Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gundagai editor: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:22, 6 October 2006

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC).

AYArktos (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Editors Who Are Vandals, and Thugs and Ferals

Have a look at what some 'editors' do on the Gundagai page. They post content with no cites, plagarise stuff, remove others posts then remove evidence of those posts from 'history' to cover up their own ineptitude and bully tactics. (Very brave to hide the evidence of their garbage isnt it. No medals for them.) All in all, this feral gang that is doing this stuff are giving wik a very very bad name. Its not just that though. They are totally hopeless re some of the stuff they do post so the pages end up reading like something from a lower junior school project board. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.95 (talk • contribs) . The anon who posted the above is the subject of an RfC. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*. -- Longhair\talk 11:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC) An Rfc. Sounds important. Whatever it is I do not want to know though I guess longhair gets its jollies off sprouting about them. Longhairs post is a prime example of what this topic is about. Its what gives wik a terrible name and its this style of garbage discredits anything to do with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.120 (talk • contribs) . That's an attempt to resolve the dispute. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It's more likely you'd work things out by participating there than by raising the matter here. Durova 04:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Durova, raising the matter here wont hurt u. The above anon has shown no interest whatsoever in resolving "the dispute". They're only here to be a pain in the arse at every article they edit, and being handed frequent blocks for doing so. -- Longhair\talk 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Longhair continues, giving more examples of the aggro that it uses wik to spread. The dispute is the loutish, thuggish, bullying and vandalising behaviour of some wik eds who go on like they do as part of their gang dynamics, attacking other posters. Those sort of antics cannot be "resolved" as to do so would require whoever these gangs are currently having a go at on wik, to join their gang. Believe it or not, some decent peopel choose not to join in with online liasons such as that. Meanwhile, the abberant behaviour of some eds, continues on wik, giving it a terrible bad name.

The trick tonight is to block me so I cant put a comment at the Rfc site. Isnt that twisted. Longhair has also reverted a reply I put on the discussion page at the Gundagai page, in answer to an inquiry if my cited post re Yarri beign kicked, was genuine.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

The anon has edited a number of articles, particularly relating to Gundagai, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a small town in south-eastern Australia. He asserts various facts but usually fails to back them up with sources, although sometimes sources have been provided later in the discussion. He has then attacked editors who disagree with him.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

In the course of editing, the anon editor has added unsourced and unverified information. He has also abused editors who have questioned the sources or who have worked on the articles in the normal course of editing. The anon editor has engaged in extensive discourse on talk pages of articles but refuses to sign his comments and intersperses comments among edits made by others, making the dialogue all but impossible to follow. He has also included comments and first person ramblings into articles.

The major area of contention began with the assertion concerning an alleged massacre of indigenous Australians in 1838 near Gundagai, New South Wales and symbolism of the massacre by the statue of the Dog on the Tuckerbox. The information was also added to the article on the Hume Highway. Various editors researched the assertion and none could find any source to substantiate it. For their pains they have been abused.

