My Irish friend
Sep. 3rd, 2005 05:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
skyringFor anyone keenly interested in my Wikipedia drama, here's something that's going to become fairly familiar to my Irish mate in the days and weeks to come.
Jim Duffy [[user:jtdirl]] published my name and address 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 removed 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 Lamest Edit Wars 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. 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 extraordinary post 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: "What Skyring has done to Jtdirl is quite likely a prosecutable crime in many countries.". 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 this letter concerns a statue now standing in Sydney which was a gift from the Irish people. I quote it in its entirety:
The link to me is through my contributions to the "Queen Victoria Building" article. The statue may be seen 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 vandalised. The use of the term "AULDBITCH" is clearly a reference to the letter. I am sure that David 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 series of edits 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 anon in Dublin did the four tildes to check on his signature, and removed the edit a few seconds later. However, if you check on the history of this article , you will see that only four edits were made on 23 August 2005, all within the span of a few minutes.
(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)
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?"
For those not keenly interested, it's evidence of a wikicrime against me, and as I know the person responsible regularly reads this journal, I invite him to suggest a way out that leaves both of us happy.
Jim Duffy [[user:jtdirl]] published my name and address 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 removed 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 Lamest Edit Wars 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. 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 extraordinary post 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: "What Skyring has done to Jtdirl is quite likely a prosecutable crime in many countries.". 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 this letter concerns a statue now standing in Sydney which was a gift from the Irish people. I quote it in its entirety:
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.
The link to me is through my contributions to the "Queen Victoria Building" article. The statue may be seen 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 vandalised. The use of the term "AULDBITCH" is clearly a reference to the letter. I am sure that David 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 series of edits 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 anon in Dublin did the four tildes to check on his signature, and removed the edit a few seconds later. However, if you check on the history of this article , you will see that only four edits were made on 23 August 2005, all within the span of a few minutes.
(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)
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?"
For those not keenly interested, it's evidence of a wikicrime against me, and as I know the person responsible regularly reads this journal, I invite him to suggest a way out that leaves both of us happy.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 08:18 am (UTC)Why not just be done with the whole lot of 'em? Who needs to put up with this kind of crap?
Supportive hugs from
Bron
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 08:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 11:56 am (UTC)*poke*
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 06:29 pm (UTC)Jim Duffy's problem is that he makes a lot of silly errors in otherwise solid research, but he is psychologically unable to admit to a mistake. Normally, this wouldn't interest me, but in the context of writing an encyclopaedia which is supposed to be accurate and reliable, well, you can see the nature of the conflict.
The poor fellow adds to his troubles by tying himself in knots trying to divert attention from his mistakes, which only makes him all the more interesting for me.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 06:36 pm (UTC)You can see the same thing in any number of TV shows, books and movies. In Grumpy Old Men the thing is enjoyable because of the conflict between the two lead characters. In Northern Exposure there was a continunuing sexual tension between two leads. In both cases the thing fairly crackled and sparkled with drama, purely because of the conflict.
But you can see that if they become happy neighbours in one case or a married couple in another, the tension is gone - there's no interest in the outcome.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 06:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 07:25 pm (UTC)I dunno, maybe the fact that Jim Duffy is homosexual helps add to the tension?
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 09:17 pm (UTC)OK - nutjob doodah or whoever you are - we all await the happy news with excited anticipation.
Make an honest woman of him, and stop touching each others Wikis until after the ceremony.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 03:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 11:42 pm (UTC)I have a thick skull, but not that much of a thick skin.
I hope you can clear your name. Seem to have the logic for it, at least...
fwiw
Date: 2005-09-04 01:40 am (UTC)