Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

1 Involved parties
- 1.1 Requests for comment
2 Statement by Thatcher131
3 Statement by NuclearUmpf
4 Statement by Golden Wattle
5 My Evidence Was Tampered With Was It? By Whom and Why
6 Statement by Anonymous Gundagai editor
7 Statement by Bidgee
8 Statement by User:Durova
9 Statement by User:Longhair
10 Preliminary decisions
- 10.1 Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)
- 10.2 Temporary injunction
11 Final decision

[edit] Involved parties

Thatcher131 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
Golden Wattle (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
Longhair (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
Bidgee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
Durova (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

IPs the editor has used in the last month (dynamic ISP, probably dial-up):

203.54.9.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
203.54.9.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
203.54.186.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
203.54.9.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
203.54.186.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
203.54.9.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Articles involved

Gundagai, New South Wales (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Murrumbidgee River (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Dog on the Tuckerbox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Coolac, New South Wales (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Requests for comment

[edit] Statement by Thatcher131

I became involved in this case after a recent complaint to the administrators' noticeboard. I decided to file this request in the wake of two long-term admins Bidgee and Golden Wattle declaring indefinite wikibreaks on account of this editor.

For the past 5-6 months, someone editing from a range of Telstra IPs in southwestern Australia has been disrupting articles relating to the history of the area, specifically arguing that the articles whitewash mistreatment of Aboriginal peoples by white settlers. While her views have some merit^[1], her behavior is unacceptable and a textbook example of disruptive editing. She refuses to use the simplest of Wikipedia courtesies such as signing her talk page posts. She makes personal attacks against other editors and fails to assume good faith. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] She refuses to accept the reliable source policy as policy. [8] She relies on personal knowledge and original research. [9] [10] She pushes her own point of view, such as removing sourced information about an archeological site because it was disrespectful [11] but has previously insisted on including an event for which there are no reliable sources. The anon editor was blocked several times for disruption and personal attacks, only to change IPs immediately and continue editing (documented in the RFC).

Also documented in the RFC is the declaration by Golden Wattle that all future posts by the anonymous editor would be reverted if they were unsigned [12]. This decision apparently was born out of longstanding frustration with the editor's long, rambling and often abusive talk page posts as well as her defying of blocks for personal attacks by changing IP address. The decision was posted on the administrators' noticeboard and the RFC where it received a total of one favorable and no unfavorable responses.

The most recent blow-up began on October 3, with this edit hectoring the other editors in the body of the article, accusing editors of racism, with more hectoring and an appeal to personal information. Her edits were all blindly reverted, which was probably inappropriate because among all the hectoring was an actual sourced claim which was reverted but which has since been incorporated into the article. The editor complained about the reversions on (all 6) Village Pumps under the headline Editors Who Are Vandals, and Thugs and Ferals, continuing with more personal attacks. [13] [14] She attempted to crosspost her complaint to her RFC and the administrator's noticeboard. Based in part on his stated policy of reverting unsigned posts, and in part on the fact that she was blocked for incivility and was evading her block through a succession of new IP addresses, Golden Wattle and Bidgee reverted these comments. Eventually User:NuclearUmpf stepped in and reformatted her comments (in the process removing some of the personal attacks).

It is at this point that I became involved. I asked the anonymous editor to talk to me, resulting in posts at User talk:Thatcher131 and Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales. I left a response which I thought was a measured attempt to support her efforts to remove potential pro-settler bias while warning her that her behavior was unacceptable [15] [16]. She responded with more personal attacks [17].

Golden Wattle is definitely displeased with the responses he got from Durova, NuclearUmpf and myself as well, so I either split the middle pretty well or got it completely wrong on all sides. I also want to emphasize that while this most recent outburst was exacerbated by having her edits reverted as vandalism, her disruption extends back to July and before, to a time when Golden Wattle and other editors were responding to her article edits (which were full of POV and unsourced personal experience) with patience, incorporating her changes where appropriate and copyediting them when (frequently) necessary. I also do not believe this is a case of a misunderstood editor who does not understand the "Wikipedia way." Calling other editors racist, liars, vandals, thugs, feral, preschoolers, hoons, and having too much aggro is not the behavior of a newbie who is willing to work within the system but just doesn't know how. In fact, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* documents tendentious editing and personal attacks made after the original filing of the RFC, including against unrelated editors at unrelated articles. I believe this editor is disruptive, and is not interested in following normal conventions of negotiation and consensus, preferring to hector other editors and fight over the insertion of statements supported by only her own special knowledge. The topic is sufficiently narrow that attempts to get consensus for action on the administrators' noticeboard are unlikely to draw much attention. I believe the only available remedy is Arbitration.

^[1] Of four main topics of contention, I believe she has useful points to make on two of them. However, her behavior makes it impossible to work with her. I will provide more details about this in the evidence section if the case is accepted or upon request.

Response to Nuclear Umpf Ten out of ten for assuming good faith, however, here is a list of requests to sign talk page posts.

July 4 [18] *July 5 [19]
July 5 [20] *July 5 [21]
July 5 [22] *July 25 [23]
July 26 [24] *October 7 [25]

I think it's clear this is deliberate, for what purpose I don't know. Thatcher131 02:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Durova and NuclearUmpf I would like to briefly respond to the implication that this person has been treated badly and just needs mentoring or hand holding. Today I un-protected Gundagai to see if the editors could work together, and things started out civil. However, here she accuses other editors of vandalizing her changes, even though no one else was editing the article at the time [26]. Sarah Ewart, an uninvolved admin, asked her to refrain from calling other editors vandals both on the talk page [27] and on the user talk page of her current IP [28]. She responded by calling Sarah a "pompous troublemaker" and telling her to "buzz off". She continues to assert that her personal knowledge trumps published information [29], and has anonymously complemented herself on how nice it is that she is not a lunatic. So, how many more users and admins will it take to ask her to stop assuming bad faith and stop making personal attacks? Thatcher131 07:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by NuclearUmpf

As I stated in the RfC i believe the anonymous editor may be an expert or knowledgable in the field beyond the other editors and have common knowledge or information others do not have access to, however is still breaking WP:RS and WP:V by adding it. I feel the other editors escalated this situation beyond the scope of what it had to in order to silence this user. They reverted the anon's complaints on AN/I, the anon's defense on their own RfC and even their comments when simply answering a question on my talk page. This blanket reverting obviously turned what could have been a discussion and explanation by a third party into something worse. Part of the complaint has been them not signing their posts, but I believe this is because they do not know how to. The user has not offered any wikilinks or dif's as proof showing their lack of knowledge in basic "wiki meta." Further proof is shown above in Thatcher's edits illustrating that messages are being left on IP's that are abandoned, also by Thatcher's own inability to understand, and mine as well, why the only anon who has never denied any of the edits, would simply not sign them if they knew how.

I would like to state officially that I do not think ArbCom should take this as I believe they do not lack the ability to handle a case like this as they only explore spirit and don't actually try to solve the problem, the problem being here that sources need to be examined and provided and an anon user needs to be explained better how they can contribute their work. I think the anon user can or at least could have been a significant member of the wiki community and this is possible one of those cases where an expert is going to be chased off by non-experts, or at least non-researchers.

So in closing this situation escalated in a horrible manner by constant reverts, bad faith and inability to just add unsigned tags where appropriate as it was obvious this user had trouble signing posts. I also think Arbcom is wasting their time as was an RfC, if you are not going to educate the user and they keep getting new IP's this is really all moot. --Nuclear Zer0 02:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: I am writing this update as new information comes to rise. I now understand partially the refusal to sign posts and it comes from not understanding the system in place possibly. The anon user feels it violates their privacy to expose their IP everytime they post. I would say this is pointless since its recorded in the page history anyway, however after witnessing the users on the Gundagai talk page discuss how to contact the users ISP through former friendly personal channels, I am not really surprised by why they wanted their IP hidden, though it never was. I honestly wish everyone would chill out and actually collaborate on this article because a aboriginal perspective would be an amazing contribution, including claims of massacres if at least one WP:RS source somewhere wrote about it. --Nuclear Zer0 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Update My last till this proceeds further, if it does. While I still believe that the people who have accounts escalated this situation, I now also believe due to recent events that the anon is highly volatile and not likely to contribute in a civil manner regardless of their possible level of expertise. The uncivil behavior has just gone overboard, there lack of understanding in the Wikipedia principles WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF etc, or just not wanting to actually read them has lead to much distress. While I still feel ArbCom really has no action here that would be of any use as they are an anon user, I do believe some action needs to be taken to curb this users disregard for those two principles above. --Nuclear Zer0 11:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Golden Wattle

Happy to co-operate with an Arbitration hearing should the case be accepted.--Golden Wattle ^talk 11:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Immediately below, the anon editor claims she is no longer putting information on the Coolac massacre on Wikipedia. These edits of 8 October 2006 [30] [31] to the article on the Dog on the Tuckerbox would appear to contradict her claim. I am happy to expand on why meeting the policy of Wikipedia:No Original Research is so very important in the case of a national icon (the Dog on the Tuckerbox) and the highly sensitive issue of how Australians have treated the Indigenous people of the country. Perhaps for an example, see the debate between a prominent historian and the former Governor General (our head of State) concerning the Governor General's inaccurate references to another massacre. (see Sydney Morning Herald)

The Coolac massacre has no written records, either contemporary or current. There is apparently no publication with textual analysis of the poem linking the poem to indigenous issues as was the authority cited by the anon at one time (ie it was her own hitherto unpublished opinion). [32] [33] The anon has asserted The Gundagai/Coolac Massacre is the most significant Indigneous Massacre in Australia's history which is why it has been covered up. Gudnagai is the capital of Indigneous culture and this was dismantled at invasion and after so that invasion was successful.[34] This an extremely strong POV and any edits that support that view need to be supported with cites. She has persistently refused to provide citations for her assertions [35] [36] [37] [38] and no other editor has been able to find a cite to support the view.

While some suggest that the anon brings a useful alternate POV to the Wikipedia, she quotes selectively and inaccurately. For example, her first post about Yarri being mistreated was without due regard to the source and clearly using it to push a POV (caps lock and all) [39]. Her material on this topic has been out of context though perhaps this cannot be recognised by others who do not have access to the book she is quoting from or familiarity with the topic.

The anon claims that nobody has explained why she should sign tags. I beg to differ as per the diffs provided by Thatcher131 and there are many other instances. Why a person who claims to be 55 years old [40], who claims to have two uni degrees and to be studying for a third [41] and would appear to be a native speaker of English and not an Indigenous Australian [42] would have a difficulty with the concept of signing talk pages after many months and many many edits contributing here when thousands of other editors to Wikipedia do not have trouble signing their messages is beyond me.

I feel unable to participate on the Wikipedia while this anon editor defames me and the personal attacks are not removed. My actions in relation to this editor have been criticised as not being in good faith, criticisms that I am very disappointed to have received. --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Evidence Was Tampered With Was It? By Whom and Why

Is that how here runs. Interesting. Not suprising though. Its all like some grand cult, isnt it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.238 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Statement by Anonymous Gundagai editor

Part of your statement was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonymous Gundagai editor/comments from RFC and talk pages. If needed as evidence please shorten and properly attribute with diffs. Then you can reinsert here in your section.

Can I just make the comment that re Thatchers claim immediately above, he didnt introduce himself but just satrted issuing these commands. It seems he has tools and was threatning to use them but at that point no Thatcher had ever spoken to me previously and I had no idea who or what he was. Some of these admins just land on contributors with no wartning and start pushing people around, and contributors have no idea who or what they are or are not. I have since sussed that he seems to have some kudos but I still have no idea who or what he is.

The measured comment he claims he made is very unmeasured as in it he talks about claims made by an Indigenous Elder re a massacre, when that is very incorrect. The first claim re the massacre was made by the Projects archaeologists after being informed of it during earlier surveys by a Coolac non Indigneous resident. The Indigenous Elder referred to is a good friend of mine and he has previously been slandered here and now nonsense claimed re him. Whatever re the massacre, I have been saying for quite a while it isnt going to be posted here after publication of the final arch reports, so carrying on about it is ridiculous. My recent post was about Yarri being kicked and though I gave them probably the most credible original cites in Oz re that (Our National Library) or the local library for a regional wik person, that wasnt good enough. Some of the editors on wik seem to have an issue with comprehension and that causes problems. Anyway, too much 'he said, she said' right through this whole issue. If less said and more just did, such as dropped the bullying of contributors by wik gangs and planning to get mates to interfere with phone accounts, life might be sweeter. Whether the mob like it or not, I do know Gundagai's story way better than them as I have lived here for half a century, so they need to accept that. That I wont give them a scoop on the coolac massacre by providing them with the cites, no matter what they try, also needs to be understood.

One of the big misunderstandings here is that I want to put the coolac massacre up without cites. I am no longer putting the coolac massacre up and have not been going to do that for ages as they well know, as I do not now consider wik a suitable place for it. The cites are not available to be released right now as I have an obligation to a process I am invlved in, but they wont be released later. Those cites, (that some here seem to imagine do not exist because I wont cite them) are from Australia's historical record. There will be other cites through their process soon but they can stay on restricted AIHMS access so that other stuff is also protected. People get sick of the angst anything to do with Indigenous heritage seems to stir up from some so people learn to keep it restricted once the garbage starts to get thrown.

Thatcher may think a bit too much. Its pretty slanderous to claim what he does above. Thatacher also calls me 'he'. I am a woman thanks Thatcher. You seem to not be that connected I think but then I have no idea really who or what you are as you have not introduced yourself to make that possible. You did invite me to talk on your page which I did, but there was no response. You then bounced into the Gundagai discussion room a day after that and zeroed in on me. From that point I am now very very wary of what you are up to as well as previusly becoming very wary of the others (with very good reason seeing there was discussion re my telco and mates and back door ways to interfere with my account).

You know, at no time has any of these people ever said why I should sign posts, what it does, or anything. They just leave rude comments about signing posts. They need a charm school. My security would probably zap it if I did.

4.4 From Me

[edit] Outside view by NuclearUmpf I fell into this debate through a post that was made on AN/I that was reverted, which I felt was odd. I went to the page on Gundagai and left a question for those involved to answer, noone but the anon answered and did so on my talk page. The users in the dispute with him then reverted my talk page, before I even got to read the response. Before I jumped in I looked at the history of the article and noticed the anon tried to add a story about a aboriginee named Yarri that saved some people during a flood in which he was later assaulted. I hit google for the story and found only one source from ABC, one that seems to be debated.

My experience with everyone involved so far. I think the anon may be an expert in the field or have a greater knowledge then those he is arguing with over what happened or at least the claims of the Aboriginal people there, however he has not provided sufficient sources to back up those claims, these need to be provided or the information cannot be cited, I want to point out that he has provided 3 sources for the kicking yarri story, not all from ABC. He has made attempts to reach a middle ground as what he wanted to add before kicking yarri was different, kicknig yarri was the middle ground effort, also reverted.

My experience with some of the users he is disputing with is that they are not AGF in accusing him of cycling his IP, accusing him of vandalism and worst of all blanket reverting him when he attempts to file complaints on AN/I and other Wikipedia places for filing such complaints, also on talk pages such as mine. Blanket reverting should not be allowed and led to some information that was easily googled being removed from Coolac Pass, the information about it and Gundagai being known for the dog imagery, Dog on the Tuckerbox to be exact. This information was removed in the blanket revert to remove the Coolac Massacre claims that I was unable to find information of. I tried to reason with some of the disputee's however there seems to be a misguided understanding that its ok to revert everythnig this user attempts to contribute to Wikipedia through reverts instead of actually attempt to verify themselves or offer a middle ground.

In closing all parties should have been a little more understanding of eachother, I refuse to put the blame on the anon solely as its obvious that the continuous reverting of everything they do escalated the tension and situation. Including the filing of this RfC and reverting of the anon's attempts to defend themselves here. You cannot have dispute resolution by yourself and RfC is not a punishment.

Users who endorse this summary:

--NuclearZer0 19:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Thanks nuclear Its not so much for me I have been 'fighting' this 'fight'. I hate bullying and there is so much goes on here that I have concerns for anyone else who might be a target for it. The place runs like a cult in some areas with anyone who wont kowtow to the ruling dominants, totally zeroed in on. Its bad.

That the ones doing the stuff you have noted them doing, seem to get away with it, by reverting, deleting etc, is a real concern. I am currently blocked for 24 hrs due to some fresh antics from the Gundagai discussion page. I fell for it not wondering why the bait was put there, rather than it being discussed here or on the page of the 'good samaritan' who popped up to assist me. I am not here often and wont be at all soon so dont know the run of the place or the underlying antics so easy to set up. I also switch off when that sort of stuff begins so a prob there. For me to find this Rfc page I had to hunt a bit as its removed from the other link I had to it. I repeat, this isnt so much as about me but about that it is happening, is being done and got away with, and would be happening to others who dare post stuff on wik but decline being sucked in to the other stuff. TY again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

Well, XXXXX has the 203.54.0.0/16 range (65,000 addresses) but lately she has only used 203.54.186.0/24 and 203.54.9.0/24, each of which range includes only 256 addresses. My guess is that only certain ranges are available to certain telephone exchanges or neighborhoods. If she comes back tonight on the 186.0/24 range, I'll block it too. I'm using the anon only blocking feature so the only users to be affected should be people in her local area who want to edit as anon IPs. (I should have enabled account creation, too, since the only thing we want to block is her anonymous editing.) There aren't any current autoblocks, and there shouldn't be any using the anon only feature, but if you see any you should release them. At this point the only long term solution is an arbitration that would confirm your decision to revert on sight. Thatcher131 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)"

Are u guys now messing up southern Oz's access to the Internet as well as mine? Isnt that denial of service? Maybe you should have got a job on the Sydney Road Construction then you could have done some lane closures there if you like to block peopel off from access. I thought you must have lifted the block as I accessed it earlier not expecting it to be unblocked (but your behaviour has been so erratic that anything was possible), so if I should not have posted what I did till 6am tomorrow, dont fret too much as it would have been posted anyway. Re my ip, the server adjusts. Sometimes it runs through one server, then adjusts to another, then to another. It all depends on what other traffic XXXXXXX are carrying such as defence, media and private commercial, line loads and where there is space to put the cyber stuff. I do not live in a little town re my ip but on a major node. Thus, my ip range would be pretty wide as it goes all over the place. My log on varies as I dial in to other servers for other stuff so probably swap carriers here and there to do that. Hope that helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Dont deny service to other XXXXXXX users just because you want to have a go at me as that is pretty crook. ALSO, are you allowed to disclose personal details of people who contribute to wik such as their ISP and IP numbers as you have here. I dont post your IP numbers etc and I think that is contrary to wik policy, isnt it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Statement by Bidgee

We (Longhair 1, Golden Wattle 2 3 4 5 6 and myself 7 8‎ 9) have told the Anon how to sign comments on talk pages and the Anon refuses to sign there comments. The Anon has been uncivil and has made personal attacks against me 10 11 12 13 and also has disrupted the wikipedia to make a point 14 15. Main reason why I have revert the Anon's is there information they have added is unverifiable or unsourced, Uncivil, Personal attacks, Editing when blocked (Editing a talk page or getting a new IP that isn't blocked to edit with) and Unsigned comments on talk pages. I'm still newish to Wikipedia and I still have a lot to learn however on what has happened in the past few months is putting me off Wikipedia. You can find more about the issues we have had at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* -- Bidgee 17:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have asked the Anon more then once to sign and how to sign there comments on talk pages and they continue to add unsigned comments 16 17. The unsigned comments makes it hard to understand who has said what. -- Bidgee 04:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: The Anon has been uncivil 18 19 and making clams that I have reverted there edits 20 which I haven't 21 and they continue to have there comments unsigned. -- Bidgee 06:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Durova

I became aware of this at the Village Pump. While Golden Wattle explained several of my concerns adequately at my user talk page, I'm not confident that this is the right time for ArbCom to take up this case. The hammer seems to have come down rather hard on this anonymous Gungadai editor. I'd like to see formal mediation or WP:3O tried. This anon might improve with a mentor. This person did attempt to join the RfC as soon as I suggested it, but the anon's response was reverted through popups.

Given that popups were used so extensively, I'm still willing to give this anon the benefit of the doubt. While this person's behavior has been antagonistic, the popup reverts had an understandably frustrating gagging effect. What concerns me most about the popup blanking was that it was performed without community consensus (in the form of a topic ban or a community ban). However meritorious the intentions of the other editors might be in this instance, I'm concerned about the precedent this could set: suppose a group of bad faith editors on another article used this technique disruptively to provoke and oust a new and well-informed editor?

~~What I'd really like to see is an earnest effort at reconciliation. If that fails I'd support arbitration, but as yet there are a few stones left unturned.~~ Respectfully submitted, Durova 06:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: subsequent behavior on the part of this editor is prompting me to reconsider the above statement. I'm not ready to strikethrough, but please regard it as tentative. If I decide to retract I'd strikethrough in two to three days. Durova 05:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Amended statement I attempted informally to mediate and mentor, yet my efforts have met with little success. On the good side, the technical quality of this IP's article edits have seen a modest improvement. However, the IP has taken no futher steps toward conforming to site standards and recent arbitration and talk page posts have tended toward the abrasive and the defiant and in some instances are even misleading. The IP reposted material from my user talk page without consulting me and responded on my talk page without disclosing other reposts once I complained about some reposts that selectively broadcasted out-of-date comments which shed herself (this appears to be the correct pronoun) in the most favorable light. Also, although the anon claims that Thatcher131 failed to reply at a user talk page, I read prompt and thoughtful responses to the anon's civil comments - only the rude and sarcastic statements got ignored. Here at the arbitration request the IP claims no one explained the reasons for signing posts, yet my research shows that this editor hadn't asked for an explanation. Nor has the IP offered any reply that I've seen to the suggestions that her privacy concerns would be resolved by becoming a registered user. It is disingenuous and histrionic to habitually lodge complaints with third parties and in general forums without addressing the appropriate editors directly. The IP has also ignored my repeated suggestions to seek a formal mentor. My initial willingness to extend the benefit of the doubt appears to have emboldened this editor's problematic behavior. I thank the other involved editors for admirable patience in enduring this incivility and for tagging unsigned comments rather than blanking them. In the absence of provocations, and while uninvolved editors and administrators extended good faith, this anon has essentially climbed the scaffold and tied the noose to hang herself. I now support arbitration. Durova 00:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Longhair

I became involved in this matter almost at the beginning when the edits of the anon were brought to my attention by administrator, Golden Wattle (who edited under the username of AYArktos at that time) via a message to my talk page.

Before the anon arrived, I had found Golden Wattle to be a level headed and concise editor who has contributed a great deal to Wikipedia since her arrival. In recognition of her efforts and her thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies, I successfully nominated Golden Wattle for adminship during March 2006. From memory, it wasn't long after Golden Wattle's successful request for adminship that problems with this anon arrived.

At Golden Wattle's request, I offered assistance to look into the matter and discovered the anon editing articles relating to New South Wales, Australia in a disruptive manner; adding information based on personal knowledge and unsupported by references, making a plethora of personal and distasteful attacks against Golden Wattle and User:Bidgee, refusing to sign comments despite many advices on how to do so, and inappropriately entering personal commentry and rants into the middle of existing article content in the encyclopedia namespace rather than the talk namespace.

Many warnings from myself and others to the anon were given requesting them to edit according to acceptable standards or eventually face a block. The disruptive editing continued, and the anon was eventually blocked for regular brief periods of time upon their resurfacing and repeat unacceptable behaviours. Over the course of the next few months the unacceptable behaviour continued. An unsuccesful request for arbitration was filed, followed by an RfC which gathered very little attention until just recently. As the unacceptable behaviour of the anon continued with no signs of stopping or changing for the better, I began to block the anon on sight as per the 'Statement of intended ongoing reponse' in the RfC concerned', provided by Golden Wattle as I suspect being the only viable solution to an ongoing problem.

The anon has continued to ignore requests by several editors involved to edit in a civil manner, abusing not only myself in edit summaries and comments, but also almost every editor who became involved with the situation. Recently, the anon has futher accused myself of bullying, and recently raised accusations of myself using "tools" to supress their contributions, accusing myself of heavy-handedness and also raising unfounded suspicions that I am stalking them and using multiple sockpuppet accounts to be able to do so under multiple identities, none of which is true. In an effort to restore my sanity, I recently decided I am no longer replying to any of the anons edits as it simply felt I was being baited into action so they could report me elsewhere, allowing them to gloat over the situation when the replies of other editors new to the situation began to arrive questioning my actions.

I am not and have never become involved in the actual content dispute concerning the articles in question. I have little knowledge of Aboriginal massacres in Australia or any other issue under dispute at the articles concerned. I have never offered any advice in the content dispute, my role being solely as a Wikipedia administrator enforcing policy and activating blocks accordingly.

While I am happy to see this matter progress to arbitration, it comes at a bad time for myself as my personal life is somewhat busy at present and my home internet connection is undergoing intermittent connection problems reducing myself to slow connection speeds rather than the usual broadband access, however I will endeavor to assist where necessary as my free time permits. -- Longhair\^talk 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept. Dmcdevit·t 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Accept Fred Bauder 13:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction

1) The anonymous editor of Gundagai, New South Wales-related articles, subject of this case, is required to register an account and edit with only that account. All other edits from that editor shall be treated as edits from a banned user.

Passed 5 to 0 at 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)