Note there are a very great many diffs involved and have not all been included; they are of course visible in the histories of the articles and and in the contributions of the IPs.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Gundagai: Initial edits asserting massacre - [1] [2]; Refusal to cite sources, for example [3]
Murrumbidgee: [4] - declined (per edit summary comments) to provide citations: [5] [6] but accused others of failing to uphold his unreferenced edits [7]
Associated attacks on other editors -
- AYArktos [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] , including accusations of stalking. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
- Grahamec [24]
- Robertmeyers [25] [26] [27]
- Longhair [28] [29]
- Unspecified "admins" [30] [31]
Regardless of which article talk page, the editor refuses to sign posts nor does he observe any courtesy in formatting his comments sequentially. He has been asked several times to sign. [32] [33]
Inserting comments in middle of articles: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]
Assertions about posting confidential indigenous information: [39], editors working on Gundagai and related articles have been quite careful to cite sources and those sources are published sources. The accusations from the anon editor are quite bizarre. He, however, makes constant reference to unpublished material relating to indigenous matters, for example [40], which other editors have removed with the statement (if it shouldn't be posted here - don't post it). The anon also suggests a conspiracy to hide highly significant material which he can't reference right now, but "cannot ever go up her ebecause of the dreadful atatcks on me by an admin etc." [41].
Avoidance of blocks
- 203.54.186.125 (talk · contribs · block log) resumed activity within 40 minutes as 203.54.186.127 (talk · contribs)
- 203.54.186.127 (talk · contribs · block log) resumed activity in less than 1 hour as 203.54.174.12 (talk · contribs)
- 203.54.174.12 (talk · contribs · block log) resumed activity as 203.54.9.206 (talk · contribs) within 2 1/2 hours despite 48 hour block
- 203.54.9.169 (talk · contribs · block log) (resumed after block expired)
- 203.54.9.195 (talk · contribs · block log) blocked 24 hours, resumed in just over 2 hours to abuse further as 203.54.9.168 (talk · contribs · block log) which was blocked again. The anon resumed again within block time for yet more abuse: 203.54.9.147 (talk · contribs · block log). The 3rd block seemed to be successful.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

In addition to article talk page discussions responding to and addressing issues raised by user and by user's behaviour:

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 21#Gundagai
User talk:Longhair
- User talk:Longhair/Archive9#Another view needed
- User talk:Longhair#Editing issues.
- User talk:Longhair#AYs anon 13 July comments by Petaholmes

User talk:Petaholmes
- User talk:Petaholmes#Request for help / review 13 July

User talk:AYArktos (now archived)
- User talk:AYArktos/Archive05#anons contribution to Gundagai article - comments by User:Roisterer
- User talk:AYArktos/Archive05#anons contribution to Gundagai article - comments by Longhair 9 July and Robertmyers 12 July
- User talk:AYArktos/Archive05#Anon - response by Petaholes and Longhair 13 July

WP:AN/I
- Initial Posting from Robertmyers 13 July Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120#203.54.186.125
- My request Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120#Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin Stalking 13 July

User talk:King of Hearts
- King of Hearts explained why not to remove comments from talk pages (and alternative actions) and advised no personal attacks [42]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

—M in un ^Spiderman 13:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snottygobble 00:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Statement of AYArktos' intended ongoing reponse to this editor

As per the comments on Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales and Talk:Wiradjuri, I intend to semi-protect any related articles if I notice any abusive edits being carried out from the same IP range - abusive edits refers to the tone of the edit summary as well as the actual edit itself.

All editors should be aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, specifically: No original research, Verifiability, No personal attacks, Civility and Etiquette. Any editors breaching any of the policies will be blocked and their contributions reverted.

Recommencing editing in less than the block period is a breach of the Blocking policy.

All editors have also been put on notice that comments on talk pages should be signed. Unsigned comments may be reverted.

I will revert all unsigned comments and/ or comments made by editors who are breaching a block. Blocking policy states:

While blocked, a user is not permitted to edit any pages other than their own talk page. Sysops may reset the blocks of users who intentionally use various tactics to evade a block, and may extend the original blocks if the user commits further blockable acts. Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked appropriately. Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted.

Sign your posts on talk pages supported by Help:Talk page states You should sign your contributions by typing three or four tildes. Although this is only a guideline, coupled with the regular incivility shown by this editor, I will enforce this guideline by reverting every unsigned comment or inappropriate edit that breaches WP:NPA or WP:Civil. Despite her protestations to the contrary,[43] she is knowingly breaching blocks - she has been blocked repeatedly for a week at a time, escalated from first 3 hour to then 24 hour blocks and more recently 1 week blocks.

I have placed this approach here so that there is no misunderstanding of my intentions. I am happy to hear from anybody who disagrees with my approach and to modify it in accordance with community concensus--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited comments on this approach at WP:AN/I at 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC) and at WP:RFI at 00:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Viridae ^Talk 01:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.