Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonymous Gundagai editor/comments from RFC and talk pages

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) {{{2|}}}.

====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) {{{2|}}}.

: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) {{{2|}}}.

====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) {{{2|}}}.

• Please sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~. -- Bidgee 08:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::remove comments not placed here by me Golden Wattle ^talk 10:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My provider is private as it is covered by Australias privacy laws that override any wik laws under Australias Internet laws ty. Furthermore, my account is further covered by privacy laws for reasons totally unconnected with the Internet. You left here artkos remember and my isp would probably want to know about the planned interference with my account a discussion was had about, see below. I find it highly irregular that an editor was voicing they were intending contacting a former colleague at my isp re my account with them which would be another total breach of privcy under Australia's privacy laws.

Logs have been kept of all logs here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.101 (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

::remove comments not placed here by me Golden Wattle ^talk 10:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not have much idea of australian specific internet law then which overrides any commons law. Anyway, the experts can sort it.

Dont direct your conversations to me again as it isnt appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.101 (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

::remove comments not placed here by me Golden Wattle ^talk 10:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is no point in arguing. The GFDL requires that all contributions be attributed to an author. The privacy policy states that authors will be identified by their IP address unless they reguster a user name. Both policies are linked on every single page. If you have every used the page history tab to see the record of past changes or to more easily revert back an edit, you will have seen that all contributions are identified in this way. Wikipedia, being based in Florida, is governed by U.S. privacy laws. Thatcher131 11:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia may be governed by US Privacy laws Thatcher, but under Australian Internet law that came in about 2 years ago, Australian law overrides any Internet Law especially in Federal jurisdictions such as the ones my ISP and Australias communications come under. Thus, us aussies can rest assurred that Australia does not lose its soverignity re anything that comes into this nation via the Internet and that no other nation can interfere in Australian laws that affect stuff that happens on Australian soil just because there may be a cyber link. Wikipedia and the US do not govern Oz via the Internet.

Yeap, I agree with no use arguing. Wattle told me she was a woman and above here it says Wattle is a male. I dont know her. I have no idea of the personailty beyond the posts here and dont know why I was told she was a woman if she is a male. Its pretty confusing isnt it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.101 (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

• In reponse to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&limit=500&curid=438960&action=history unsigned comment posted at WP:RfA] and later moved here, I assume the anon is referring to Thatcher131's reference to me as a "he". I make no song and dance about it but I am indeed a "she". Although I am sure nobody is trying to mislead anyone with incorrect pronouns, perhaps since the anon cannot cope with any reference to me as a "he", those who are interested could note I am a "she"! (The anon is also but fortunately she seems not to be confused when this overlooked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=80609910&oldid=80608489]) --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"He's been told how to sign posts, and still refuses to do so. It's hardly rocket science. I'm going to block him on that behaviour alone if he persists in ignoring reasonable requests. Nobody needs to go along behind him and clean up - that's not why we're here. The rest of his anti-social behaviour only brings a block even closer. I used to work for his ISP. Contacting them isn't going to be easy, as most technical support staff are outsourced nowadays and any chance of reaching anyone able to do anything about this user are very remote. I think the best course of action if and when they return is simply to block the entire range. Affected customers can then determine if it's worth sticking with an ISP that doesn't act on disruptive users. Any help you need with this character, let me know. -- Longhair 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"

...and to add to that, the anon has been made aware of the RfC at every opportunity, in block messages and at their many talk pages. We're just being played for fools whilst they sit back and joke at the disruption caused. -- Longhair\talk 11:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

• Remove comments that were on my talk page, now in my talk page archives, and were reposted here without attribution--Golden Wattle ^talk 12:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Did you used to work for my ISP Longhair and just who there are u going to contact? Is that how my ISP works? I will let them know if you like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.101 (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

• Remove comments that were (and still are) on my talk page and were reposted here without attribution--Golden Wattle ^talk 12:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt aware I had run into this longhair above apart from his vandalising edits and other stuff noted by third parties here. He also claimed he wasnt involved two days ago. There was a Grahaemc who also seems to be on the longhair contribution page who claimed he was a retired rta worker (so knew all about the coolac byapss) who scoffed at any massacre there and went fishing till Nov???

Does Longhair have more than one ID here and uses different ones at different times?

Little wonder there is strife on wik. I might have differet ip numbers but that is how it is and not my doing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.101 (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

I have not called anyone names or endorsed any name calling. Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are taking place on both sides here. I have read every one of the talk pages and block logs listed for this IP at the RfC and have not seen an invitation to the RfC at any of them. The IP did respond immediately at RfC when I recommended it and that response got reverted via popups. Popups were also used to delete this IP's posts to the article talk page and to the Village Pump. Another uninvolved editor who responded to the Village Pump appeal even complained that posts to their user talk page got deleted.

Many of those popup deletions do meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. To my eyes that looks like a backdoor attempt at a community ban. I certainly would have preferred if the other editors had tried to open formal mediation. Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen a Wikiquette alert, a third opinion request, or an article request for comment. If my reading is correct, an arbitration request was made instead and got turned down as premature.

If the waters hadn't been muddied here I'd suggest a community topic ban through WP:DE, but this is the most aggressive overuse of popups I've ever seen. The standard solution to unsigned talk page comments is to flag the comments as unsigned, not to delete them. That gagging may well have provoked statements of frustration. This person has trouble expressing himself or herself perhaps because English is a second language or because of some disability, and I think those circumstances require me to assume good faith. A further reason I extend good faith to this editor is that ABC News certainly satisfies WP:RS while the arguments other editors have given for deleting that citation violate WP:V. Please lead by example when encouraging others to respect site policies: tone down the popups to standard levels so that they revert only obvious problems such as obscenities and breaching experiments and let the IP know on the article talk pages. Go ahead and open that request for mediation - the worst that could happen is that they refuse to join. Perhaps the community will decide to ban this user and if that happens then wholesale reversion would be appropriate, but not until then. Respectfully, Durova 15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

:Comment from Durova The above was pasted from my user talk page two days after I posted it, but without the dialogue on the subject that had taken place during the interim. I must say that my opinion has shifted considerably since 8 October. Indeed it had already begun to shift on 9 October in statements I made that were not reposted here. For an up-to-date picture of my views on this matter, please refer to my user talk page and my original signed statements at this arbitration. This reposting was done without my knowledge both here and to Village Pump, and I'm rather disappointed that the anon did not disclose this reposting after I noticed the Village Pump reposts and requested that they stop. Durova 04:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The others here carry on about a couple of posts I made but they do not mention the many many others contributions made that there was totally no issue with that are still posted on the many pages I put them on. When I first posted on the Gundagai page there wa slittle there. A lot of stuf fput up has not been credited to me which is OK as I dont seek credit as i was just interested in contributing, then the rooms got locked. The trouble started when I couldnt imemdiately put the massacre posts up (am reg in arch process) and now have decided to never post them here as I do not think them appropriate after I realised the anger the whole topic stirred.

This below is how nuts some statements have been:

Artkos says I havent responded in over two months. Can I ask then was that because I was hardly here? Its been claimed I was always here.

Durova seems to think english is a second language for me. Why Durova. That one is funny. I call a spade a spade so know that one pretty well. I will talk anindilyawka in future and there may be less confusion. What is your first language Durova? I am a totally dyslexic typist lately though as one arm I injured a few months ago now types out of kilter with the other.

That aside, thanks for taking a look at this Durova. It has been amazingly feral and has stunned even me and that takes a lot to do. Lets hope it stops and that the clowns think about not doing it next time they line someone up to do this to. Bullying is not nice and usually bullies flounce off if pulled up. Wik has the potential to have some good articles happen but not if this sort of stuff is let wreck stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

:If you believe other editors have "bullied" you, you should make a comment at the request for arbitration I filed. If the arbitration case is accepted, you will have an opportunity to present evidence. The arbitration committee looks at the conduct of all editors, so if they accept the case they will not only look at (what I believe is) your aggressive pursuit of your own point of view, including numerous personal attacks against other editors, but also at whether Wattle's decision to revert your comments was justified.

:I am concerned about simply reverting your edits to talk pages; talking is what they are for. I understand his frustration, since you responded to my good faith attempt to understand the situation with name calling. If you read above you will note that I said you have a point of view that is a useful counterweight, but that you must work cooperatively with other editors. Wikipedia is not designed to be an adversarial process, and editors who treat it as such end up being unwelcome. Thatcher131 11:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::I speculated that English might be a second language among a couple of guesses at possible sources of this friction. Sometimes people who work in their second language are unaware of the harshness of certain phrases or hard put to study as many policies and guidelines as they should. You have my sympathy regarding the injury to your arm - I broke my wrist twice while I was in a graduate writing program - yet the pain and inconvenience I underwent did not grant me a license to be rude to anyone. It doesn't excuse your incivility either. Durova 05:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, ty for yr advice but I have no wish to get any more sucked into the warped dynamics of some here than possible. I was bullied. Its not a matter of "if you believe". However, its not just the bullying of me a concern but that they get away with doing it (so can potentially do it to anyone here). Its good others here have checked and observed their behaviour so it isnt just what I think any more.

Also, when it gets to the point one of them was writing his intentions here, of planning on interferring with my phone a/c via some potential former work collegue at my isp if he could, its gone past just 'little bully boy cause we have the tools to do it, and you dont', antics. That is serious. Will that person plan on getting a former work collegue to interfere with the phone account of any other contributor here? There is a very clear process re our Telco that does not involve getting a work collegue to interfere with telecommunications accounts via some back door method. The implications of that stated intention, are not trivial. No thatcher, I "must" not do anything other than what I choose to do, not what others try to order. That is where u are very wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.101 (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}.

:That might be the most disturbing declaration I've yet read. The fact is, legitimate administrative action has blocked you from this site repeatedly. If your service provider didn't use randomized IP access you wouldn't have been able to log in again - it's an aspect of your service that you've been exploiting. One alternative that administrators sometimes resort to is to block an entire IP range, which means quite a few other customers of the same company would have their access restricted just because you wouldn't respect a block. Rather than resort to that, it's quite appropriate to contact your ISP and report your behavior, which is probably also in violation of your ISP customer terms and conditions. Durova 05:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

{{NOINDEX}}