Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement, and avoid personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, copied from the Eternal Equinox case. Thatcher131 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Durova 12:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse -- Longhair\^talk 12:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorsed - appears clearly applicable here. Newyorkbrad 22:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

2) Users who disrupt using aggressive biased editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 22:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

See WP:DE. Durova 12:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Accountability

3) Wikipedia users are welcome to edit anonymously, but are encouraged to register and edit under a username (see Why create an account?). When controversies arise this helps with accountability..

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from the past decisions page. (There's no real issue of sockpuppetry here, just someone who won't register). Thatcher131 22:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually see this as an issue. She doesn't want to register for good reasons; that is fine, however, we need to have a way of dealing with people who are clearly identifiable editors who wish to edit from IP addresses. I think this proposal needs to be reformed. --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I have proposed requiring her to register, this is neccessary justification. If you think some alterante wording is better, then write one. Thatcher131 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Since she won't even sign her posts, I really can't see her registering. She complains about cookies, IT security, .... Perhaps she is struggling with the technology and perceived risks. Requiring her to register and putting this up as a principal will not help solve the problem. When she doesn't register, we are not past square one, especially if part of the solution relies on registration. I would like to see a solution that is not underpinned by registration. It then upholds the wikipedia invitation that anybody can edit, however, that invitation I think is subject to abiding by policies including NPA ..., don't abide by those and your edits are not welcome; lack of registration is not a way to avoid participating in the community.

My alternate wording would be Wikipedia users are welcome to edit anonymously but are expected to abide by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

Note Wikipedia:Accountability is "currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest.".--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

4) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment, and keeps with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 22:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Durova 14:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Edits must be verifiable

5) All assertions must be verifiable through third party reliable sources. Addition of material that relies on personal experience, personal knowledge or original research is not allowed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 23:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Durova 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute revolves around the behavior of an anonymous editor apparently from, and expressing interest in and local knowledge of, topics relating to New South Wales, Australia, in particular Gundagai, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gundagai editor for more background.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Durova 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Original research and point of view

2) The Gundagai editor has inserted personal knowledge, original research, and personal point of view into articles.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I would change "inserted personal knowledge" to "inserted assertions of personal knowledge." Based on the evidence presented and the anon's behavior, I don't believe we can rely on the accuracy of any of the statements she has made in articles or elsewhere. Newyorkbrad 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

2.1) The Gundagai editor's personal viewpoint on matters of Australian history is often in conflict with views expressed in the articles currently, which may reflect an unconscious pro-settler systematic bias. Neutral Point of View contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view in an article, and the aboriginal point of view is under-represented in the articles edited by the Gundagai editor. [7] [8]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What is Thatcher on about here? How does he dream this stuff up. Of course some of the stuff I say is different to some published other claims but that is because of the coverups in Oz because of invasion. Anything I say is backed by evidence from core sources, not thatchers assumptions. Howcome some wik people who have 'tools' can make unsourced assumptions such as thatchers. Its pretty weird. Wik will end up with a heap of content that isnt correct, isnt acepted in the Oz unis as correct just because some such as thatcher do not have the qualificaitons in this stuff to know when they are very incorrect. Also, how about thatcher puts the evidence here of what he claims. He cannot put the proof of the massacre as the proof of it are the remains and also that issue is still subject to research because of the arch surveys happening, but there must be other instances re this outlandish claim he is making. Further proof of the massacre requires knowledge of Indigneous law so unless Thatcher knows that, he wont know that alternate cultural stuff, will he. Outlandish claims such as Thatcher makes here wont get me to put the proof here as I am not going to. If Thatcher cant find it in the poems, he isnt going to find it because he doesn thave the skills to. He can get a drovers dog out of the poems as that is in his sphere of understanding, but not the real meaning. There is a show on on our TV tomorrow about a (real) psycho going fishing and hunting. The promos say that fishing and hunting the fella talks of is really him talking about going and getting people and killing them. For as much as some conjure up an image of a dog droving livestock from some words the same as fishing might conjure up a person with a rod sitting on a bank of a stream, catching fish - it also refers to other stuff. A common term in Oz is bushwacker. A band even named themsleves that. However, that term in the 1800s meant rounding up Indigneous people out of the bush into one corner and shooting them. The same happened to native americans. It is really narrow minded to only look at stuff on a person's own cultural perpsective and that is what Thatcher does as he doesnt understand it on any othe rlevel. Whatever, I have put the massacre back up, with a cite. You can delete it again but I put a cite. I am not responsible for other peoples lack of intellectual ability to understand some content.

