessitated, his claims are pananoid and nonsensical. BTW what is the running total of sockpuppets he is up to now? Has he surpassed 30 yet since his ban? It was moving rapidly in that direction when I left. Discussing things with Pete (in so far as anyone's communication on Wikipedia with him ever qualified for the term 'discussion' since he ignored everyone's comments ad nausaum) reminds one of Lloyd George's description of how negotiating with de Valera was like trying to pick up mercury with a fork. (Oh dear. I suppose writing this will mean that the list will be overrun by more Skyring wikisqualking now, how he is just a poor honourable Aussie whom has been innocent picked on by Jimbo, the ArbCom (twice), Petaholmes, Adam Carr, John Kenney, everyone on the Government of Australia page, yada yada yada.) Have fun with him. Thom aka jtdirl/fear eireann PS: maybe in his honour Wikipedia should create a special verb - to skyring, meaning 'to ignore all rules, hound people who don't agree with one, and when banned launch waves of sockpuppets onto Wikipedia, all while portraying oneself as the innocent victim of everyone else's intrigue.' Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote: On 9/4/05, James D. Forrester wrote: My problem with all this is that you don't necessarily evaluate the information. In the case of Jim Duffy and myself you listened to him squawking that I'd made more than a hundred edits on his articles, one after the other, and accepted his claim that this was wikistalking. But did you look at my edits? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidential_Inauguration_%28Irel… Presidential Inauguration (Ireland)] and look at the diffs. Jim Duffy wrote the article single-handed and I then made fourteen edits on it. My very first one was to correct "President of the United Kingdom" to "President of the United States" and the following edits are all good ones, some of them correcting really silly mistakes. As anyone can see. This wasn't wikistalking, this was wikiduty. Jim Duffy's problem is that he doesn't like to admit making mistakes, and he reverted all my changes! I think that I was quite justified in taking a good look at his other articles, and surprise, surprise, I found a lot more errors and fixed them. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jim Duffy is a good editor and he produces some excellent work based on superb research. But he makes silly mistakes now and again - I don't know why, maybe he was in hour 48 of a day long wikisession or something - and if I come along and polish up his articles, it's for the good of the project. I was wrong in the "enfeebled mind" edit summary I made when I fixed the "President of the United Kingdom" thing, and for that and any other slights, I apologise. But I'm never going to apologise for correcting an obvious error in Wikipedia, and I trust that my outrage at being suspended for a year for doing the right thing is understandable. -- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

On 9/8/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Huh? (And no, I realise what the abbreviations mean) Ian

--- "James D. Forrester" <james(a)jdforrester.org> wrote: Are you saying that the ArbComm should be amoral? I would hope that fairness and a vague sense of justice would figure to some extent in the activities of the Arbitration Committee. Historically, that seems to have been the case. -- Matt Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

--- "James D. Forrester" <james(a)jdforrester.org> wrote: Oops, yes it was ambiguous. I meant amoral with respect their activities on Wikipedia. I do agree with your theoretical comments about Hitler and Mother Theresa. I was more worried about situations that might occur like the following (completely made-up, honest!): User A gets into conflict with User B. Both behave *equally* badly, breaking various policies and just being gits in general. However, User A is also an outstanding scholar and prolific contributor of high-quality content, whereas User B only pops in every now and then for some light editing (and mostly outside of the main article space to boot). User A hints darkly that, if sanctioned, she would quit the project for good. A pragmatic, amoral ArbComm might be tempted to place heavier sanctions on User B than User A, even though that would be (morally speaking) unfair, because User A is evidently more valuable to the project than User B. -- Matt Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Matt R stated for the record: Yes. We are here to ensure that an encyclopedia can be built. We don't care if you are a pedophile, a Nazi, or a tax collector. If you contribute to the encyclopedia, we leave you alone. If you hinder the encyclopedia, you're out. That is the entirety of our standards. We're not bound by the American Bill of Rights. We're not bound by English common law. We're not bound to be fair or just. We're not even bound by precedent, though we do try to learn from what works and what doesn't work. We usually obey the laws of thermodynamics. -- Sean Barrett | Madness takes its toll. sean(a)epoptic.com | Please have exact change.

On 9/3/05, Theresa Knott &lt;theresaknott(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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&d… 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&… 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:Administrato… 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">Qu… Victoria Building</a>" article. The statue may be seen <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:QVatQVB.JPG">here<… 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_LOV…andalised</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&… 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&qu… 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_Duches… , 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? -- Peter in Canberra