Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence from the Gundagai editor

Lies From wattle

Can u note that somewhere in the tangle of this page, wattle has made the lieing claim I used abuse re RMC.

This is a total lie. What I actually did was ask who put the line "[edit] FAK's': Name given to Staff Cadets who were once Officer Cadets, stands for "Fucking ADFA Cadets"

on the RMC article page under abbreviations, for a very particular reason. The cite on that page re the Handbook, I also put as it wa sme put the 'Charter' on that page from that handbook. I would only have that handbook for one reason so am not likely to be putting idiot abuse as above, on that page. Wattle has told numerous similar total fabrications where the truth has been twisted to suit her purpose.

I just checked that page. Someone has now removed the two not abusive 'abbreviations' that were there at the bottom of that article page too (to hide where the swearing one as above, was?). I cannot keep track of what this troublemakign lot her eare altering to make it look like I did stuff so they can say anything really and remove stuff, alter stuff etc. Its pretty bad. That edit war they went on with had several involved.

Peytalholmes I think removed the abusive comment as noted above from the RMC article page not long after I queried it on the discussion page. If I find that sort of garbage on the RMC article page again, I will make sure the RMC Commandant knows, and the press.

The longtimers here can twist and turn all they like about all they like and attack peopel new to wik to get their thrills. Its pretty sick. Its very very obvious some have some agenda of their own where they are prepared to tell lies. Grow up wattle and the rest of u. You are too ridiculous.

I just checked when the rubbish that was on the Royal Military College, Duntroon article was put there. It was on 25th march 2006. Wattle didnt object to that content when she edited that article on 31 March, 12 June etc. Petaholmes removed that content on 14th July not long after I objected to it.

Then, along comes wattle trying to assign that content to me. How pathetic is that when she has seeemingly approved of it well before I went anywehere near that article. Then she comes here spinning this other troublemaking after she has whined re this lie to others.

Note: Nil else on the RMC Duntroon page is cited, except what I put there and cited.

Lies From Thatcher

The 'State' has not delayed the Coolac Bypass. Before the Coolac Bypass can start, an EIS (Environmental Impact Study) must happen, then the result of that must be passed by our State Dept Env and Conservation who will give the go ahead for the Bypass to happen. This EIS includes an Indigneous Salvage or Destory Indigneous sites study. I am a party to this study. Saying the bypass is delayed because of the Indigenous study is total nonsense and creates a very very wrong impression. If we get to July and Xmas hasnt happened, do we say Xmas is delayed because it isnt time for it to happen. The bypass will happen, when all the State legislation that will allow it to start, have been addressed. If not, the State is in breach of State and Federal law. However, that the study is happening has bought a heap of racists, who would prefer no Indigneous heritage study is ever done, out of the woodwork. Sadly, the massacre did happen. if that upsets some here, so be it. Imagine how the Indigenous peopel and kids felt as they were lying on the ground in total agony being raped etc and the kids had unmentionable things doen to the,m. In that context, it doesnt matter if the massacre dents some maladapted wik egos. Someone said Australia didnt have its something or other (massacre). oh yes we did. we had numerous ones many in my area. I never promised the cites re it for here though the poems tell of it. When I wouldnt put cites up to prove what I claimed - then subsequently withdrew my post re the massacre, I got turned on. Proof of the massacre would make very very very very big news in oz as it verifies the reason for one of Ozs core Monuments that slings off about the massacre. I am not posting the cites for it as I cant as the surveys are still happening so that process isnt finished. I am my own boss re what I do and dont release but that content I wont, ever, (well only to ones who wont go looney re it such as family, friends and colleagues). I dont have to and never said here that I would. I posted poems as the cites but they were not acceptable. Anyone who knows Australia's story, and the story of Indigneous people and culture, would see imemdiately that the poems tell of the massacre, but no one here has that level of knowledge so they attack it. Thatcher can u not misrepresent stuff here. You obviously do not have a great grip on the issue so best not to make it up in lieu as that ends up as malicious. You need to recongise u have major limitations re this issue.

That u see no clues in the Dog on Tuckerbox poems means you are not skilled to that level so what you do not know, you are ignorant of. I cant fix a motor but many can. I would not be carrying on all over the Internet attacking people who claim they can fix a motor though. Are u an initiated Indigneous australian? Are u trained in Indigneosu culture and history Australian? Are u a local Indigneous person so know that way? Are u a qualified in Australian Indigneous Archaeology person? I know a lot of native americans but there is no way I would claim to have skills in their cultural stuff, then try and discredit it if I didnt havve those skills.

Flood

Thatcher, are u alive in 2006 because of rescues made by Yarri in that flood? I dont think so.

Also ther ehas been no mention that u apprently blocked the most populated part of Oz from access to wik several days back. Can u not do that again. Attack me but dont take it out on potentially 10,000,000 others.

Lies

As per the RMC lies, it seems it is easy for some to misrepresent stuff here and change posts etc or add posts then sign them. I have signed no posts and dont intend to, so others put anything here for their own reasons. I ask again, who put that rmc handbook cite, why and would that person then put the abuse there. Many many people have an attitude to military college graduates as they are jealous of their abilty to have a go and do OK. Its that old green eyed jealousy thing that creates vandalism (perpetuated by some trying to have a go at others) as happened on the RMC page that I objected to and which was removed if anyone checks down a fair way. If I wa sjealous of RMC (and was a total twit) I might put rubbish like that on the RMC article page rather than putting their Charter in out of their handbook.

It seems some have egos pinned to some of the article pages here and get really really aggro if anyone else who may be new to wik, adds stuff. I ended up with wattle getting silly re the name of a hill in my town. Because I have numerous current maps here I was easily able to overturn her assertions and cite my sources for what i was claiming. I think wattle wants me to give her my cites and info etc, then she adds them. Who would know. Who would care. Its all very very bizarre.

Durova

Durova was fine till she/he became aggro. So funny. Durova pardon my xtreme rudeness but I'd not trust u again ...

Claimed Blocks

Someone has been having major delusions. I know nil of any block whatever that is. I use my computer as I choose. No wattle or longhair or any such mysterious cyber non event is in charge of my computer no matter what they might imagine. For those who do imagine such weird stuff, best to get professional help maybe. If u want to exclude people, why not find someoen who is 90, or a one year old, then have a go at kicking them. You may get some satisfaction then as you will probably get away with it with no one obecting.

What Else

I think wik is pretty weird with all these sets up you go on with. Isnt it all a grand waste of time? I cannot understand why people seemingly spend years on sites such as this. Is it to fight with as many as you can? It meets an inner need to boss people. Maybe the complainants here misse dout on beign blackboard monitors in junior school, and are now making up for that. Who would know. Its too bizarre to try and work out. There is a real world out there with amazing things happenign in it so durova, wattle rwhoever, that pompus one and any others here who fight fight fight need to go experience it a bit more, then they might be less inclined to be so fixated on this sort of nonsense.

More Lies by Thatcher

I just saw on my way to make coffee, that Thatcher claims I objected to noting of an indigenosu site, then claimed there was no such site.

This again is thatcher having no idea what he/she is talking about.

What is a bora ground thatcher? If u then follow that link, u will then see why that post is incorrect as I put a note there. If you had any idea of what u were talkign about re this issue u would know that, but it seems u dont. I dont read much of what u write as its largely drivel and so much nonsense in it, but saw that brave and idiotic remark and lie from u re me by accident. U really do have an agenda and a half, dont u. Go find a one year old and tell lies re them and try kicking them. Failing that, resign your tools if this is the lieing level u operate at. Its unwarranted attacks like that on people by troublemakers such as you, causes the trouble. I repeat, there are totally NO bora anythings in this area. I also repeat, it is highly inappropraite that restricted indigenous info be published and the government authorites that were responsible for putting that content online have bene chipped pretty soundly and if they do it again ther ewill be official complaints made. Wik shows NO faith with Indigneous people under Australian 'Working with Indigneous People' protocols by publishing restricted sites even if that info has been obtained from a public source.

It shows there is a lack of ethics re some stuff that gets published on wik. It also shows ignorance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.70 (talk • contribs)

Comment from 203.54.9.155

This below from Thatcher is also incorrect. I asked had the stuff on the article page re 'literature' been plagarised as it read almost identical to Bruce Elders Walkabout page. That got brushed under the carpet as 'common knowledge' stuff. I still think tsome of the content there is the same as has been published elsewhere for many years. There seems to be a lack of understanding what plagarism is. It is so easy to not plagarise, I can never work out why it happens. Its easy to put " " around phrases and attribute them if too lazy to write in own words. Its also easy to just say for example that Bruce Elder notes xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx etc. The only thing that stops that is personal ego.

Wik is a good idea but not if it is going to contain the work of others without that work being attributed. The quoted content is not common knowledge. Most know this place for its dog monument and the bridges, and that is about it unless they specifically query for some reason, and are told re the literature - or are doing their own research in which case, they need to publish to get it on here. Bruce Elder does know re here as he was born near here and grew up near here plus his father worked for the author of the Gundagai book so I regard him as a local local even though he lives away. He also did Literature at Uni so has a specific skill in it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.155 (talk • contribs) .

Durova's nastiness Pops Out

The heading says it all. Truth does out. As for the other, again, if the cap fits, wear it.

I dont covet tools to fight with people here. Some with the tools that allow them to do that, do have them and I'd be wondering why.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.155 (talk • contribs) .

Thatcher Moved This Post That resulted in it Being Out of Context. This is What They do

Sensitive about itself. AKA selfish. This stuff causes woozie complaints and aggro if the CANNOT have their own way immediately. Its stamping foot stuff. Do as I demand or I will run off home and tell mummy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.155 (talk • contribs) .

Longhair The Only One With the Right Response - at last

Longhair has gone from being the most aggressive to the one with the best response. The ferals here made this so all aggro, then fell flat on their face in their big heroic revert war that they staged there isnt much more to do re it all but ignore it.

Its a bit of an unbalanced war isnt it. The big brave gang, against one. That is fine as I am just passing through as I have more interesting to do with my time, but there must be others who come to wik who would like to stay, who get hunted if they dont respond how the bullies demand. Not good. Not good. Very territorial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.155 (talk • contribs) .

Evidence presented by Thatcher131

Content and POV issues

To provide the context for the editor's contributions, I will briefly describe four content issues that I have seen raised.

Coolac Massacre

The editor believes there was a massacre of indigenous peoples at the town of Coolac near Gundagai in the 1830s. Reliable sources can show that an aboriginal representative has alleged that a massacre occured and that the Coolac bypass to the Hume highway will destroy a significant historical site. The state has delayed the roadwork while it investigate this claim. However, the editor has stated numerous times that she knows the massacre occurred. When pressed for sources she states that the knowledge is restricted, or has been suppressed due to the sensitive relations between aboriginals and the descendants of settlers, or that she has special knowledge which she is not ready to reveal.

• adding the masacre to another article after it was removed from the Gundagai article, incivil edit summary [2]
• appeal to personal knowledge [3]
• personal knowledge and personal attack We' are not releasing stuff anymore apart from to a select few and they can know some of the core story of contact times in this land, and the ferals can go without

The dog on the tuckerbox

This is a bullocky or trail song sung by bullock drivers driving wagons of supplies across the outback for settlers, and refers to Gundagai and the Murrumbidgee River. It's first publication was in 1852, it has become a part of Australian outback folk traditions. A statue was erected in 1932. The sources I found indicate that its exact origins are unknown. The Gundagai editor asserts that the song refers to the Coolac massacre, in which outlaws found a wagon bogged-down in a muddy riverbank, stole some flour from the tuckerbox and salted the rest with arsenic, which aborigines later ate. There are no reliable sources that confirm this and no hint in the lyrics that this is what the song is about.

• personal knowledge [4]
• refusal to cite sources [5]
• adds it to another article [6]

Kicking Yarri

In 1852 the Murrumbidgee river flooded, killing dozens of Gundagai residents. Dozens more were rescued by two aboriginals, Yarri and Jacky Jacky, in their bark canoe. This was stated as the beginning of the reconciliation between aboriginals and settlers, but an 1879 newspaper article indicates that Yarri was still (at least ocassionally) mistreated by white townspeople. Here the editor has a point in that this should be included, however her tactics leave much to be desired. (see below)

• POV pushing [7]

Cradle of reconciliation

The article describes the heroic actions of Yarri and other aborigines during the 1852 flood as the beginning of reconciliation. The available source is a statement by the local council to effect that "residents of Gundagai believe..." This is obviously self-serving and such a large claim needs better sources, and here again the editor has a point. However she has been uncivil in making it, and refers again to special personal knowledge rather than reliable sources.

Signature

I believe the signature issue is a red herring, and is the least significant type of disruptive behavior. If she was civil and followed other policies, I'm sure the other editors would have overlooked the signature issue. The declaration that all unsigned comments would be reverted is not supported by any policy that I am aware of, however this is also a red herring as the comments that were reverted were made while she was evading a block for incivility, and were thus appropriately reverted per WP:BLOCK#Evasion of blocks. However, since she has asserted that no one ever explained to her the reason for signing comments [8], I feel it is important to prove otherwise (a very limited list).

• July 4 [9]
• July 5 [10]
• July 5 [11]
• July 5 [12]
• July 5 [13]
• July 25 [14]
• July 26 [15]
• October 7 [16]
• October 9 [17]
• October 10 [18]

Disruptive editing

Other examples of disruptive editing

• Argues that identifying an aboriginal archeological site is disrespectful [19]; later argues there is no such site [20].
• States she is no longer trying to add the Coolac massacre because she can not reveal her sources [21]; adds it [22] [23].
• Some kind of diatribe about plaigarism [24]

The October blocks and reversions

Much has been made by Durova and NuclearUmpf of the fact that the editor's contributions to the Gundagai article, as well as complaints to the Village Pump, were blindly reverted on October 4 and following dates. They suggest this unneccessarily escalated the situation. It is important to put these events into context. The editor began editing Gundagai on October 3, with personal attacks and allegations of plaigarism. She was warned, changed IPs and continued the attacks, and was blocked. She repeatedly evaded the block and was blocked again and again. While some of the justification for the reversions is based on this declaration in the RFC that all future posts by the anonymous editor would be reverted if they were unsigned [25], Golden Wattle and Bidgee also argue that it is permissible to revert the edits of a blocked editor who is evading a block. Take note of the contents of the edits as well.

October 3-4

• 13:56 October 3, the anon accuses editors of plaigarism [26] and of being racist liars. [27]
• 13:50-14:00, warned on User talk:203.54.186.203
• 05:29, 4 October hectoring from a new IP
• blocked
• 09:52-10:00 4 October, from a new IP, POV, appeal to personal knowledge, personal attacks [28] [29], hectoring, personal attack in edit summary [30], a useful edit [31]
• blocked
• 10:56 4 October, from a new IP, spammed 6 village pump pages and two community portal pages with the same message that editors are "vandals, thugs and ferals" [32] (one example, see contribs for all of them)
• blocked
• 11:26 4 October, from a new IP spams the village pumps and help desks [33]. (one example, see contribs for all of them)
• blocked
• 11:56 from a new IP, block evasion, editors are thugs [34]
• blocked

October 6-7

On October 6 the anon editor made another series of personal attack posts and was blocked at several IPs. Note that this was evasion of the previous blocks as well as repeated incivility etc. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

Blocks [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

Attempts to communicate with her about her behavior

Three editors, Durova, NuclearUmpf, and I responded to her requests for assistance. Durova and NuclearUmpf focused on the issue of reversions, generally from the point of view that she needed guidance and mediation. I dealt with that issue as well [49] and suggested that her point of view would be a useful addition to a conversation [50], but also tried to hold her accountable for her actions [51]. She responded with more incivility [52], for which I issused a 24 hour rangeblock (lifted after 6 hours when I filed the RFAR).

Later, during a discussion of the proper names of the hills on which the town is located, she accuses other editors of vandalizing her changes [53], even though no one else was editing the article at the time [54]. Sarah Ewart, an uninvolved admin, asked her to refrain from calling other editors vandals both on the talk page [55] and on the user talk page of her current IP [56]. She responded by calling Sarah a "pompous troublemaker" and telling her to "buzz off". I explained how to use the "history" tab [57] and suggested she might have had a problem with her browser cache and that she owed Bidgee and Sarah Ewart an apology [58]. I also warned her about her continuing personal attacks [59]. She called me a "Dom" and sent me to a leather room [60]. She also told me to butt out [61] (I guess my help is no longer welcome since I'm not treating her like an aggrieved victim). Sarah Ewart blocked her [62].

Evidence presented by User:Durova

Violations of WP:POINT

This editor's approach toward problem-solving appears to be either to initiate personal attacks against other editors as detailed above or to engage in disruptive behavior, calling upon third parties to intervene and broadcasting favorable responses rather than engaging the involved parties in productive dialogue. I've seen several instances of this, but I'll offer the diffs only for the ones where I was directly involved.

When I first became aware of this situation through Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) I gave the anon the benefit of the doubt. While anonymous editors who fail to sign their posts rarely have a meritorious argument, the degree of blanking I observed looked overzealous and troublesome. Elsewhere I have explained the reasons for my initially sympathetic response and my subsequent change of heart. Specifically below are some examples that led me to conclude this editor has been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point:

1. After my initial response at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) I requested that further discussion move to my user talk page on 6 October.[63]
2. Notwithstanding that request, the anon reposted several long discussions from other pages to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) on 11 October. Following is a repost from my user page that selected a statement including my signature which was already out of date on 10 October, but failed to include more recent posts of mine where my opinion had shifted toward something less sympathetic to the anon.[64] Two such reposts were made to different parts of the page, using identical material from my user page and including my signature, but neither time disclosing that these were cut-and-paste operations.
3. The material that got reposted were comments I made on 8 October. The anon did not repost discussion from 9 October where I acknowledged new circumstances and altered my opinon.[65]
4. I discovered this reposting and raised an objection beneath one of the reposts. Had blanking not been an issue in this dispute I would have deleted both reposts. From 11 October:[66].
5. Also at my user page, I requested that the repostings stop on 11 October.[67]
6. The anon replied at my user page without disclosing additional repostings.[68]
7. On 10 October the anon reposted the same material from my talk page in her response to the request for arbitration, again failing to disclose that the statement was out of date and failing to inform me that these comments were being reposted. I became aware of this on 14 October and posted an objection, to which the anon has never replied. Repeated page moves make the page diffs somewhat complex to locate, but the material is fairly easy to spot at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonymous Gundagai editor/comments from RFC and talk pages.

Having extended the benefit of the doubt, I initially supposed that the anon was acting in good faith and did not understand site policies and conventions. Three times I recommended she seek a mentor, and all three times the anon failed to either seek a mentor or reply to the recommendation:

1. At Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) on 8 October.[69]
2. At User talk:Durova on 11 October.[70]
3. At User talk:Durova on 15 October.[71]

This constitutes a pattern of behavior that violates WP:POINT. Rather than take normal steps to resolve problems and act on constructive advice, this editor casts a net to draw uninvolved editors into a dispute and exploit whatever goodwill they extend. When they begin to withdraw the benefit of the doubt she either turns on them with uncivil remarks or, as in my case, she ignores them. Durova 19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Violations of WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Assume good faith

I have seen many violations of WP:CIVIL by this anon against other users. When I first began interacting with her I did not reprimand her for incivility, mainly because so many of her edits were being reverted that I doubted I would have been perfectly civil, had the same thing been happening to me. Other editors had already called this problem to her attention repeatedly. My strategy for resolving the civility issue was to discourage other editors from reverting her posts, offer sympathetic advice, and encourage her to join the mentorship program.

As with the other editors who have intervened, she has now been uncivil in two posts to my user talk page.[72], [73]. The first of these posts is entitled "Lies from Wattle" and makes unsubstantiated claims aginst User:Golden Wattle. The anon claims that someone had placed an obscene acronym on an unnamed page and that User:Golden Wattle made improper accusations against the anon in connection with the page. The anon includes no Wikilinks or page diffs in support of these claims, refers to most things by abbreviations rather than full names, and fails to sign her posts. Highlights from that section include:

1. "...wattle has made the lieing claim I used abuse re RMC."
2. "This is a total lie." (Re: User:Golden Wattle)
3. "Wattle has told numerous similar total fabrications where the truth has been twisted to suit her purpose."
4. "Wattle can twist and turn all she likes about all she likes. Its very very obvious she has some agenda of her own where she is prepared to tell lies. Grow up wattle. You are too ridiculous."
5. " If I find that sort of garbage on the RMC article page again, I will make sure the RMC Commandant knows, and the press."
6. "Also Durova, you turned didnt u. I remove the thanks I gave u. Guess the ability to turn is how u have to be here though, to fit in. That attitude is going to mean wik ends up with just aggro dimwits that run on gang dynamics."

The second post is a reply to a note I had left to the anon on 15 October. My note is here.[74] One day before I changed my statement at the request for arbitration I had written to the anon in a final attempt to encourage productive improvement without arbitration, cautioning the anon that I was on the verge of changing my opinion into support of arbitration. As with all my interactions with this anon, I believe this was polite and candid.

Highlights from the anon's response include:

1. "I just read Durovas idiotic note to me..."
2. "...Durova, u grow up also."
3. "Its u guys causing the trouble on wik..."
4. "...have a look at yourselves in the mirror, read an article or two on bully tactics and cult dynamics, then find a cliff...and take sail."
5. "All those who get on the wrong end of this mob, its a grand compliment to be rejected by psychotics such as this."
6. "No one in their right mind as they are totally and utterly, bizarre."

It is hard to suppose what this editor hopes to accomplish with these statements. Does this anon think I've changed my mind solely due to social pressure and that I should be scolded into aiding her arbitration defense by researching obscure claims? Does this editor believe I'm mentally handicapped and that my cognitive dysfunction will be cured if she insults me? Or would this editor rather exploit my supposed psychosis by encouraging me to commit suicide?

Although I'm no expert on human nature, this anon displays problem behavior that probably exceeds Wikipedia's ability to remedy. Durova 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Longhair

I was going to present evidence to back up the claims made in my statement as to this anonymous editor being almost impossible to work with, however their edits to this page alone speak volumes of what we've been dealing with over the course of many months [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]. I'd rather not waste any of my time researching the mess this editor has left behind elsewhere and trust the ArbCom has sufficient evidence before them already to make reasonable judgement. -- Longhair\^talk 13:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

ANON

Pox on these whingeing, whining troublemakers above. Maybe they need to get a life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.70 (talk • contribs)

ANON 2

Wot ANON said

(I can do headings and no one ever says "well done". Miserable lot.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.70 (talk • contribs)

Evidence presented by Golden Wattle

Royal Military College

As per Longhair and Durova, I suspect that the anon's rants speak for themselves. I am not sure what to add here that I haven't put elsewhere but am happy to respond to issues raised by others.

As I have stated elsewhere I am a sensitive soul and I object to being called a liar or abused in any way. I do expect to be treated on wikipedia according to the policy of WP:NPA.

The anon refers to edits to Royal Military College, Duntroon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can't quite work out what she is on about above but here is my view on that article. I have made the following edits to that page

1. 23 August 2005 - disambigate the suburb in which the college is located
2. 25 May 2006 - add an unreferenced tag to the section on slang and terminology
3. 12 June 2006 - reverted removal of unreferenced tag
4. 13 July 2006 (on talk page) removed abusive unsigned comment from anon which did not seem to relate to anything - other than the placement of project notices on that page. She stated Right, fine...be a pig. That means this content doesnt get put up either. You are not acting in best interest of wik so that is your issue. The immediately preceding edit of the article was her own and nobody had reverted or altered it in any way. Later Petaholmes removed the section on slang, a section the anon had not edited but had commented on adversely on the talk page.
5. 30 July 2006 - reverted removal of material by the anon

--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(No one ever says well done to me either when I do headings--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.