Thatcher, what other instances are there. I am currently putting stuff on the Hume and Hovel Expedition discussion page that is at odds with the last 30 years of that story. Is it that annoys you? I work off the core documents, not something someone else wrote in the 1970s that is incorrect. My version is what is accepted as correct these days now the core document is more widely available online via gutenberg and others can easily read it. I have refined the newer understanding down several more days, and to exact locations as I know them. My version is also backed up by physical evidence working off the core documents. If you want to slander the veracity of what i put you had better have something to back up your claims.

What are your quals in Australian history/studies thatcher to add some weight to your nonsense?

Aboriginal point of view? Just what is this Thatcher? What is Aboriginal point of view? What is British law that Oz and US law comes from? Is Brit law a point of view, or is it law. You are out of your depth here re this stuff. Indigneous stuff on that level isnt point of view. It is Law. It is published in this era Law from the Universities after massive research and collection of this material but also, it is law that is acquired. If you have a drivers licence issued to you under the traffic laws of wherever u live, is that law you operate a vehicle uner then your point of view, or the la you are licenced under? Do you interpret the trrific rules to say for example that you can drive at 200 miles/hr under the drive to conditions provisions (as we have in Oz), or do you know that drive to conditions mean you cannot go over the speed limit and means drive well under th espeed limit if its raining.

Like I said, you cannot understand some stuff so do not then attack me because of that lack of skill you have.

Are u licenced to know Aboriginal point of view? I am. Academically but also by other means. Apart from that though, its published in numerous places. I'd have no idea where to find the rule sof poker though nor the interest to go look. Others probably have no idea where to find Indigneous law stuff as they are not skilled to recognise it.

There is a very huge lack of intelligence re this debate. You Thatcher do not have the 'language' (knowledge) you require to understand some stuff so to compensate, you attack and discredit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.163 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not exist to right the world's wrongs. If you are unable to provide independent third-party reliable sources for your information, you can't include it until you can provide such sources. I would be happt to support your efforts to include info about the massacre or any other disputed part of Australia's history if you could cite reliable indpendent third party sources for your assertions. Thatcher131 20:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view does not trump the expectation of civility

2.2) The editor's negative behavior outweighs the potential benefit of her point of view as a counterweight to prevailing unconscious or systematic bias.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Durova 14:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Failure to assume good faith

3) The Gundagai editor has failed to assume good faith, calling other editors "liars" and "vandals" in response to their edits, and even when other editors have not been editing. [9] [10] [11] [12] See the evidence page here and here for more.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse -- Longhair\^talk 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse Durova 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Incivility

4) The Gundagai editor is frequently uncivil in edit summaries, talk page comments, and article content. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse -- Longhair\^talk 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse Durova 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Refusal to register

5) The Gundagai editor has refused to register for a user name. This has made it difficult for other editors to communicate with her regarding the content of her edits and her behavior. For example, she has claimed not to have been aware of any blocks made against her for incivility. [22]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On 27 July she showed that she was aware that she was blocked and was breaching a block with the edit summary im blocked from editing so cant put more Immediately beforehand I had blocked 203.54.9.137 (talk · contribs · block log) for ongoing vandalism and inappropriate edits inserting commentary and chat into articles--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Gundagai editor's IP range

5.1) The Gundagai editor uses Telstra, one of the main Australian providers of dialup service. The editor edits from a range assigned to Telstra of 203.54.0.0/16, encompassing 65,000 addresses. [23] However, to date nearly all of her edits have been from either 203.54.9.0/24 or 203.54.186.0/24, encompassing 256 addresses each.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 00:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

RFC

6) A request for comment was filed in July; however, the editor did not enter a statement in defense until October 6. There is some question about whether she was adequately informed of the RFC; however, lacking a fixed username there is no reliable way to have contacted her about the RFC. [24]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

She was advised of the RfC at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales - see Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales/Archive 1#Request for Comment - that she was aware of the RfC from 26 July, the date the RfC and advice of it was posted, is apparent from her post on 26 July editing the section which was advising of the RfC. --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reversions of October 4

8) On October 4, the editor was blocked for incivility. In response, she posted a complaint to all 6 village pumps labeling editors as "vandals, thugs and ferals". [25] The comments were repeatedly reverted by many editors [26] [27] [28] [29] The comments were allowed to remain on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) and other editors commented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not edit at all on 4 October [30] --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Revised to separate Oct 4 and Oct 6. Thatcher131 00:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reversions of October 6

8.1) On October 6, she posted similar comments to the village pumps, her RFC, and the administrators' noticeboards. At the time, she had been blocked at each of her IP addresses for incivility (the first block) and block evasion (subsequent blocks of other IP addresses). (For details of the blocks and contributions see the evidence page.) Her comments to her RFC [31] were initally reverted by Bidgee (talk · contribs) and Golden Wattle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) until NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs) stepped in.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Appropriateness of the reversions

8.2) While the reversions of October 4 and 6 arguably inflamed the situation, in context (given the highly uncivil nature of the comments and the fact that the editor was evading a prior block for incivility), the reversions were an acceptable response per the blocking policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 23:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The user was blocked at 15:31, 4 October 2006 by Longhair (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (Repeat vandalism, subject of an RfC) 203.54.9.216 (talk · contribs · block log). Thereafter as noted by Thatcher131 she was in breach of the block but edited on the 4th from 203.54.174.219 (talk · contribs · block log), 203.54.9.95 (talk · contribs · block log) and 203.54.186.180 (talk · contribs · block log) and on the 6th from 203.54.186.207 (talk · contribs · block log), 203.54.9.194 (talk · contribs · block log), 203.54.9.164 (talk · contribs · block log), 203.54.9.218 (talk · contribs · block log) and 203.54.9.129 (talk · contribs · block log). --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed revert unsigned comments including an extensive crosspost which included comments made by others. While the anon has mastered the use of cut and paste functionality (and even in part headings[32] oh wow!), she has yet to find the tilde key or the signature button located above the edit window although her attention has been directed to it numerous times. I had stated my proposed approach of reverting unsigned comments at the RfC, at RfI, at AN/I, at Talk Gundagai, Talk Wiradjuri ... The current state of the RFC page is a testament to what happens when crossposts and unsigned comments are not reverted! Can anybody see who said what when and where without reference to the history? I think not. Moreover, she has not actually addressed the issues raised at the RfC; it was just another space for her to attack others. Note also that as per comments above, as at October 6, the editor was blocked and all edits may be reverted under the blocking policy.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

While I respect User:Golden Wattle and have come to agree on many points, I differ on this particular one. I'm concerned that this could set an exploitable precedent and have collateral damage: if other contributors from a variable IP provider get their range blocked, they can edit Wikipedia via Mozilla or several other methods. What would they do if popups blank their edits? Durova 12:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you concerned about collateral damage to uninvolved users? While as a general rule, IP contributions that appear to be made in good faith should not be blindly reverted, in this case the user's contributions are highly idiosyncratic and recognizable. Thatcher131 12:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the challenge here is that the anon likes to edit about local history, which would be a reasonable topic of interest to anyone else from that IP range. Durova 14:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Response to her complaints

9) Thatcher131 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs) each responded to the Gundagai editor's complaints. To differing degrees, these responses expressed concern about the blanket reversions by Bidgee and Golden Wattle, as well as concerns about her behavior.[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] She later attacked Thatcher131 and Durova when their response to her plea for help focused on her behavior.[39] [40] [41]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 00:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Selective Crossposting

11) The Gundagai editor has cross-posted large blocks of text taken from user talk pages and other locations as a means of defending herself. These blocks of text include selective quotations from other users (including supportive comments but excluding criticism), and are not attributed with diffs. [42] [43] [44] See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Evidence#Violations of WP:POINT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, with the comment that these comments were out of date, were crossposted without my knowledge, and in contradiction to my requests. Durova 12:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse -- Longhair\^talk 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personalization

12) The Gundagai editor has personalized the dispute, seeing it as a battle between herself and editors who are "vandals" or who want to "whitewash" the truth.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Thatcher131 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed. Durova 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse -- Longhair\^talk 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Continued behavior during arbitration

13) The disruptive behavior has continued during the evidence phase of this arbitration case, including calling other editors "liars", and accusing someone of vandalising her evidence, when the clerk's statement is plainly visible. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed. Durova 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse -- Longhair\^talk 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Required to register

1) The Gundagai editor is required to register a user name and edit only under that user name. The account selected may be communicated to the Arbitration Committee using the arbcom-l mailing list, Arbcom-l at Wikipedia.org. Pending selection of an account the Gundagai editor may not edit Wikipedia. Anonymous edits made by the Gundagai editor (to be determined on the basis of editorial style, subject matter, and IP range) may be reverted by any editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Only way to create an incentive to get her to register an account is to revert anything she contributes anonymously, no matter how useful. Thatcher131 23:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As per elsewhere, I am not comfortable with this remedy. Since she won't even sign her posts, I really can't see her registering. She complains about cookies, IT security, .... Perhaps she is struggling with the technology and perceived risks. Requiring her to register and putting this up as a principal will not help solve the problem. When she doesn't register, we are not past square one, especially if part of the solution relies on registration. I would like to see a solution that is not underpinned by registration. It then upholds the wikipedia invitation that anybody can edit, however, that invitation I think is subject to abiding by policies including for example NPA ..., don't abide by those and your edits are not welcome; lack of registration should not be a way to avoid participating in the community.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This remedy requires her to register and allows any editor (even involved editors) to revert her contributions without regard to their quality if she doesn't register. In a case like hers the "anyone may edit" invitation is withdrawn due to repeated bad behavior. This remedy has already been applied in two recent cases (Kven and Eternal Equinox). The only alternatives are probation only, which merely formalizes what we have already been doing (getting an uninvolved admin to block her, leaving you at the mercy of whomever is active at arbitration encforcement or the noticeboards); or a complete ban, which I was trying to avoid. I fully expect the requirement to register will turn into a de facto ban, although it gives her room to join the community. Thatcher131 03:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gundagai editor placed on probation

2) The Gundagai editor is placed on probation. She may be banned from any article or set of articles for disruptive edits, including (but not limited to) insertion of personal knowledge without reliable sources, insertion of personal point of view, and making personal attacks or uncivil remarks towards other editors. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per the Kven user case. Not much point in an outright ban, since she can always pick up a new IP address. If she wants to become a member of the community and follow the rules she should have the chance to do so. One question though; if she communicates her new user name privately to the committee, how will other editors be able to enforce the probation? Thatcher131 23:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

She is unique to date - it will be obvious :-) --Golden Wattle ^talk 01:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gundagai editor placed on civility parole

Grow up whoever put this here. I am serious. Do relaise how ridiculous you lot are. You are a bunch of total idiotic ratbags. grow up. If you are 7 year olds, well that is a mauturity thing but if older, grow up.

2.1) The Gundagai editor is placed on civility parole. She may be blocked by any uninvolved admin for making personal attacks or uncivil remarks in articles or talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I'm trying to construct a set of remedies and enforcement provisions that work together to (a) prohibit anonymous editing by this user, (b) allow blocking for uncivil remarks, (c) allow article banning for disruption, and (d) allow blocking for violating article bans. I feel I haven't got it quite right. Fred may have to fix it :-) Thatcher131 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gundagai editor banned

3) The Gundagai editor is banned indefintely from editing Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. As the Gundagai editor has shown no interest in adopting community norms of behavior and continues to make personal attacks during arbitration, this may in fact be the only sensible answer. Thatcher131 03:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse -- I don't see the behaviour of the anon improving sorry. They clearly refuse to accept the need for the basics of participating in online communications such as refusing to sign edits and refusing to read or acknowledge messages. If we all adopted similar behaviour to this anon, it'd be absolute mayhem here. Keeping the anon around, even on a leash is just too high maintenance for anyone to bother with and a major cleanup job ahead for all based on past trends. It's time to show this disruptive user the door once and for all before good editors tire of their nonsense and decide to leave themselves. The anon's blatant refusal to act within the communities expectations of reasonable behaviour are grounds for removing them from the community. Longhair\^talk 12:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

When the request for arbitration first opened I gave the anon what was essentially a blueprint for success: enter the mentorship program, improve her article edits, avoid personal conflicts, and respect the arbitration process. If she had also accepted responsibility for her mistakes and offered a few apologies then most of the editors here might have given her a second chance. She might even have continued editing her favorite articles, with a few mild requirements to follow site policies.

Our primary purpose here is to construct an encyclopedia. In considering what remedy is appropriate I wonder how many volunteer hours have already gone into managing the fallout from this editor's participation and whether the potential for positive contribution would ever outweigh that loss in productivity. If I use the word regret, it's regret that I spent my time responding to this anon's appeal for help instead of continuing to improve the line citations at House Committee on Un-American Activities or researching films about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart at IMDB.com. I have no regrets about supporting a siteban. Durova 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I sadly have to endorse this proposal, a proposal to which Thatcher131, the initiator of the case, obviously has been led with great reluctance. He and the other users in this case have made commendable efforts to welcome, guide, assist, understand, and work with the "Anonymous Gundagain Editor" only to be met with a constant stream of gross incivility and personal attacks over a period of several months. In other cases I have expressed the view that ArbCom intervention is unnecessary for isolated instances of incivility or for a few comments better left unsaid. Here, however, we have a user a majority of whose edits are grossly objectionable and with no evidence of improvement to date or on the horizon. As Durova suggests on the evidence page, sadly, we may be dealing with an individual who, for whatever unfortunate reason, has issues beyond the power of a web community to address. Moreover, in her most recent edits the editor has expressed only contempt for Wikipedia. I find the conclusion inevitable that there is no prospect for mentorship, probation, or restrictions to help the situation, that the continued interaction is bad for everyone (including the anon herself), and that it may be best to bring this very unfortunate situation to its inevitable conclusion as quickly as possible. Newyorkbrad 04:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement of ban on anonymous editing

1) Should the Gundagai editor violate the ban on anonymous editing, her contributions may be reverted and the IP may be blocked or rangeblocked (using the anonymous only switch) for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This goes along with remedy 1. If the editor is banned outright (#3) then this is obviously not needed, as remedy 3 authorizes block on sight. Thatcher131 05:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement of article bans

2) Should the Gundagai editor violate any article ban imposed above, her account may be blocked for a period of time not to exceed 5 days. After 5 such blocks, the maximum permitted block will increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This assumes she has chosen a user name (remedy 1) and that probation is in place (remedy 2). If the editor is banned outright (#3) then this is obviously not needed. Thatcher131 05:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Accusation that Thatcher is a liar

In my evidence section, I noted that at one point she complained that disclosing an aboriginal archeological site was improper [45] but later she said There are totally no bora rings anywhere here. In her evidence section More lies by Thatcher she dismisses me for not having local knowledge (her language is less nuanced) and then says I repeat, there are totally NO bora anythings in this area. I also repeat, it is highly inappropriate 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. <<<Did u ask my permission to cut and paste that? I simply can't grasp the concept here. I am a liar for saying that she made contradictory statements about the site, and then she makes contradictory statements about the site in her own defense. It can not both be true that there is no site and that government officials who disclosed the site have gotten in trouble. A lot of her editing is along similar lines. Thatcher131 01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, you admit at last that you cannot grab the concept. You do not speak the language perhaps? You are not literate in some stuff? At last Thatcher is gaining some insight. In the meantime though you have caused as much trouble for me as you can. Thank you for that effort. I repeat, there are NO bora anything in my area. Are there boras in your area? If not, why not? This is a lot of the issue here. You guys just do not have the skill to understand some stuff so attack me because of that. Indigenous cultural stuff is not American or British origin culture. You are trying to udnerstand stuff through your own ethnocentric perception. That wont work. I cannot explain stuff to you as that is not my job. When you and others here do NOT understand stuff you then attack me and be as rude and as bullying as you can. What is a bora? Do you know that? What is on wik is only a small par to fthe story. Why wouldnt there be boras in my area? Do you know that? Seems like you do not know that but accept the bora post that is copied from someone else's mistake as that term is a general term but not applicable at all to where I am. A plastic mug is not a wedgewood tea cup. Yes you are lieing as you are not telling the truth about what I said as you are seeking to blame me for something you do not understand or know about. You are using totally bad faith re me again. You refuse to accept what I say as how it is because you just want to attack. I repeat. Indigneous culture and law is NOT the same as non Indigenous culture and Law. Further, Law is set and does not change. No human can alter it. It is set in stone (literally.) No amendments can be made to it ever. Thus, I cannot come here and just slightly alter soemthing to suit my own ends and claim it is cultural as it does not work that way. Indigenous law is Law, not small l non Indigneous law that can be altered by legislative amendments etc. There is no 'confession' or 'indulgence' facility in Indigenous Law. What happens when the sun shines? Can I alter that? No.

Because of the lack of ability you have to understand Indigenous stuff, you carry on as you do. DO I CARRY ON IN A SIMILAR MANNER AS YOU BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA HOW A MOTOR WORKS re my self confessed lack of knowledge re that? No.

I am very happy for an Indigenous point of view to go up adjacent to anything I post. Wik articles should project several points of view, not just one as this is a pluralist society we live in, or at least I do. That is why the outlandish claim that this town was the centre for reconcilation was so ridiculous. What is posted there now is more balanced. I read that kicking yarri quote from its core source i.e. the paper it was printed in, though its also wrapped in other content in a book I have. Atrkos who only read it in the sam e book, quotes it out of context and 120 later.

My pov is from an Indigenous perspective but as (from a wik dominat culture plus locally) I am not Indigenous genetically it may be different from that of a genetically Indigneous person (and I would not say anything because of cultural protocols as what i say is underpinned by traditional Law), but Indigenous Law isnt about genetics. White fellas law defines what 'Indigneous' is from your perspective but Indigenous Law defines that differently. Do you know what Indigneous 'Law' refers to as opposed to non Indigenous 'law'? If not you should not be commenting on what i say re the poems and the massacre. I dont comment on how to fix a motor remember. However, I may have a different understanding of motors to that of an 18 year old mechaninc, if I invented them or was a motor part.

Anyway, a heap of incorrect stuff will continue to go up on wik as wik runs on some very silly heads it seems which is a pretty narrow perspective so very exclusive. In contact times in Oz how the culture worked was realised and then dynamics put in place to work against that and this continues, but the huge value of Indigenous culture to tourism is being realised in oz so 'they' are now trying to put Law and thus its accompanying people, back to location, but most who know, wont play given there has been 200 years of genocide. Because the Dog on Tuckerbox monument is such an iconic Australian thing celebrating the war against Indigenous people, it raises hackles big time. Thats fine as I know what i am talkign about, (including professional non Indigenous people as well as Indigenous people) and those who matter know I am right. (That monument is a white fella's cultural thing. It is not Indigenous.)

You guys here just do not have the skills to know some stuff so choose to attack in lieu. That just degrades what wik could be but changing that wont happen as is very obvious. If you want to learn Indigneous law so you hopefully dont carry on liek that, why dont you learn it rather than atatcking me. If I want to make qualified statements off documents re what anyone puts here on how a motor runs, etc I should learn how a motor runs first or I might be reading a document on how a motor does run that I do not undertsand and make incorrect assumptiosn because of that.

No, I am not registering for wik. There are too many rude people here who use tools as a power thing and I have better in my life than to need to be sucked into that sort of rot. Wik is way below the level I work at also and just something I click on if TV on or I am having a cuppa, etc. Some wik stuff is Ok but big slabs of it are very obviously done by amateurs sourced from total rubbish that has no veracity because of the silliness of some of those who post the stuff. I am watching what happens with the Hume and Hovell expedition page to see what gets put there next. Because most dont know some stuff I know, that is fully sourced, I will just sit and watch. At least the editor there though has some level of research skill it seems so if he does go to the core primary source (the explorers journal) rather than posting stuff from a book written in the 1970s that is very incorrect, and doesnt use a modernist linear going from engineered point A to Point B mode, he may put something correct up re where those explorers went the whole way along their route rather than just being part correct. I should get a copy of the book he got his info from, today so i may be able to work out where that book author went wrong re his 1970 claims and I will put that up. I know some of that authors major errors in other similar books he has written but the core information that establises where all these newer versions of incorrect SE Oz explorer stuff came from I cant say as that stuff hides a massively important Indigenous site that i do not want disclosed. Stuff was altered in the 1830s to obscure the locaation of that site. As long as the Regulator and Indigenous people know which they now do it doesnt matter if wik and you lot dont as wik and you lot are totally non important to any of it.

I'd suggest you all go get a life. Do you realise how ridiculous this stuff you go on with all is. It is like a primary school playground thing where there are always sheila like twits with their idiotic power plays and ridiculous announcements. I guess anyone part of that sort of garbage would have little insight into how stupid they are though

Go do a degree in Oz Indigneous culture or something if you genuinely want to become more aware and then what you say may not be grounded on such total ignorance as what you sprout here re this stuff, has been. I spent time in Arnhem Land so was 'taught' by still traditional elders years ago and did ceremonial stuff, but have several other quals too re Indigneous stuff plus actively work in this area, so am miles ahead of you there, plus few to no none would be fortunate enough to have the opportunity to be taught in 2006 as I was in AL, but you still have hope of becoming better informed then you obviously are at this point, then using your lack of knowledge to attack wik contributors.

So blind are those who cannot see.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just for reference, the website with the Bora rings is "Gundagai Shire". State of the Environment Reporting for the Australian Capital Region. ACT Commissioner for the Environment. 2006. Retrieved 2006-07-18. (Oh and it is till on line today more than three months later!?! - so much for her comments that 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" (sic) ) The website states The Gundagai area is part of the traditional Waradjuri land and evidence suggests that the floodplains below the town were a frequent meeting place of Aboriginal people. Indeed traditional bora rings have been identified close to town in recent times. White settlement began in the mid-1800s and the town developed on the floodplain to service the crossing of the Murrumbidgee River. I was the one who placed the material on wikipedia. I also do not see her objections [46] she really does not seem to understand what the wikipedia is about or what publishing means. In response to some suggestions that she is keen to include more information about Indigenous Australians - it is only some material she wants to see and only some material that supports a particular POV.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wattle, sites are not disclosed that can be vandalised, as they often are. That results in the loss of those sites to Indigneous people, but also to all Australians. Uluru cannot be easily vandalised but can be treated with disrespect. Other stuff can be vandalised. Speaking generally and acknowledgin Indigneous lands is fine. Disclosing sites isnt unles sgiven permission to by culture under Australian government 'Ask First' guidlelines available online I think unde rAustralian heritage Commission. People need to know sites first though. Some are on the AIHMS database but its really hard to get info off it which is great. Only people with authority to access that databse can and even then they cannot have free access. Not just a casual wik stickybeak can get info of fit. Other sites are not on that database as they are not subject to direct threat from tourists, locals, people with politcal agendeas etc. I know where stuff is as I found it but that does not give me the right to tell people other than those who have to know such as the government and others whose stuff it is, where it is. There are laws to protect Australian heritage you know in particular our world significant Indigneous stuff.

Selective understanding

During a discussion of the proper names of the hills on which the town of Gundagai is located, she accuses other editors of vandalizing her changes [47], even though no one else was editing the article at the time [48]. I explained how to use the "history" tab [49] showing that there were no changes to the article except hers during that time, and suggested she might have had a problem with her browser cache and that she owed Bidgee and Sarah Ewart an apology for calling them liars [50]. She called me a "Dom" and sent me to a leather room [51].

She then posted to the article talk page, and crossposted the entire discussion to her RFC [52]. In this discussion she accuses me multiple times of "making it up."

Wattle, sites are not disclosed that can be vandalised, as they often are. That results in the loss of those sites to Indigneous people, but also to all Australians. Uluru cannot be easily vandalised but can be treated with disrespect. Other stuff can be vandalised. Speaking generally and acknowledgin Indigneous lands is fine. Disclosing sites isnt unles sgiven permission to by culture under Australian government 'Ask First' guidlelines available online I think unde rAustralian heritage Commission. People need to know sites first though. Some are on the AIHMS database but its really hard to get info off it which is great. Only people with authority to access that databse can and even then they cannot have free access. Not just a casual wik stickybeak can get info of fit. Other sites are not on that database as they are not subject to direct threat from tourists, locals, people with politcal agendeas etc. I know where stuff is as I found it but that does not give me the right to tell people other than those who have to know such as the government and others whose stuff it is, where it is. There are laws to protect Australian heritage you know in particular our world significant Indigneous stuff.

No Thatcher, it isnt possible that my web browser showed an incorrect version of the page, from its internal cache. Why are you here again making up this twaddle and being pompus. First you make it up re the old page, then want me to apologise over something you just made up. I think it might be good if you stop making these fanciful stories up and stop trying to stir. ... Go learn some manners instead of trying to spin me ridiculous porkies about cache etc when you have no idea what my cache does or doesnt. ... A lot of the evidence of stuff I put here, has again been deleted/removed/reverted. The removing information here continues from whoever is doing it. Anything that shows what this lot have been up to, they remove.

This could possibly be excused as a new editor unfamiliar with the Mediawiki software. And yet, she understands how to use the page history tab when it suits her. [53] [54] Thatcher131 12:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Claims to be ignorant of blocks

Stated the following (split out of very long post)

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.

Diffs showing awareness of blocks

• the edit summary im blocked from editing so cant put more

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Added by me. Any other diffs showing awareness of blocks? Thatcher131 15:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: