In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC).

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

Anon user editing from the following IPs (and more) all from the same ISP - Telstra Internet of Southeastern Australia: 203.54.9.147 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.168 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.195 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.68 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.132 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.33 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.223 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.43 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.141 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.168 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.169 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.174.100/ ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.206 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.174.12 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.127 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.125 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.96 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.128 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.202 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.26 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.33 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.57 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.75 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.78 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.106 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.250 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.19 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.197 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.152 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.141 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.98 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.9 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.214 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.225 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.125 ( talk · contribs) 203.54.9.33 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.185 ( talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Gundagai: Initial edits asserting massacre - [1] [2]; Refusal to cite sources, for example [3]
2. Murrumbidgee: [4] - declined (per edit summary comments) to provide citations: [5] [6] but accused others of failing to uphold his unreferenced edits [7]
3. Associated attacks on other editors -
   • AYArktos [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] , including accusations of stalking. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
   • Grahamec [24]
   • Bidgee [25] [26] [27]
   • Longhair [28] [29]
   • Unspecified "admins" [30] [31]
4. Regardless of which article talk page, the editor refuses to sign posts nor does he observe any courtesy in formatting his comments sequentially. He has been asked several times to sign. [32] [33]
5. Inserting comments in middle of articles: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]
6. Assertions about posting confidential indigenous information: [39], editors working on Gundagai and related articles have been quite careful to cite sources and those sources are published sources. The accusations from the anon editor are quite bizarre. He, however, makes constant reference to unpublished material relating to indigenous matters, for example [40], which other editors have removed with the statement (if it shouldn't be posted here - don't post it).

The anon also suggests a conspiracy to hide highly significant material which he can't reference right now, but "cannot ever go up her ebecause of the dreadful atatcks on me by an admin etc." [41].

There has been a conspiracy to hide it. For 170 years. That is why few know of it. No I cant post it right now and wont be posting it as I have repeatably said as its my own research thus I get first bite out of it in case I ever decide to publish parts of it which I probably never will; and/or is bound by a Government Agreement, and/or is bound by working with Indigenous people protocols, and/or its not acceptable for here as wik has said itself re the poems etc. Anyone who had half an ounce of knowledge re Indigneous culture can read the poems and realise a fair amount of it in 2 seconds, but wik cant handle that sort of interpretive stuff re p[oems so its not suitable for wik.

Covering up mistreatment of Indigenous people while promoting concilatory gestures by non Indigneosu people, is a bit like praising the murderer for mowing the grass and no account again needing to be paid for the murder. That is a very easy concept to understand. However, many times if race comes into the subject, people go looney.

1. Avoidance of blocks
   • 203.54.186.125 ( talk · contribs · block log) resumed activity within 40 minutes as 203.54.186.127 ( talk · contribs)
   • 203.54.186.127 ( talk · contribs · block log) resumed activity in less than 1 hour as 203.54.174.12 ( talk · contribs)
   • 203.54.174.12 ( talk · contribs · block log) resumed activity as 203.54.9.206 ( talk · contribs) within 2 1/2 hours despite 48 hour block
   • 203.54.9.169 ( talk · contribs · block log) (resumed after block expired)
   • 203.54.9.195 ( talk · contribs · block log) blocked 24 hours, resumed in just over 2 hours to abuse further as 203.54.9.168 ( talk · contribs · block log) which was blocked again. The anon resumed again within block time for yet more abuse: 203.54.9.147 ( talk · contribs · block log). The 3rd block seemed to be successful.

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

1. No original research and Verifiability
2. No personal attacks, Civility, Etiquette
3. Blocking policy

(provide diffs and links)

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

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

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

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

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

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

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. User:AYArktos
2. User:Longhair
3. User:Bidgee

1. — M in un ^Spiderman 13:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Snottygobble 00:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 11:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Ben Aveling 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

Have a look at what some 'editors' do on the Gundagai page. They post content with no cites, plagarise stuff, remove others posts then remove evidence of those posts from 'history' to cover up their own ineptitude and bully tactics. (Very brave to hide the evidence of their garbage isnt it. No medals for them.) All in all, this feral gang that is doing this stuff are giving wik a very very bad name. Its not just that though. They are totally hopeless re some of the stuff they do post so the pages end up reading like something from a lower junior school project board. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.95 (talk • contribs) .

An Rfc. Sounds important. Whatever it is I do not want to know though I guess longhair gets its jollies off sprouting about them. Longhairs post is a prime example of what this topic is about. Its what gives wik a terrible name and its this style of garbage discredits anything to do with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.120 (talk • contribs) .

Longhair continues, giving more examples of the aggro that it uses wik to spread. The dispute is the loutish, thuggish, bullying and vandalising behaviour of some wik eds who go on like they do as part of their gang dynamics, attacking other posters. Those sort of antics cannot be "resolved" as to do so would require whoever these gangs are currently having a go at on wik, to join their gang. Believe it or not, some decent peopel choose not to join in with online liasons such as that. Meanwhile, the abberant behaviour of some eds, continues on wik, giving it a terrible bad name.

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

Note here that artkos became golden wattle and RobertMyers became bidgee. There are more likely than not multiple other names. My log on changes as I am on dialup thus have a dynamic ip number, not because I intentionally change it. The ed's names change as they change them. That intentionally muddles just who of them is doing what.

Whatever, this behaviour of the eds is disgraceful. Most of the recent content on the Gundgaai page I put there. The eds leave some stuff with no ty to me, but vandalise a heap of other stuff when I try and correct some of the nonsense they put up, (such as the uncited and very very incorrect claim, that Gundagai is the cradle of reconcilation). Gundagai is actually probably the cradle of Indigneous annihilation.

Have a look at what some 'editors' do on the Gundagai page. They post content with no cites, plagarise stuff, remove others posts then remove evidence of those posts from 'history' to cover up their own ineptitude and bully tactics. (Very brave to hide the evidence of their garbage isnt it. No medals for them.)

All in all, this feral gang that is doing this stuff are giving wik a very very bad name. Its not just that though. They are totally hopeless re some of the stuff they do post so the pages end up reading like something from a lower junior school project board. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.95 (talk • contribs) .

The anon who posted the above is the subject of an RfC. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*. -- Longhair\talk 11:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC) An Rfc. Sounds important. Whatever it is I do not want to know though I guess longhair gets its jollies off sprouting about them. Longhairs post is a prime example of what this topic is about. Its what gives wik a terrible name and its this style of garbage discredits anything to do with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.120 (talk • contribs) . That's an attempt to resolve the dispute. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It's more likely you'd work things out by participating there than by raising the matter here. Durova 04:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Durova, raising the matter here wont hurt u.

The above anon has shown no interest whatsoever in resolving "the dispute". They're only here to be a pain in the arse at every article they edit, and being handed frequent blocks for doing so. -- Longhair\talk 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since you're a party to the dispute, Longhair, it looks inappropriate that you issued any blocks against this user. Proper admin procedure is to seek some other admin to do that. I also find it disturbing that you repeatedly reverted this IP's posts to the article talk page. I see that other editors from that page reverted the IP's posts to the RFC through popups. This IP's posts to this board have also been reverted repeatedly by other paties to the dispute. Whatever the issue is, that is no way to go about resolving it. So I withdraw my earlier advice: I now agree that the IP did well to raise the topic here. I'd like to know what the dispute is about. Superficially this appears meritorious: accusations of plagiarism should be investigated or replied to, not deleted. The source the IP cites does look reliable. Please reply to my talk page. And since another Wikipedian complained that discussion of this matter was blanked from their talk page, I'll state in advance that I'll report any reversion of my user talk page as vandalism. Durova 13:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Longhair continues, giving more examples of the aggro that it uses wik to spread. The dispute is the loutish, thuggish, bullying and vandalising behaviour of some wik eds who go on like they do as part of their gang dynamics, attacking other posters. Those sort of antics cannot be "resolved" as to do so would require whoever these gangs are currently having a go at on wik, to join their gang.

Believe it or not, some decent people choose not to join in with online liasons such as that.

Meanwhile, the abberant behaviour of some eds, continues on wik, giving it a terrible bad name.

The previous statement is a prime example of why these complainants here complain. There is NIL restriced in saying bunyips exist. If the sites were published though, that is release of restricted info. I hope the complainants dont think bunyips are things like big elephants or similar. The complainants here do not seem to have the required skills to understand some aspects of Australian Indigneous culture so misinterpret most stuff said regarding it. Its a literacy issue re them not being fmailiar with large slabs of aussie culture probably because for 200 years in Oz, non Indigneous people as well as Indigenous people, have been encoruraged to not be familiar with it.

I am just looking at these blocks. So funny. It must have kept this antagonistic lot on their toes. I know nil of them as I am not playing this idiotic game the others have been playing. Takes two parties to tango fellas and thus far, its just one doing it. As I suggested to longhair, try yoga to unstress as the world runs better without this troublemaking you seem to want to carry on with. If u cant do yaoga, why do u be here if it encourages u all to carry on in this manner. (Or is that why u are here?)

Actually, since you're a party to the dispute, Longhair, it looks inappropriate that you issued any blocks against this user. Proper admin procedure is to seek some other admin to do that. I also find it disturbing that you repeatedly reverted this IP's posts to the article talk page. I see that other editors from that page reverted the IP's posts to the RFC through popups. This IP's posts to this board have also been reverted repeatedly by other paties to the dispute. Whatever the issue is, that is no way to go about resolving it. So I withdraw my earlier advice: I now agree that the IP did well to raise the topic here. I'd like to know what the dispute is about. Superficially this appears meritorious: accusations of plagiarism should be investigated or replied to, not deleted. The source the IP cites does look reliable. Please reply to my talk page. And since another Wikipedian complained that discussion of this matter was blanked from their talk page, I'll state in advance that I'll report any reversion of my user talk page as vandalism. Durova 13:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.194 ( talk • contribs)

I notice that the disputed content on the Gundagai page re the 'reconcilation' post has now been removed by an admin. This is good as it wasnt right. When I pointed that out, the complainants on this Rfc thing, again went feral, stirring as much trouble as they could re it. They are not prepared to let other posters say if they come across content on wik that is widely incorrect and get really angry and turn on people if they do dare say then bring in others such as other admins and others, to revert, block, run and tell tales, bully, be rude etc etc anti anyone who does dare correct stuff on here. Its pretty sad.

Users who endorse this summary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Viridae ^Talk 01:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

"Anon from Gundagai I have removed comments I did not post here -- Golden Wattle ^talk 10:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I have removed comments I did not post here -- Golden Wattle ^talk 10:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

...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)

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)"

copied from Thatchers talk page, with details removed and replaced by 'X':

"" Blocking the anon from XXXXXXXX I have removed comments I did not post here -- Golden Wattle ^talk 10:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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.

Dont you people think you are getting a bit carried away with yourselves? Are you children? I am starting to think that you may be as it seems you are playing something like a computer game with the target needing to be nuked and nil else will do.

If you are children then wik needs to note that in log on names or something. I do not usually log on to sites that children play on as too many weirdos also around them.

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. 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?

• Note privacy policy - the answer is yes - by publishing on wikipedia without an account your IP addres becomes public.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 10:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

This appears to be the case of a contributor who has something to say but is unwilling or incapable of following basic Wikipedia policies including Assume Good Faith, No Personal Attacks, No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Verifiability through Reliable Sources.

The editor may have valid criticisms of some content that could be described as having a Euro-centric (or settler-centric) point of view. For example, the description of the 1852 flood as being the beginning of the reconciliation movement, when there is evidence that indigenous peoples continued to be mistreated for many years, and neglecting the story of the alleged massacre near Coolac. However, most of these criticisms are rooted in claims of personal special knowledge, not reliable sources. Wikipedia does not report personal knowledge and experience; it summarizes and reports findings by independent third parties published in reliable sources. This is a founding principle, and can not be overthrown even if the available sources are arguable biased. It is currently in fashion in the U.S. to reinterpret and reinvestigate historical events from the point of view of the native peoples, by collecting and documenting oral traditions and reinivestigating archeological sites, which has resulted in considerable scholarly work attempting to counter the possible Euro-centric bias in earlier histories. Until such historical research becomes available in Australia, the best that can be done is to use great care in describing events when the only sources are, or may be, inherently biased, and to make sure that controversial claims are rigorously sourced.

The editor's behavior, on the other hand, is totally unacceptable. He refuses to use the simplest of Wikipedia courtesies such as signing his talk page posts. He makes personal attacks against other editors and fails to assume good faith. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] He refuses to accept the reliable source policy as policy. [51] He pushes his own point of view, such as removing sourced information about an archeological site because it was disrespectful [52] but has previously insisted on describing an event for which there are no reliable sources. He crossposted a large post from the village pump to his RFC, badly formatted, in the wrong place, and headed by a personal attack [53]. This was reverted several times by the other involved admins, until an uninvolved editor reformatted it an moved it to the proper place. While reverting the comments as "vandalism" was arguably inappropriate, it is not clear to me that the other involved editors have a responsibility to clean up the anon editor's badly formatted improperly placed personal attacks.

This editor has made positive contributions to the Gundagai article, and his tendency to see things from an Aboriginal point of view is a useful counterweight to other editors in that it forces them to find sources for potentially controversial or biased claims. His behavior is unacceptable.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Thatcher131 14:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thatcher has this wrong. I have provied 'context' for some of the other content that has gone up on the Gundagai page so those who put the stuff up can understand it in context. There was no intention for that context to be posted on the article page. Its background info.

Also, Thatcher keeps referring to 'he'. Who is thatcher referring to. I am not a he. Thatcher seems to not know what or whom thatcher is talking about. Perhaps thatcher has been getting me confused with other editors. I have just left a request for thatcher to stop baiting at the gundagai page. Is thatcher longhair or someone else given people seem to swap identities here. I cant follow it and dont want to. Its too troppo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 ( talk • contribs) .

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:

1. -- Nuclear Zer0 19:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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, that is happening, is being done and got away with, and it would be happening to others who dare post stuff here but decline being sucked in to the other stuff. TY again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 ( talk • contribs) .

Warning: Today you accused Bidgee of vandalizing the article by reverting your changes to the asbestos hill issue. An examination of the article history shows that he did not even edit the article at the time in question. Wikipedia has an official policy to Assume Good Faith that your accusation of vandalism fails on two grounds: that there were changes at all, and that changes to your content are vandalism. When Sarah Ewart, an uninvolved administrator, asked you to not call people vandals, you called her a "pompous troublemaker" and told her to "buzz off." I remind you again that Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. Working cooperatively entails respect for other editors and their contributions even if you disagree with them.

It is possible your web browser showed you an incorrect version of the page, from it's internal cache. You can usually solve this by clicking the reload or refresh button on your browser to get the most current version of the page. Hopefully, my explanation of how to use the page history was helpful. If you have found that your accusations were a mistake, you may wish to apologize to Bidgee and Sarah, and I will consider this episode closed. On the other hand, if I see further personal attacks directed at any editor, I will block your editing again. Thatcher131 07:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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. You cannot see my computer settings or know that even with them set to empty, I also manually empty the cache and everything else each time I close explorer which is very very often, so that little fairy story you just spun, goes nowhere.

Internal cache reload my nellie. Is there a disneyland article here? How about you apologise to all who come here for that futher failed attempt at trying to cause nonsense. If you are an admin, then time to retire perhaps, or to go be retrained. How about you take your block tools, go find a quite contemplative spot, lock yourself into it and spare contributers here the nonsense as its banal, boring and totally and utterly immature.

I do not need you handing out this wrong advice you seem duty bound to hand out spinning totally incorrect possibles (to an olde rperson - is that ageism?) and then threatning punishment if I dont bend to your "possible" delusions. Your behaviour here isnt helping a thing, and here is about putting information on this article not how great you or any other tool holder is, believe it or not. These antics make it sound more DOMish each time the bossy stuff is tried. There is maybe a leather room down the hall so try there perhaps as its not appropriate stuff for here. 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.

If you use your stupid tools hope u get yr jollies off them. All you will get this end is total disdain for trying that cache story on. Go be a pest elsewhere instead of trying to stir here up again when its now not too disruptive.

There are some bizarre ratbags on wik. Its incredible but probably par for the course also. For someone who has been online for many many years, its not new though the pompous phrasing is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.233 (talk • contribs) .

And in future, if I ask someone here a question, then they answer it, that does not then need you to poke in to what is essentially a conversation betweeen those two parties. No one here needs you directing the conversation. If you want to do that, go to a speech therapy site somewhere. You are just trying to cause further trouble here when you are not even from this area as a contributor so not a reg here and I understand are not even from NSW? You are acting like an interferring parent who gets between two kids, referring and that never works and certainly never leads to peace.

Intrude elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.233 (talk • contribs) .

I suggest you click on the history tab of the article. You will see that for a period of 6 hours last night, you were the only contributor, except for the addition of two ^{citation needed} tags by Bidgee which you removed. The evidence does not support your accusations that you were reverted. Regarding my presence here, you asked for outside help. Now four other editors (at least) are involved. This is a wiki, and anyone may comment anywhere. The fact that I do not live in Australia means that I should be cautious when editing Australian topics; however, I don't have to be Australian to enforce basic Wikipedia standards of behavior and content, like no personal attacks and No original research. I don't much care what some hill is named, I assume that a group of editors, working cooperatively and using reliable sources, can figure it out peacefully. I do care very much that your contributions are liberally salted with assumptions of bad faith, calling other editors vandals, alleging vandalism when there is none, and repeated personal attacks. This should not be tolerated by any Wikipedia editor, and since both Sarah Ewart and I are administrators, we have the power to block you if you continue to make such remarks. Please stop. Thatcher131 11:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• • My Response

On the article page was the word 'citation' that had been inserted in two places on stuff I had posted, so I put the citations in. If that included removing a 'fact' tag which seemed to me to be the thing that was producing the word 'citation' on the article page, so be it as the content it referred to that wasnt referenced, now is if you go look. This sort of antagonistic inappropriate attack on me because I added cites to content as the article page seemed to request, and which were needed, is part of what is producing and adding to the aggro here. If Bidgee put the 'fact' tags on stuff I was doing and if they were there to ask for cites, and I did that as I intended to, what are you having a go at me re that for???????????????????????

You are not assuming good faith and as an all powerful admin, isnt that a requirement more particularly of u????????

In future I will just ignore the garbage from pea brained troublemakers who are so hyped up on power its taken them over, as its pointless. I react badly to that sort of psychotic ignoramus and they are not the sort of people I have ever got on with as any right thinking person wouldn't. I am a bit particular re what I associate with so flick. Troublemakers are the only ones stuck with their babyish misery 24/7 so to any anti-social creep who wants to be like that, enjoy!!!!

There will be no future lies able to be got away with re what shows up on my screen re here, or on any other page here that I visit, as all my cache contents now go into my partitioned hard drive. At the same time, my cache does not now empty automaticlly each time I exit my browser, and emptying manually is no prob for me as I do that anyway and my security software and other stuff will deal with anything else.

If anyone wants to discuss article page content in a non antagonistic manner with the end goal to have correct, balanced, informative and interesting content on it, that is fine.

OK, I replied to this below and got banned but when I came back, the reply had also been deleted from the history page, so it is still happening. Big agenda to get rid of me. Its prety sick. Not so much for me as I dont come here much but for any wik member they can also do this to. Can you note the story re my web browser is just that, a story. My cache empties when I close it but I close each site, then also manually empty the Internet files, but also do disk cleanup and defrag 7 times out of 10 also. <<Just a habit I have. I am the wrong one to try and spin an old cache yarn to.

How is this mob getting away with this disruptive behaviour???????? ____________________________________________

"Question To 'Bidgee' Re Why He Keeps Revertign Stuff on Article Page Bidgee, why do u mess here up for? What is your issue? You have reverted stuff discussed with wattle before posting again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs) .

Do u just do it to be a pest, or to try and cause trouble or because you have a genuine issue with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs) .

I have not reverted anything. Please sign your comments on talk pages by pressing or typing 203.54.9.13 10:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC). -- Bidgee 06:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC) They are back as they were now but werent liek that five minutes ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.183 (talk • contribs) . reply

If you click on the history tab at the top of the page you can see every change ever made to the article with its exact date and time. You are the only person to make any changes in the last two hours. If you look at a specific change and click (last) you will see a side by side comparison showing every change between than version and the previous version. You can also click the radio buttons (little circles) on any two versions for a side by side comparision of the differences between those two versions. Thatcher131 06:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Warning: Today you accused Bidgee of vandalizing the article by reverting your changes to the asbestos hill issue. An examination of the article history shows that he did not even edit the article at the time in question. Wikipedia has an official policy to Assume Good Faith that your accusation of vandalism fails on two grounds: that there were changes at all, and that changes to your content are vandalism. When Sarah Ewart, an uninvolved administrator, asked you to not call people vandals, you called her a "pompous troublemaker" and told her to "buzz off." I remind you again that Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. Working cooperatively entails respect for other editors and their contributions even if you disagree with them.

It is possible your web browser showed you an incorrect version of the page, from it's internal cache. You can usually solve this by clicking the reload or refresh button on your browser to get the most current version of the page. Hopefully, my explanation of how to use the page history was helpful. If you have found that your accusations were a mistake, you may wish to apologize to Bidgee and Sarah, and I will consider this episode closed. On the other hand, if I see further personal attacks directed at any editor, I will block your editing again. Thatcher131 07:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gundagai%2C_New_South_Wales"

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

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. Today I am going to the telco because of crimnal intent published here by one of them who was going to get a mate who he once worked with at my telco to interfere with my phone account. That is the level of what some have been up to/voicing.

The fact that I have contributed many posts to wik that are still on their pages with no angst re them has also been removed from here.

The multiple stuff that has been removed from here is stuff that alters the case being made here by the bullies so they can again get away with what they do.

Can someoen pull thatcher up on the baiting. Its beign doen deliberately. Thatcher also removed a heap of stuff off the Gundagai discussion page.

From Longhair

"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)"

Note the above was added by yet again unsigned anon 203.54.9.166 ( talk · contribs) and taken from my talk page-- Golden Wattle ^talk 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

For someone who is into textual analysis she is interpreting comments made by Longhair in an unusual way. Longhair is not saying he will contact the ISP. He is advising me that contacting Telstra will not be easy nor will it produce a satisfactory outcome. This advice is based on his experience. Longhair was responding I believe to this comment where I expressed thanks for Longhair's dealing with the anon's activity while I was on a wikibreak - hard to tell now after the event and when the anon has cut and pasted something out of context. I did indeed contact the ISP to report the abuse and got a totally unsatisfactory response as predicted by Longhair. I am entitled under Australian law to report abuse over the internet. I consider that the anon has defamed and abused me and I am considering whether I will again raise the matter with her ISP. See http://www.bigpond.com/help/ContactUs/MisuseService/default.asp for the form for complaint which includes the category Defamatory material (eg: publication by another person of a false and derogatory statement about you) which is what this anon has done. However, Telstra, as predicted by Longhair is a useless company that in my experience does not respond to complaints - the anon need have no fear as she is protected by the inefficiency of the company. I may yet go to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman However, as defamation relates to content rather than service delivery, the issues are outside the TIO's jurisdiction. The issue I would raise with the ombudsman is the issue of Telstra's failing to stop their user from defaming me after notification of the abuse and then see if Telstra takes any action.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You do that, and my telco a/c is now being monitored for anyone messing with it.

You persistently try to claim what I say is incorrect but give nil to establish that. You just seem to have run off into some 'lets attack this person and slander, libel and discredit her as much as possible' mode. Its ridiculous. Why do you do that artkos? You now seem to be challenging that I am 55 and grey haired on the discussion page. What do you want me to do. Dye my hair to suit you? Come see the degrees if it is that part of that post concerns you. They are just degrees and wont bite. However they do qualify other stuff. One bit of paper just hit the 10 year mark so officially now out of date, the other is a 2004 one and the next prob a 2008 one with a heap of arch/cultural hertiage stuff in-between pre doing post grad. If that is an issue with you just get it into your head my comments here are probably based on a lot of skill and very easily available cites etc but not much typing ability with my arm. I humbly apologise if my age and hair colour disturbs you. I dont think I will dye it though as I am not that deceitful. You lot carry on re Coolac trying to claim I lie re it but I have a registered interest in the arch process with the RTA, (the only non Indigneous Gundagai registrant), and am continually working on stuff to do with Coolac and liasing with local and out of country people re it, as well as frequent contact from the rta and archs so of course I know what is happening (but am bound by the fact that the surveys are not completed yet). What else have u carried on about? That I wont sign on. No I wont. That is my choice. I am not joining something I wont be part of much. If me exercising my own choice re that upsets you, get over it. Because of the rudeness displayed towards me since I withdrew the massacre stuff and made it clear I wouldnt post the probably 'acceptable' cites you kept wanting when the poem meanings were rejected, wik will miss out on a lot of hard to obtain, other stuff being posted that I have here as a result of my studies but also private research journals re this part of oz I got from the uk, not connected to that, so that is the end result. That is where rudeness and claiming people are lying, ends. I wasnt posting to prove any point but because I believed in the philosphy behind wik, but not at the cost of what has been dished up. That is part of why you seemingly fail to understand that when people turn on (new) others here and speak to people in the condescending rude manner that is prevelent here, you hunt valuable content well away from wik. Yeah, people go find something else to do rather than wasting their time typing on here, but the content doesnt get posted also, probably forever.

Was longhair the graememc who came in claiming there was no coolac massacre and HE knew as he used to work for the rta and had just retired? There is a graememc on longhairs talk page. It was when those claims were made, you began to get very aggro and that other editor began claiming all sort of stuff. The truth of it is that graememc has no idea what he was talking about, would have had no access to confidential info as part of coolac even if he had worked for the rta, (me being registered knows who is involved with that level of stuff and there is no graememc in any of it), and was way out of line with his claims and the nonsense of them was very apparent, immediately he made them.

The fact of it is that there was a very large massacre at coolac, the remains were hidden, the dog poems and the monuments evolved from it all, its a huge core story for this nation and pretty interetsing also, but because people still react so badly to indigneous stuff and whites killing non whites, those who have this info just give up, explore it themselves, pass it on to family so they know it, and the rest get deprived of knowing this core contact stuff. Its not easily foudn stuff. I knew it all my life but found the supporting stuff because of that, but also for other reasons such as my quals, access to archives but also as I told you I spent time in AL so know other stuff because of that. Tough eh. Maybe in 500 years this nation will be a bit more grown up so these silly reactions dont happen. By then though heaps more of it will be lost, and that is how it happens. I know that those who are meant to know, do and will. The Arch Profs know also so they should look out for it.

You see, though the Coolac Massacre is a big story, there is an even far far larger one there also.

Your angst and aggro is totally beyond me and though I know you are interested in the history of this area, its time I put as much distance between your style of operation and myself, as its too ridiculous that when you do not get your own way and cannot succeed in getting stuff off people they are not at liberty to post, you and your mates, then turn on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.166 ( talk • contribs)

The philosophy behind the Wikipedia includes Wikipedia:No original research. For somebody who claims to have university degrees, why is that so hard to understand? Publish your original thoughts elsewhere. On the internet anyone can claim anything about themselves [54] which is why I make no assertions about who I am and I also neither believe nor disbelieve the claims made by others about thmselves, but when quoting those claims always qualify that they are just that, claims, not independantly established and verified fact.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

And what artkos seems unable to understand is that when that was pointed out, I withdrew my story re the massacre as I could only back it up with the poems. However, I did say I had other cites re the massacre that I could not post (for a couple of reasons one being I have singed on to not relase some stuff as its still undergoign research, but also not all needs to be published and wik has no right to most of it nor does anyone else apart from those who do artkos not being one of them I'd not think as far as I know even if that upsets artkos). When I refused to post those cites to material I had withdrawn, things got very angry here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 ( talk • contribs) .

Anyway, the misery of some here is too sickening. Enjoy it if that is what you like but I have better to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 ( talk • contribs) . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.13 ( talk • contribs) .

• Nothing has been reverted or removed on the Gundagai article or talk page. -- Bidgee 10:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply