So as not to confuse the RfC with continuing to add evidence, more recent behaviour will be added here.-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.186.36 ( talk · contribs · block log) / 203.54.186.176 ( talk · contribs · block log) / 203.54.9.152 ( talk · contribs · block log) / 203.54.9.137 ( talk · contribs · block log) / 203.54.186.83 ( talk · contribs)

Breached blocking policy, civility - both in actual comments and in edit summaries, no personal attacks and added unreferenced material thereby breaching verifiability. Also quite clearly editing with a strong point of view. Copyright violations of [1], for example with this edit

A number of editors have reverted his contributions in the last 24 hours:

• Deltabeignet [2]
• Galactor213 [3]
• Knowledge Seeker [4] (who also blocked him twice)
• Kusma [5] [6]
• MER-C [7] [8]
• Petaholmes [9] [10]
• Bidgee [11] [12] [13]
• Wiki alf [14] [15] [16]

I have reported misuse of service to Telstra for "Defamatory material (eg: publication by another person of a false and derogatory statement about you)" citing some of the edits the anon has made and offering to supply further edit history.-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.186.221 ( talk · contribs · block log) 203.54.9.154 ( talk · contribs · block log) - note blocked for 1 week - warned on talk page that all edits made while blocked will be reverted-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 01:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.9.190 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) / 203.54.186.154 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) / 203.54.9.165 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) / 203.54.9.1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) / 203.54.9.109 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) / 203.54.186.138 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 10:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• In particular lengthy discussions at User talk:Myanw Talk:Battle of the HIndenburg Line and abuse at User talk:Staxringold which included Another wik vandal are u?????? Stop messing it up. The revert cop has looked at it. You are a kid are u who is still at school? You dont even have th emanner to put a note here.

• Specifically at Talk:Battle of the HIndenburg Line, the editor claims I have not been blocked at all the last week. If that is because I avoid reading messages they send me, that is because the first couple I read my computer security disconnected me from wik and when I logged back on, my remote access had been changed enabling access into my computer by anyone. (i.e. there was something in the messages that my computer security objected to. As I am on a uni network of our largest Oz Uni I am obliged to not infect their system hence my computer security and my reluctance after the intrusions into my computer from wik to open many sites here that lead to the personal computers of other editors, especially given the attacks on me. There was some nonsense re me being on a uni server or something, (I am for the purpose of my communication with that uni but not for the purpose of me logging on to wik). My IP changes as I am on dial up Internet which resets regularly, not for any other reason. [17] This rather disingenuous view is countered by the edit comment at [18] where she says im blocked from editing so cant put more at 21:39, 27 July 2006 AEST then goes onto edit and abuse her way across the wikipedia - see 203.54.186.83 ( talk · contribs) with particular reference to this diff on an unrelated article. The editor had been blocked at 21:17, 27 July 2006 AEST for ongoing vandalism and inappropriate edits inserting commentary and chat into articles with an expiry time of 3 hours :- 203.54.9.137 ( talk · contribs · block log). As per the previously made comment, she knew she was editing in contravention of the block but did so anyway as per above referenced contributions for IP 203.54.186.83 .-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• The editor has also disrupted the wikipedia to make a point. These edits to the Wagga Wagga, New South Wales articles: [19] and [20] were accompanied by the edit summary comments Robert Myers vandalises pages on wik and Robert Myers is a wiki vandal. User:Robertmyers is a frequent editor of the Wagga article. The effect of her edits was to remove significant content about transport and some other bits for no apparent benefit. The editor admitted that she "vandalised the Wagga Wagga page which was totally uncalled for" in terms that are quite clear she was disrupting the wikipedia to make a point.-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 23:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.9.49 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.133 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - both specifically editing the Wiradjuri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article in breach of blocking policy and making personal attacks-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.9.248 ( talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.185 ( talk · contribs · block log) / 203.54.9.49 ( talk · contribs)-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.9.223 ( talk · contribs · block log) / 203.54.9.242 ( talk · contribs · block log) / 203.54.186.11 ( talk · contribs · block log) / 203.54.186.243 ( talk · contribs · block log) -- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 01:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.9.127 ( talk · contribs · block log)-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.186.173 ( talk · contribs · block log)-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 10:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.186.120 ( talk · contribs · block log)-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 08:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Despite the farewell, which had been threatened/promised before, she returned.

203.54.9.38 ( talk · contribs) reverted by User:Ryulong. She returned again: 203.54.9.23 ( talk · contribs).

Despite her assertion in her edit summary that "DONT MES SUP COPNTENT OF DISCUSSION PAGES OR TRY OR STOP PEOPLE CONTRIBUTING - HERE IS FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST ONE OR TWO." Wikipedia does indeed block editors for breach of policies and guidelines. As the user has breached

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

her contributions are not welcome. The contributions of 10 August were all to insert unverified material which has already been discussed and determined by a number of editors to be unverified.-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• 203.54.9.80 ( talk · contribs) - included abusive edit summary and the copying (plagiarism in fact) of an article about plagiarism which was presumably an attempt to back up her charge of plagiarism on the Gundagai article but which did not in fact deal with the lack of congruence of the actual words. That the SMH and the wikipedia cover similar content does not mean the wikipedia has plagiarise another's work.
• 203.54.174.97 ( talk · contribs) reinserted more copied infor about plagiarism but still dod not deal with the actual Gundagai content. She was warned with Template:Nothanks-drm by User:Robertmyers

-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 10:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• 203.54.186.243 ( talk · contribs) additions to Talk:Gundagai reverted by MER-C with comment JS: Reverted vandalism by 203.54.186.243 to last version by AYArktos. Please do not compromise the integrity of pages.-- A Y Arktos\ ^talk 11:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• 203.54.9.232 ( talk · contribs) - personal attacks on another user's talk page-- Arktos ^talk 00:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• 203.54.9.188 ( talk · contribs) - incivility at Wiradjuri, eg You cannot understand Indigenous culture including language that well through your own ethnocentric framework. and Wiradjui' does not mean 'not here'. Who wrote the Dictionary? Dame Edna? Find a better reference as that one is totally incorrect. Its about as useless as 'three rivers'. - the latter being inserted in the middle of the article. The former part of an unsigned comment on the talk page. Edits reverted by Robertmyers; editor warned for lack of civility.-- Arktos ^talk 10:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.9.103 ( talk · contribs) breached WP:NPA ( reverted by Gimboid13)and also again reintroduced information into 2 articles about an alleged massacre at Coolac without any sources despite there having been extensive requests for sources in the past.-- Arktos ^talk 09:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

220.233.91.48 ( talk · contribs) - possibly same editor, though different IP range, however, same tenor of comments on Wiradjuri - an article previously the subject of the anon's posts, reverted by user:Can't sleep, clown will eat me.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 09:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.186.56 ( talk · contribs), 203.54.9.7 ( talk · contribs · block log) - reintroducing again unsourced material in breach of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research even though previously requested several times not to reintroduce the material until reliable sources are cited.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 09:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.9.207 ( talk · contribs · block log)-- Golden Wattle ^talk 01:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Yet to be added by someone who cares, but active!-- Golden Wattle ^talk 21:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Some activity added below, not necessarily complete-- Golden Wattle ^talk 23:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

203.54.174.219 ( talk · contribs · block log), 203.54.9.216 ( talk · contribs · block log), 203.54.9.95 ( talk · contribs · block log), 203.54.186.180 ( talk · contribs · block log)

1. 22:01, 4 October 2006 Longhair ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked 203.54.186.180 with an expiry time of 1 week (Returning vandal evading block)
2. 20:57, 4 October 2006 Longhair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "203.54.9.95 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Returning abuse user of frequent personal attacks, ignore's all requests for civility, subject to an RfC to which no response has been provided)
3. 20:05, 4 October 2006 Longhair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "203.54.174.219 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Abusive vandal, unresponsive, repeat NPA, subject to an RfC)
4. 15:31, 4 October 2006 Longhair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "203.54.9.216 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Repeat vandalism, subject of an RfC)

203.54.186.207 ( talk · contribs · block log), 203.54.9.194 ( talk · contribs · block log), 203.54.9.164 ( talk · contribs · block log), 203.54.9.218 ( talk · contribs · block log), 203.54.9.129 ( talk · contribs · block log)

1. 20:50, 6 October 2006 Longhair ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked 203.54.9.129 with an expiry time of 1 week (Refer Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*)
2. 20:21, 6 October 2006 Longhair blocked 203.54.9.218 with an expiry time of 1 week (Refer Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*)
3. 20:10, 6 October 2006 Longhair blocked 203.54.9.164 with an expiry time of 1 week (Sign your posts, avoid personal attacks, and u may very well be able to reply at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*)
4. 19:52, 6 October 2006 Longhair blocked 203.54.9.194 with an expiry time of 1 week (See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*)
5. 19:12, 6 October 2006 Longhair blocked 203.54.186.207 with an expiry time of 1 week (Repeat offender of breaches of WP:NPA, subject to an RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*)

203.54.186.18 ( talk · contribs)

1. 21:42, 7 October 2006 Longhair ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked 203.54.186.18 with an expiry time of 1 week (Calling others a 'feral gang' is a personal attack. You've had plenty of prior warnings to stop, yet you refuse)

203.54.186.156 ( talk · contribs)

203.54.9.26 ( talk · contribs), 203.54.9.8 ( talk · contribs)

203.54.186.193 ( talk · contribs)

1. 12:09, 10 October 2006 Thatcher131 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked 203.54.9.0/24 (arbitration case filed)
2. 06:01, 10 October 2006 Thatcher131 blocked 203.54.9.0/24 with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks and incivility, response to good faith comments with more incivility [21])

203.54.9.101 ( talk · contribs), 203.54.9.145 ( talk · contribs), 203.54.174.112 ( talk · contribs · block log)

1. 20:42, 11 October 2006 Sarah Ewart ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked 203.54.174.112 with an expiry time of 1 hour (block evasion)
2. 20:14, 11 October 2006 Sarah Ewart blocked 203.54.9.13 with an expiry time of 1 hour (block evasion)
3. 19:54, 11 October 2006 Sarah Ewart blocked 203.54.9.233 with an expiry time of 1 hour (personal attacks, trolling)

1. 20:48, 12 October 2006 Sarah Ewart ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked 203.54.9.178 with an expiry time of 24 hours (continued personal attacks)

1. 05:13, 13 October 2006 Thatcher131 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked 203.54.9.31 with an expiry time of 12 hours (block evasion from user:203.54.9.178) - also advised on talk page that the block was a personal block [22]

As breaches of blocks have been a feature of this user's behaviour, I thought I would document blocks here, with blocking admin's details and reasons:

I am trying to give this a fair review but the behavior of the anon editor makes this extremely difficult. Please sign your comments so they are properly attributed; do not post your comments in sections written by other editors; and do not post in the outsude views section. You may invite Durova to make his remarks here but you do not speak for him. Thatcher131 11:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Are you sure they know how to sign, there formatting, lack of dif's and wikilinks may say they are unfamiliar with some of the meta items of Wikipedia. -- Nuclear Zer0 19:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Been here since at least July, I just asked on my talk page as well with the explanation (4 tilde marks like this ~~~~ adds date/time and ID). Since the anons contribs are scattered across many accounts it is difficult to determine how much welcoming effort was applied before people became frustrated. Thatcher131 19:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Charming. Thatcher131 20:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

In response to Since the anons contribs are scattered across many accounts it is difficult to determine how much welcoming effort was applied before people became frustrated, please refer to Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales/Archive 1#Massacres and the Dog on the Tuckerbox for earliest exchanges with anon (June) and also say refer to User talk:203.54.186.75 and Talk:Tom Wills. Unsigned warnings: I have spent many many edits refactoring her talk page comments and adding unsigned tags, for example, [23] [24] [25] - how many edits would you choose to add tags to? I have made many many many such edits on her bahalf. The issue of reversion of unsigned comments was raised at the RfC, nobody said keep adding unsigned tags. I have asked her to sign several times extremely politely, for example [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. Other editors have also asked her to sign [ [31] [32] and added tags [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] but she still wilfully ignores us all.

Persistently unsigned comments breach Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility. I have raised this at the RfC and it is on this basis that I revert her unsigned comments as previously advised to the community. Given that I have advised the community of my approach in numerous places in early August ( this RfC on AN/I RFI Talk:Gundagai Talk:Wiradjuri ), I find Durova's inference that my reversions are vandalising offensive. If the community didn't like my approach, there has been plenty of opportunity over several months to say so previously. Please note also that my approach was in response to six weeks of dealing with the anon. Thacher131 had dealt with the anon for around 24 hours and has blocked her! [41]

Yarri: Even the anon doesn't think the ABC cite googled by NuclearUmpf is any good, it is hardly the ABC news, it is published by the ABC but by a named author who is almost certainly not an ABC employee, it hasn't even been copyedited. The anon suggests it was written by a child in response to a competition

It was.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 ( talk • contribs) .

[42]. The ABC article was taken heavily from Butcher's book which both the anon and I own. The issue with her post about Yarri is that she has taken the citation very much out of context [43] (note this post is very inaccurate as it refers to the 1860s not 1879 and kicking to death does not equal "maltreating and teasing" ... "Kicked around"). As per my post to User talk:NuclearUmpf, there is an issue about context. Although my comments were in response to the ABC cite, they apply equally, if not more so to the cite being taken from Butcher's book - totally out of context and the wrong inference being placed - even the 1879 Gundagi Times article quoted more extensively by Butcher than on the ABC page makes it clear the behaviour was not condoned by the community and the young men were reprimanded.

No, its you read the kicking article out of context. Its best read in the original paper avialable at the NLA, not read in the context of the 2002 book its also in. Before Cliff Butcher died I congratulated him on the image sin his book but told him he left out the core story of the town. he glared and galred at me, realsing that I knew it, and that him writing everything but it, didnt extinguish it. What interest to peopel in Sydney is who lived in what house and when in a small town? Previouslly unknown massacres and the reason for them that teach us heaps about our own nation even if we need to go into the prehisotry of the Indigneous culture who owned this land before my lot and their damage turned up, to do that, is interesting to all Australians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 ( talk • contribs) .

The anon is a she. She has stated about herself that she is not an Indigenous Australian and that her family has lived at Gundagai since the 1840s, [44] hence English is indeed her first language. She also claims to have two uni degrees and is doing another. [45] Another description was "I AM A 55 YEAR ODL GREY HAIRED WOMAN WITH A LOT OF ACADEMIC AND PRACTICAL SKILLS, A MESSED UP ARM WHICH MESSES MY TYPING UP AND A LOT OF CONTENT HERE TO POST HERE FROM THE AUSTRALIAN STUDIES/ARCHAOLOGY/HERITAGE/SOCIAL SCIENCE/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE QUALS I HAVE ACHIEVED THE LAST 10 YEARS." (sic - her caps lock) [46]

Yes I am a she and the info above is very very correct.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 ( talk • contribs) .

Please also actually review my assertions in the initial RfC from late July, diffs are gfiven, policies and guidleines breached are highlighted. The review comments to date seem to be based on most recent interactions which is hardly fair to those of us who have been complaining for more than 3 months and have been trying to deal with this editor since mid June. Our most recent interactions are indeed based on our history with this editor and to ignore that history and then declare that we are not assuming good faith is to my mind is in turn not assuming good faith of established editors who have many edits to their accounts.

I am on a wikibreak as is Bidgee until this matter is resolved and the personal attacks cease and are removed. If the community decides they prefer the anon and her attacks and other breaches of policies, guidleines and wikiquette over us, well and good. I am not prepared to contribute to the project and be abused. -- Golden Wattle ^talk 21:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Artkos needs to learn how to get on with people when artkos cant get info out of them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 ( talk • contribs) .

Next wik will be wanting DSD to post all their stuff here and getting aggro when they dont and wont.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 ( talk • contribs) .

Well, that last is a bit overly dramatic, wouldn't you say? Given the history up until now I think arbitration is the next course. (You could request a community ban at ANI but I think the situation is too narrowly contained for the usual readers to feel like they know enough to weigh in.) I understand your frustration but I tend to agree with NuclearUmpf with respect to reverting talk page comments and ANI posts, although I don't blame you for adopting the stand you took. (As a practical matter, you would get more help if her antics had wider exposure.) An arbitration ban would give you the authority to revert her contributions. As I said I think she can be a useful counterweight provided she follows community guidelines, which she has shown no interest in doing (if not, her incivility has increased over time.) Thatcher131 21:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thatcher, this entire issue would have been better off if you just stopped your input as it doesnt help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 ( talk • contribs) .

ArbCom weren't interested before [47], what has changed, some time but they didn't indicate in their rejection that time was a factor in their decisions? Although mediation has been suggested, since she has ignored the RfC for over 2 months I see little point in escalating to mediation - she is extremely unlikely based on her past behaviour to respond to mediation or even co-operate in the slightest.

I took the issue of reversion to AN/I. I got no response other than one endorsement from User:Viridiae. I certainly got no lack of endorsement. Discussion on AN/I is normally regarded as sufficient in other cases for a community ban for example.

I am happy to participate in mediation, arbitration, whatever, but I do not feel like taking it forward anymore myself. There are plenty of other users who have dealt with her, so she has had reasonably wide exposure. Those users are however not particularly interested in the topics she and I and Bidgee are interested in so they don't see her coming back and back and back. They may cop some abuse at the time of their interactions, but not the recurring abuse over several months that I and Bidgee have suffered.

I am very disappointed that the three editors who have reviewed her actions over the last couple of days, assumed lack of good faith on mine and Bidgee's part apparently failing to recognise the history of our extensive interactions with this editor (despite much of them being documented here on this RfC), our previous appeals to the community on for example AN/I and RFI, as well as at this RFC. Moreover, over the last several days the three editors specifically failed to address the personal attacks that this editor was making against us, not so much as cautioning the anon: I found no warnings issued to her by any of these editors over the past few days, I conclude therefore that they found her abuse of us was OK.

Both Bidgee and I have worked within the system. The system is not supporting us and there is a limit to our persistence. Neither I nor Bidgee find her abuse OK even if it is not obscene. In the past I have warned users for abuse of others, I find it disappointing that others do not support us in demanding all editors abide by the standards set out in Wikipedia:No personal attacks which is policy.

The anon called us "Vandals, and Thugs and Ferals", repeatedly. The "warning" she got was not to post at more than one village pump page. She was blocked by Longhair for abuse and in acknowledgent of past history. Longhair was then accused by Durova [48] of an inappropriate block as being a party to the dispute, Durova disappointingly had not checked the RfC or realised that Longhair was not an editor of the pages she edits - it may be a complex and long-term dispute, that does not to my mind excuse the haste with which editors put forward their views on the matter.( 203.54.9.95 ( talk · contribs · block log) 203.54.9.30 ( talk · contribs · block log) & 203.54.9.218 ( talk · contribs · block log), the editor then breached the block and continued her abuse unchecked 203.54.9.205 ( talk · contribs), 203.54.186.18 ( talk · contribs), 203.54.186.156 ( talk · contribs), 203.54.9.250 ( talk · contribs), 203.54.9.98 ( talk · contribs), 203.54.9.161 ( talk · contribs)) She was finally blocked by Thatcher131 when she abused him personally. She was not blocked before when she was abusing others, what was the difference? Perhaps in the view of Thatcher131 we deserved it. He certainly allowed defamatory remarks to stay on his talk page and did not suggest to the editor that they were in any way wrong.

Until others in the community are prepared to deal with the anon and enforce the policy of no personal attacks, I won't be returning to edit articles. Blocking is not dealing with the matter, it is a temporary respite only and we have been there. -- Golden Wattle ^talk 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I allowed the remarks to stay on my talk page because (a) I was busy over the weekend and (b) it's my talk page. I told her in no uncertain terms "I will no have no hesitation in blocking you at the first sign of renewed personal attacks" [49], and then I did. I think you erred in blanket reverting her comments on ANI and her own RFC, and I more or less agree with Durova on this point. I don't think the lack of dis-endorsement should have been taken as endorsement, and I think it would have been better to let someone new deal with her on ANI. I also think that her point of view is valuable, as, for example, the statement that Gundgai is the cradle of reconciliation is extremely self-serving and not supported by sources as far as I can tell.

Other than that, I wholly agree with your view of her behavior and your frustration. As I indicated in my response to this RFC and on the talk page, "However, your behavior at times is wholly unacceptable", with diffs all more recent than the RFC filing. I think her response to my comments shows that mediation is impossible. Thatcher131 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I supported the reconciliation claims: the text of the article reads Gundagai people believe that the flood and its aftermath was the birthplace of reconciliation (note it is what the people of Gundagai believe even if that view is not shared by the anon) with two cites, they are the statement from the premier of NSW and the local member recorded in Hansard and a local government website [50] [51] As it is sourced, it may be a self-serving view but that view in itself is POV. Better to balance it if you wish with an observation that there are few indiginous inhabitants of the area any more - where are Yarri's great grand children... However, I am not indulging in original research and I would reject any unsourced statement.

As well as publishing my intentions, and having them explicitly endorsed by one user, I have been reverting her comments for over two months. Given you and Durova and NuclearUmpf have said cease and desist I will. If mediation is impossible, arbcom won't accept it, AN/I aren't interested (we've been there several times), her abuse of me litters the wikipedia - where to now?-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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 [52] 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 00:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

That is fine if wik cant handle original research. That is why I withdrew the coolac massacre stuff. Its that you seem unable to understand. That the coolac massacre does have cites but that I cant post them because of the onging process, and wont be posting them at anytime for other reasons seems to annoy you. I only offered the poems here, that you say is orignal research, so I withdrew them. Do u understand now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.166 ( talk • contribs) .

I have filed a formal request for arbitration regarding the anonymous Gundagai editor. Please make any statements you feel are appropriate. Thatcher131 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• The arbitration case has now closed and the "Gundagai Editor" has been banned from editing Wikipedia for one year - a sad but, under the circumstances, necessary result. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors for particulars. Newyorkbrad 04:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply