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

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gundagai editor banned from editing

1) As a result of ongoing personal attacks [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and legal threats [6], the anonymous Gundagai editor is banned from editing any page on Wikipedia except pages relating to this arbitration case, until the case is concluded. If she edits any other page, her IP address(es) and/or range(s) may be blocked (anon only) by any admin for up to 24 hours per occurrence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I believe it is necessary to have arbcom approval so that the editors who know her best (and are thus "involved") may block her, rather than having to appeal for uninvolved help on the noticeboards (a highly variable prospect). Thatcher131 01:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Durova 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Endorsed. Please see my comments under "proposed remedies - Gundagai editor banned" below for my thoughts about this situation. See also the proposed finding below concerning legal threats made by this editor against an administrator today. Newyorkbrad 01:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision Information

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Endorse - if people are not prepared to enforce this, I am not prepared to contribute here any longer-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Endorse -- Bidgee 05:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

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

Disruptive editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Accountability

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

These are interesting nuances for a general discussion, but are quickly becoming moot in this case. Endorse either version as sufficient to address this editor. Newyorkbrad 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Assume good faith

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Edits must be verifiable

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Endose: As stated elsewhere, I have no difficulty with verified material being recorded on Wikipedia. The material the anon wishes to post on the alleged Coolac Massacre has no reliable sources associated with it. There were apparently no contemporary records (none have been cited or appear in any references I have found) - though other massacres of Indigenous Australians (and also of European settlers) of the time were documented in newspapers, court reports, correspondence ... The only source the anon has produced to substantiate her claim was today (25 October). I do not believe the reference she cited today in her article edits of Hume Highway and Gundagai, that is http://help.com/post/3296/coolac-massacre/ , meets the criteria under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources - specifically Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. I have no difficulty with material being included on a massacre as long as it not original research and verified by reliable sources as per wikipedia policies and guidleines WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS - these policies and guidelines havebeen drawn to the anon's attention before as has the comment that Wikipedia is not the place to publish her original research and conjectures.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Endorse -- Bidgee 05:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

In discussion page sit is as that is how discussions happen. POVs and perspective come from personal experience. All humans have pov so to try and outlaw it on discussion pages is unrealistic. Fair enough not on article pages but that is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.65 ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Legal threats

6) Threats of legal action, whether overt or implied, are prohibited on Wikipedia. Users who make legal threats will be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from the past decisions page and specifically from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Internodeuser case.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 21:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Durova 01:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Anonymous editors are required to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines

7) Wikipedia users are welcome to edit anonymously but are expected to abide by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed-- Golden Wattle ^talk 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

As per discussion above at the principle of Accountability, I don't feel it is likely that this editor will register. She has indeed expressed that view on this page, eg [7] However as an individual she has been editing for in excess of 5 months. She haws asserted her right that she can edit on Wikipedia as "anyone can edit". (I need to locate a diff) The wikipedia invitation to anyone to edit is contained for example in the lead paragraph at Wikipedia:Introduction - See "edit this page" above? On Wikipedia, you can edit articles right now, even without logging in. and then a litle further down the screen: Don't be afraid to edit—anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, and fix it.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Endorse but note that there are actually a lot of articles involved from the Battle of the Hindenburg line onwards - they can relate back to Gundagai mostly but not always; it is always the same editor though and she is easily recognised.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Original research and point of view

2) The Gundagai editor has inserted personal knowledge, original research, and personal point of view into articles. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

I have no difficulty with verified material being recorded on Wikipedia. The material the anon wishes to post on the Coolac Massacre has no reliable sources associated with it. There were apparently no contemporary records (none have been cited or appear in any references I have found) - though other massacres of Indigenous Australians (and also of European settlers) of the time (1830s) were documented in newspapers, court reports, correspondence ... The only source the anon has produced to substantiate her claim was today (25 October). I do not believe the reference she cited today in her article edits of Hume Highway and Gundagai, that is http://help.com/post/3296/coolac-massacre/ , meets the criteria under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources - specifically Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. I have no difficulty with material being included on a massacre as long as it not original research and verified by reliable sources as per wikipedia policies and guidleines WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS - these policies and guidelines havebeen drawn to the anon's attention before as has the comment that Wikipedia is not the place to publish her original research and conjectures.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

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

Brad, stop fantasising/assuming. You are being delusional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.65 ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 25 October 2006 UTC.

Neutral point of view

2.1) The Gundagai editor's personal viewpoint on matters of Australian history is often in conflict with views expressed in the articles currently, which may reflect an unconscious pro-settler systematic bias. Neutral Point of View contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view in an article, and the aboriginal point of view is under-represented in the articles edited by the Gundagai editor. [14] [15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral point of view does not trump the expectation of civility

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Now Thatcher is claiming this 'correct worlds wrongs'nonsense? Who is doing that. The nonsens eon wik adds to worlds wrongs rather than correctign it. How can wik overturn the genocide of Australias Indigneous people? Wik might imagine stuff about itself but it has no ability to do that. Wik also cannot delete the Coolac Massacre as its fact. Wik is supposed present a balanced view not an ethnocentric one. Thatcher is full of pushing his personal very unskilled view when its not about him. I put up a post re an Indigneous massacre and this all flows from it. The massacre happened Fact. Bet it doesnt end up on here. There are four murders of white sby whites here too that I wa sgoing to put up. bet they say as they are whotes killing whites so not as contentious as whites killing Indigneous people. However it doesnt matter if stuff doesnt end up on here as wik is just baby stuff and the massacre is now recorded in far more credible palces than silly here. Is wik that balanced though? Its pretty unbalanced in my view. The massacre probably wont end up on here as wik cant handle it and the Thatchers of the world discredit it because of their own obvious lack of skill and knowledge re some stuff. That wont change though that the massacre happened and the Dog on Tuckerbox monument and the poems are about that massacre. I wont be putting cites up apart from the poems as I cannot, however that does not mean the massacre didnt happen or that the Dog on Tuckerbox monument isnt about the massacre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.65 ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 October 2006 UTC.

In light of this comment I'll clarify the spirit of my endorsement: while I support efforts to counter systemic bias, editors who work toward correcting such biases are not exempt from basic site policies. Durova 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The word "any" should be inserted before the word "prevailing". In the absence of verifiable sources suggesting that the anonymous editor is correct in her wild-seeming claims, there is currently no evidence of such bias on the relevant articles. It seems to me that people are bending over backwards to help someone who does not appreciate it, or even seem to understand that they are doing so. I don't think there is any reason to continue with that approach. Wikipedia has basic standards of accountability and civility, and she must meet them. Metamagician3000 09:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Failure to assume good faith

3) The Gundagai editor has failed to assume good faith, calling other editors "liars" and "vandals" in response to their edits, and even when other editors have not been editing. [16] [17] [18] [19] See the evidence page here and here for more.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Endorse-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Endorse -- Bidgee 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The wik clowns have not once shown good faith so it can be safely assumed that as they dont invite it, it isnt something that they or wik are about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.163 ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC). reply

Comment by others:

Incivility

4) The Gundagai editor is frequently uncivil in edit summaries, talk page comments, and article content. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Endorse-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Endorse -- Bidgee 05:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Refusal to register

5) The Gundagai editor has refused to register for a user name. This has made it difficult for other editors to communicate with her regarding the content of her edits and her behavior. For example, she has claimed not to have been aware of any blocks made against her for incivility. [29]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Endorsed -- Golden Wattle ^talk 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

I think we are communicating, just not to any effect-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

On 6 July she states I dont need a wik account. [30]-- Golden Wattle ^talk 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

The Gundagai editor's IP range

5.1) The Gundagai editor uses Telstra, one of the main Australian providers of dialup service. The editor edits from a range assigned to Telstra of 203.54.0.0/16, encompassing 65,000 addresses. [31] However, to date nearly all of her edits have been from either 203.54.9.0/24 or 203.54.186.0/24, encompassing 256 addresses each.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Endorsed-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Endorse -- Bidgee 05:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Efforts to welcome the editor and explain our policies

6) Numerous good faith efforts have been made to explain Wikipedia's policies and processes. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Seems necessary to round out the case. Please help me by adding a couple of representative diffs. Thatcher131 02:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The diffs I already provided on the evidence page regarding the mentorship program include good faith efforts to explain other policies and processes. Durova 03:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

My first interactions with this editor were to note her additions to the Gundagai page. I requested citations using the {{ fact}} template and with an accompanying note "very interesting but need some sources please" [39] The template I used explains that a citation is needed and links to Wikipedia:Citing sources. I also added a note as to whether there was confusion with the Benalla or Faithfull massacre of 1838. [40] She responded on the article page to differentiate the alleged Coolac massacre from the Benalla massacre [41] I then removed the information [42] with the comment - information about massacre removed - see talk page for why - basically doesn't seem to be verifiable - must have reliable sources cited - they don't have to be web based and placed the material on the talk page [43] with a reference to the policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability included in the note Note citations have been requested. Doesn't mean I don't believe it. It is Wikipedia policy though that things are Verifiable. Her response of 18 June was in her own inimitable style [44]. My response of 18 June, adding in unsigned tags, was to draw her attention to our policies with the note If you wish to contribute to the wikipedia then you need to read our policies on Verifiability. You need to cite sources. I may have cited a 2004 source - at least I cited something! If there is a more recent RTA review or any other review - please feel free to reference it. No reliable source, no entry in the wikipedia - nothing to do with skills, all to do with No original research, which is policy [45]-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

RFC

7) A request for comment was filed in July; however, the editor did not enter a statement in defense until October 6. There is some question about whether she was adequately informed of the RFC; however, lacking a fixed username there is no reliable way to have contacted her about the RFC. [46]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Reversions of October 4

8) On October 4, the editor was blocked for incivility. In response, she posted a complaint to all 6 village pumps labeling editors as "vandals, thugs and ferals". [47] The comments were repeatedly reverted by many editors [48] [49] [50] [51] The comments were allowed to remain on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) and other editors commented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

I did not edit at all on 4 October [52] -- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

Comment by others:

Reversions of October 6

8.1) On October 6, she posted similar comments to the village pumps, her RFC, and the administrators' noticeboards. At the time, she had been blocked at each of her IP addresses for incivility (the first block) and block evasion (subsequent blocks of other IP addresses). (For details of the blocks and contributions see the evidence page.) Her comments to her RFC [53] were initally reverted by Bidgee ( talk · contribs) and Golden Wattle ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) until NuclearUmpf ( talk · contribs) stepped in.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Appropriateness of the reversions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

I did indeed revert unsigned comments including an extensive crosspost which included comments made by others. While the anon has mastered the use of cut and paste functionality (and even in part headings [54] oh wow!), she has yet to find the tilde key or the signature button located above the edit window although her attention has been directed to it numerous times. I had stated my proposed approach of reverting unsigned comments at the RfC, at RfI, at AN/I, at Talk Gundagai, Talk Wiradjuri ... The current state of the RFC page is a testament to what happens when crossposts and unsigned comments are not reverted! Can anybody see who said what when and where without reference to the history? I think not. Moreover, she has not actually addressed the issues raised at the RfC; it was just another space for her to attack others. Note also that as per comments above, as at October 6, the editor was blocked and all edits may be reverted under the blocking policy.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 01:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Well ... I had better go find some new topics to edit then eh. Just to confuse you. I will swap Ips also. Now you lot be vigilent, OK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.64 ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC). reply

Response to her complaints

9) Thatcher131 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Durova ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and NuclearUmpf ( talk · contribs) each responded to the Gundagai editor's complaints. To differing degrees, these responses expressed concern about the blanket reversions by Bidgee and Golden Wattle, as well as concerns about her behavior. [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] She later attacked Thatcher131 and Durova when their response to her plea for help focused on her behavior. [61] [62] [63]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Endorse. Durova 02:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Selective Crossposting

10) The Gundagai editor has cross-posted large blocks of text taken from user talk pages and other locations as a means of defending herself. These blocks of text include selective quotations from other users (including supportive comments but excluding criticism), and are not attributed with diffs. [64] [65] [66] See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Evidence#Violations of WP:POINT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Endorse-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Endorse -- Bidgee 05:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Personalization

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

In light of the anon's comments below, perhaps it would be appropriate to expand the personalization statement with diffs and other examples. Durova 02:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

Comment by others:

The Coolac Massacre cannot go here so that it isnt here means content is unbalanced so has been subject to whitewash given its cultural stuf about a non white culture. If it wasnt, it would be here. Because wik looks at the massacre through non Indigneous understanding, its been whitewashed away from wik. if it hadnt been, it would be here. NOTE: Wik should not look at the massacre or the poems from a white perspective. Wik needs to know Indigneous culture etc in which case the poems would have immediately been understood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.163 ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC). reply

if a poem in Swahali was posted here most would not understand it. Does that mean it is discredited though and th eperson who put it there is bully fodder or that those reading it are deficient in some skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.65 ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Continued behavior during arbitration

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

Well golly gee gosh, I thought the wik circus only wanted clowns here so I became one. Wik needs to act a bit better if it wants others to. Wik is totally deplorable re some stuff. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.65 ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Endorse-- Golden Wattle ^talk 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Endorse. The anon's comment in this section speaks for itself. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Legal threats

13) The anon editor has made legal threats against an adminstrator. [67] An AVO in Australia is an Apprehended Violence Order, ie an Injunction: a court order taken out by a person who fears violence or harassment from their harasser. A court can issue an AVO if it believes, on the balance of probabilities, that a person has reasonable grounds to fear a personal violence offence against them, harassing conduct, molestation, intimidation, or stalking. If a defendant knowingly contravenes a prohibition or restriction specified in the AVO, they can be subject to a fine, imprisonment, or both..

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Golden Wattle ^talk 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Durova 22:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Endorse. (Please note that I am in agreement with substantially all the findings that have been proposed, even if I don't sign an endorsement to each item.) Newyorkbrad 23:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Failure to sign posts

14) The anon editor has consistently failed to sign posts. This is a deliberate strategy on her part. [68]: In response to an explanation by Golden Wattle: Navigation on talk pages is normally by linking using signatures by the way. If somebody wanted to follow the conversation, and you had signed - they would come here very easily - they can't when you don't sign - have I mentioned signing before? Maybe you might if you could see the benefits. She responded on 6 July Maybe I wont too. Do you think I dont know about how to make a maze? Its pretty amazing. If you lose the thred though your lost. Have fun

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Golden Wattle ^talk 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nice diff. Thatcher131 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

This was one finding I didn't think I could endorse until I read that diff. Durova 13:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I will go check if the massacre post is still there, then I am out of here as have exams then holidays. Dont baste in your misery too long you lot are you are seemingly just total dopes re some stuff. I need to thank you as while I was doing some stuff connected to this I found some more significant stuff so it had a benefit a few days back. I will go work on it (with half an eye waiting for what gets put on the Hume and Hovell expedition page as it gets amazing how messed up some of Ozs history can become). It seems AC does have some skills so whether he puts a better version up rather than just posting rewrites of incorrect rewrites from wrong versions of Australia's contact story, has me curious. Some of the stuff that is on here that is very incorrect all come sof fone original eithe rdeliberate or inadvertant error so its amazing how it gets perpetuated. Its also a sign of not very good authorship or research.

This is where wik falls over. Non skilled people either plagarise or rewrite stuff, messing stuff up so it cannot ever be more than a comic book as the poor quality stuff pulls all else down to it its level. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.163 ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC). reply

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bold text

Required to register

You know, some peopel require others to do all sorts of bizarre things. Wik is having delusions. I dont recognise wik as anything to be paid much regard given the deplorable way some who frequent here, go on. I know this total dropkick who requires me to do as he wishes to also but he is currently before the courts again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.163 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC). reply

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

"The Gundgaai editor is required to ... etc" Just read that back to yourselves. Do you realise how nuts that is. I am sorry you lot are so unwell. How about you get professional help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.64 ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC). reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

I never join stuff that is very bizarre. I am particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.163 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

Comment by others:

As a totally uninvolved admin with a mild interest in the subject matter, I've been looking into this dispute to try to get a sense of it. It's quickly become apparent to me that we are dealing with someone who is totally unwilling, or unable, to understand Wikipedia's policies or to deal with other editors in a civil fashion. The way she has responded on this very page to people such as Thatcher131, who are going out of their way to be accommodating to her, demonstrates that point. I see no recourse in this case other than a complete permanent ban. Frankly, I'm surprised there has not already been a community ban imposed on this user. Metamagician3000 10:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Gundagai editor placed on probation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Further read the above. You guys are seriously unwell. Where do you get the delusions on re a name, then sit and make arrangemtns what you will do so you all know it. What name? If you want a new name get one. I am not registerign as have no wish to join you at that level. Get a new delusion maybe? I was a psych nurse for many years but never ever ever met a bunch of such delusional kooks like the collection of them on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.64 ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC). reply

Gundagai editor placed on civility parole

Grow up whoever put this here. I am serious. Do relaise how ridiculous you lot are. You are a bunch of total idiotic ratbags. grow up. If you are 7 year olds, well that is a mauturity thing but if older, grow up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.163 ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC). reply

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

See the subject editor's response just below the header. As we lawyers (but not Wikilawyers) would say, res ipsa loquitur. Newyorkbrad 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Exactly: It speaks for itself. However, this remedy would be inadequate. The more I look into this, the more I support a complete ban and only regret that the people who have had to put up with this behaviour could not have received support from the community sooner (not that I blame anyone; it's just one of those things that happen). Metamagician3000 10:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Gundagai editor banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Who is this Durova. I dont know it. It floated into th epic last week and seems ot be one of these who says one thing one day, then another the next. Somehow I cannot imagine being under the 'mentorship' (odd concept) of someone who is so flakey even if I was seekign to join wik, when I am NOT. Durova, I want no associationw ith you so you are not a suitbale person to mentor anyone in my opinion because of your erratic behviour and gullibility. I'd mentor you to try and retrain you but have better to do. Do you knwo it is a recognised illness under DSMRV to be over helpful so saner to just be unhelpful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.65 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Per the page diffs I provided as evidence, I repeatedly encouraged you to join Wikipedia's formal mentorship program. I explained the basics of this program and provided you with a page link to the program. As I specifically explained, I am not a participant at that project and the guidance I offered was purely informal. When you sought help at Village Post I offered it and you continued to seek help at my user talk page until I supported arbitration. Durova 03:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Endorse - I have spent far too many hours going no where with this and I am really unable to continue committing time to the project while defamatory comments about me are aloowed to remain and while unverified material is continuously being posted by this woman.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

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

I think the response we just got to the "civility patrol" proposal just above is pretty much the final straw here. Newyorkbrad 21:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

In light of today's legal threat, is there any reason we don't just indef block her immediately? I hadn't realized what an AVO meant until Golden Wattle explained it. I realize that because this is a variable anon IP the block would probably have to be applied in shorter durations - something like one month at a time. Durova 22:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Supported. However, since this is now in arbitration I suggest that no blocks be imposed until the case is over (unless pursuant to any interim remedy that is given). What we need is a ban of this anonymous user - enforceable by any admin being able to impose appropriate blocks on any IP that she posts from in the future. I think it's best if such a remedy could come from the arb com after she has had every reasonable chance to have her say, rather than someone trying to get a community ban to stick at this late stage of events. Metamagician3000 10:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thatcher Seems Easy to Lead

Go see Durova Thatcher. She is looking for someone to adopt. You two would be a great pair. You could harass each other rather than others, andlead each other all over and work out whatever this thing is you have to boss and nag and get very aggro at when saner peopel tell you to take your stupid nonsense, and shove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.179.59 ( talk • contribs) 07:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement of ban on anonymous editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Arhem ... i dont have an 'account' remember. You poor chooks. You really have it bad eh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.64 ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC). reply

Enforcement of article bans

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Accusation that Thatcher is a liar

In my evidence section, I noted that at one point she complained that disclosing an aboriginal archeological site was improper [69] but later she said There are totally no bora rings anywhere here. In her evidence section More lies by Thatcher she dismisses me for not having local knowledge (her language is less nuanced) and then says I repeat, there are totally NO bora anythings in this area. I also repeat, it is highly inappropriate that restricted indigenous info be published and the government authorites that were responsible for putting that content online have bene chipped pretty soundly and if they do it again ther ewill be official complaints made. <<<Did u ask my permission to cut and paste that? I simply can't grasp the concept here. I am a liar for saying that she made contradictory statements about the site, and then she makes contradictory statements about the site in her own defense. It can not both be true that there is no site and that government officials who disclosed the site have gotten in trouble. A lot of her editing is along similar lines. Thatcher131 01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So blind are those who cannot see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.163 ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC). reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just for reference, the website with the Bora rings is "Gundagai Shire". State of the Environment Reporting for the Australian Capital Region. ACT Commissioner for the Environment. 2006. Retrieved 2006-07-18. (Oh and it is till on line today more than three months later!?! - so much for her comments that the "government authorites that were responsible for putting that content online have bene chipped pretty soundly and if they do it again ther ewill be official complaints made" (sic) )

Whoever put the preceeding comment is again selectiviely quoting stuff out of context to try and stir who knows what. I chipped Gundgaai Shire Council re that stuff being posted online and informed the regulator and custodians. Council were responsible for the content being passed on to the next authority who then published it online. I am not sure who at Gundgaai Council filled that form out but they did have a ring in doing their environmental stuff who should have known better. It will probably stay online as that ACT authority who put it there isnt under NSW Heritage Law. Its also a science based org, not a heritage protection one so may just be ignornat of protocol whereas Council wasnt and when I first passed that info on it was marked 'confidental'. However, if it happens again, I will loudly complain and have reason to as that info wa s originally passed on by me to the local Council when I first identifed it thinking that they would then notify it as they were required to but when they didnt, I notified it. So, whomever put the scoffing bad faith and ignorant rmeark above, you do not know what you are talking about and are commenting on something you have no personal or professional interest in and seemingly do not have the nous to understand anyway. (yet another unsigned rant from guess who inserted into the middle of my post - and yes she has been ased politely not to do this before!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.163 ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC). reply

The website states The Gundagai area is part of the traditional Waradjuri land and evidence suggests that the floodplains below the town were a frequent meeting place of Aboriginal people. Indeed traditional bora rings have been identified close to town in recent times. White settlement began in the mid-1800s and the town developed on the floodplain to service the crossing of the Murrumbidgee River. I was the one who placed the material on wikipedia. I also do not see her objections [70] she really does not seem to understand what the wikipedia is about or what publishing means. In response to some suggestions that she is keen to include more information about Indigenous Australians - it is only some material she wants to see and only some material that supports a particular POV.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 01:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

What this section underscores is the anon's tendency to personalize disputes and assume bad faith: to call someone a deliberate liar is a strong and inflammatory claim, and to assert that someone perpetrates a lie because of ethnic bigotry is one of the very worst accusations that can be made against a person, at least in North America where I live. While Wikipedia could certainly use more experts about Aboriginal culture and history, this particular editor's irresponsible behavior casts doubt on her editorial trustworthiness. Why should I (or anyone else) trust her assertions about Australian history when page diffs persistently disprove her assertions about her own edit history? Durova 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Wattle, sites are not disclosed that can be vandalised, as they often are. That results in the loss of those sites to Indigneous people, but also to all Australians. Uluru cannot be easily vandalised but can be treated with disrespect. Other stuff can be vandalised. Speaking generally and acknowledgng Indigneous lands is fine. Disclosing sites isnt unless given permission to by culture under Australian Government 'Ask First' guidelines available online I think under Australian Heritage Commission online site. People need to know sites first though. Some are on the AIHMS database but its really hard to get info off it which is great. Only people with authority to access that databse can and even then they cannot have free access. No casual wik stickybeak can get info off it. Other sites are not on that database as they are not subject to direct threat from tourists, locals, people with politcal agendeas etc. I know where stuff is as I found it but that does not give me the right to tell people other than those who have to know such as the government and others whose stuff it is, where it is. There are laws to protect Australian heritage you know in particular our world significant Indigneous stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.163 ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC). reply

I fuly understand what publishing is wattle. Do you? Publishing under Australian law incorporates responsibility also. e.g. we do not publish Family Law stuff to protect the identity of children etc. Likewise, Indigneous heritage sites that might be damaged if their locations are known, are not published to protect them. That responsibility overrides your ego driven need to publish anything you want no matter what you think re that. In other words, you as a publisher have a responsibility to not publish stuff that could lead to people going to vulnerable cultural heritage places and damaging them both out of respect for Indigneous people and culture, if you can be inclusive and respectful enough as an individual to be able to do that but also from a wider all of Australia and World hertiage protection perspective. You also are under the Australian 'Ask First' protocols if you do anything in regard to Indigenous content. Did you ask permission off the custodians to post where their site is? Maybe you wanted to publish that stuff but did you ask could you? I can guarantee they'd have said NO as loudly as possible. I was at a meeting a few weeks prevously with 30 Elders including tent embassy ones and the very same topic came up on the level that it wasnt even allowed ot be said in the meeting when a non Indigneous professional mentioned it in passing assuming all knew.

Your first responsibility is to act under Australian law and protocol before you go publishing every last thing online.

Just imagine if someone published their neighbours Family law battle here including the names of the kids etc. However, unde roz law, even anything that might lead to identification of such kids, isnt to be published. The same with DoCS stuff to protect the vulnerable. Imagine if every known Indigneous site got published here, then most got vandalised. Who loses? Wik wont. Will Australia and our really unique culture and heritage. YES!

You know, if you are other than Australian, well - so be it. There may be an Internet nationality that has your home in cyberspace. However, I am Australian and we have borders, including cvber ones, where not all in this nation is governed by the Internet or the often warped dynamics of the sociology of the internet.

There should be some national Australian pride also in assisting to help protect Indigenous sites by not putting where vulnerable ones are, online even if some other dickhead has published stuff that went online, that they should not have.

Though this is wik, it still comes under Oz law, protocols and conventions.

In response to some suggestions that she is keen to include more information about Indigenous Australians - it is only some material she wants to see and only some material that supports a particular POV.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 01:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How does wattle know the above? Given I have only put it up re one place how can she make such a huge sweeping assumption? Wattle wouldnt know what I know or think or what re this stuff or what I want to put up or not. If I am only putting stuff up on the gundagai site, then linking it where appropriate its not going to cover many areas or issues, is it. If a POV is personal, well its going to be from one perspective isnt it? if a post is academic and discursive, it will put several points of view. However, under Australian law I am NOT Indigneous so I can lonly put my non Indigneous POV but I can give a very wide ranging academic Indigenous perspective which is also where the cites come in as it snot just what I think. Wat is wattle on about re this POV stuff? Wik doesnt run on pov as wik requires cites taking the content out of what the individual editor thinks into what others think and there is a record of. Does Wattle want me to put "I am indigneous so my thieving lot stole the fantastic whites flour after they niceley took the lands we didnt want off us and it was my lots fault there was drought so no food and the roos had all gone because of fences etc and guns etc etc." Something like that for you wattle? Would that suit you? I cant give that view though as under Australian law in 2006, I am not Indigneous and it nonsense anyway and to put it would be biased.

wattle, go back to kinder will you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.65 ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC). reply

Selective understanding

During a discussion of the proper names of the hills on which the town of Gundagai is located, she accuses other editors of vandalizing her changes [71], even though no one else was editing the article at the time [72]. I explained how to use the "history" tab [73] showing that there were no changes to the article except hers during that time, and suggested she might have had a problem with her browser cache and that she owed Bidgee and Sarah Ewart an apology for calling them liars [74]. She called me a "Dom" and sent me to a leather room [75].

She then posted to the article talk page, and crossposted the entire discussion to her RFC [76]. In this discussion she accuses me multiple times of "making it up."

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

This could possibly be excused as a new editor unfamiliar with the Mediawiki software. And yet, she understands how to use the page history tab when it suits her. [77] [78] Thatcher131 12:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There are limits to how far we can extend the benefit of the doubt to new users. Everyone has a different learning curve. When a user falls behind on the curve the usual solution is to explain the basics and recommend mentorship. I've tried this repeatedly to no avail. Durova 02:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Claims to be ignorant of blocks

Stated the following (split out of very long post)

Someone has been having major delusions. I know nil of any block whatever that is. I use my computer as I choose. No wattle or longhair or any such mysterious cyber non event is in charge of my computer no matter what they might imagine. For those who do imagine such weird stuff, best to get professional help maybe. If u want to exclude people, why not find someoen who is 90, or a one year old, then have a go at kicking them. You may get some satisfaction then as you will probably get away with it with no one obecting.

Diffs showing awareness of blocks

• the edit summary im blocked from editing so cant put more
• She recognizes it here and admits to evading the block. [79] Durova 02:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• [80] In response to Sarah Ewart's announcement of a twelve hour block for incivility, the anon returns 3 minutes later to acknowledge the action and call Sarah Ewart a stalker and a maggot. Durova 16:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• On 3 November she is very much aware of blocks, see for example I DONT WANT TO BE UNBLOCKED - EVER TYVM. TYVM FOR BLOCKING ME. LOL. [81] -- Golden Wattle ^talk 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

I've added two more. Durova 16:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have to say reading the comments here just now, if I go back to the original conflict (that started when I wouldnt post other than poem cites for the massacre), this dispute is to do with one person and me. Other editors recruited by artkos, joined in the row after that but the underlying issue is seemingly still there i.e. the Indigenous content I post?

It seems also that bias is being suggested re me? This is pretty ridiculous as some of my family were connected to the machine that did what that machine did to Indigenous peopel in oz. My ancestry is not guilt free by any means. I cannot even guarantee that here in Gundagai not one of my g.grans didnt use a gun against Indigenous people in colonial times. in fact, one branch of my family I suspect may have, as they came here from Camden where they worked for the McArthurs. The bias I do not like is when what happened is glossed over, hidden obscured etc so that what happeneded is obliterated and the role of one party prettied up to the detriment of the other party. Also, I can go get a book and read about my Plymouth Royal Dockyard ancestry. Most Indigenous people have lost massive chunks of their story because of my people. Fair is fair. I wont gloss stuff over and will work on finding other lost stuff. If anyone objects to that, that is your problem.

Does wattle want this stuff not known and from that, we will lose the means to find out about climate change etc as well? Why wattle? There is bias here and it is really really small headed stuff. What is new re this sort of content though as that is what happens. Its ridiculous. Sorry for the typos. One hand doesnt work well post my arm fracture. I then dont see them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.65 ( talk • contribs) .

• I have no difficulty with verified material being recorded on Wikipedia. The material you wish to post on the Coolac Massacre has no reliable sources associated with it. There were apparently no contemporary records (none have been cited or appear in any references I have found) - though other massacres of Indigenous Australians (and also of European settlers) of the time were documented in newspapers, court reports, correspondence ... The only source the anon has produced to substantiate her claim was today (25 October). I do not believe the reference she cited today in her article edits of Hume Highway and Gundagai, that is http://help.com/post/3296/coolac-massacre/ , meets the criteria under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources - specifically Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. I have no difficulty with material being included on a massacre as long as it not original research and verified by reliable sources as per wikipedia policies and guidleines WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS - these policies and guidelines havebeen drawn to the anon's attention before as has the comment that Wikipedia is not the place to publish her original research and conjectures.-- Golden Wattle ^talk 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

When I first responded to the anon's appeal at Village Pump I entertained the possibility that this might be an ethnocentric dispute. I never found it necessary to post that supposition because it immediately became clear that it was groundless: no one in this dispute has a history of whitewashing Australian history. Instead the participants have encouraged referenced additions. This is purely a dispute about encyclopedic standards and user conduct. What we in the States call "playing the race card" is a red herring in this instance. Durova 02:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

That article I posted today is my cut and past onto Help.com from my original post here. You dont like it. Delete it then. That is fine. Its fine by me if the massacre isnt here and I have been saying that for months. Its you goes troppo each time it is mentioned or appears for some bizarre reason. Its really fine. Anyone can find the massacre account online without wiks assistance. If anyoen wants further info they would need to deserve to be party to that info and have the mental capacity to deal with it. Honestly artkos, I can understand why the account of the massacre raises your hackles so amazingly much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.65 ( talk • contribs) 01:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC) - - Also, if you dont find any contemporary records, that is an indication of your research skill as howcome me the total wipeout can find them? I'd say your lack of knowledge in other areas also affects you being able to identify this stuff in the archives (if you looked in the archives as you seem more inclined to do research in comic book places that i have observed). I generally work of fprimary sources such as archives stuff or actual scientific evidence, rather than something that is something that someone wrote off soemthing else someone wrote copied from something else. If you were a murderer, would you leave evidence all over? If you were a sympathetic (horrified) observer of a murder who couldnt openly dislcose stuff or you might end up topped also, but wished to leave a record, how would you do that? Even Gov Gipps is noted for fearing for his life re some stuff if some stuff was disclosed and he was the boss of the then Colony of NSW pre it becoming Australia. You must research stuff totally out of context then adjudicate stuff here in the same manner. Enjoy. I put a lot of work into what i do and get some pretty interesting rewards from that with accuracy my bottom line, not some fanciful or biased view of Australias story, so what people such as yourself or other clowns here imagine or dispute is of no consequence and if I dont go do what I should right now I wont get the rewards later in the day, plus Andrew's Hume and Hovell book is at PO so will go get it. His books are very unreliable apart from where he quotes primary sources but some pics are also OK. Andrews made too much up that isnt based on any real evidence, as people here do then end up with total nonsense as conclusions. However, Andrews was missing one very core bit of info in most of his books that is a result of really really poor following of primary sources years back that got perpetuated. That error may have been delinbrate to obscure stuff or just an error. it wasnt a massiv error just a minor tweak here and there that altered other stuff by 100s miles a speopel reinterprted wrong interpretations and added another 100 miles each time. That is how big errors can become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.65 ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The anon appears to be referring not to a new article, but to an edit. Golden Wattle Another editor reverted it because it cited an online bulletin board in violation of WP:RS. Golden Wattle explained this politely at the article talk page. [82] Durova 16:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I didn't revert, I drew other's attention to her edit on the Australian Wikipedians' Noticeboard [83]-- Golden Wattle ^talk 19:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

In response to the above

I have to say reading the comments here just now, if I go back to the original conflict (that started when I wouldnt post other than poem cites for the massacre), this dispute is to do with one person and me. Other editors recruited by artkos, joined in the row after that but the underlying issue is seemingly still there i.e. the Indigenous content I post?

There are now two issues, your content and your behavior toward other editors. Looking specifically at the content question, it's not personal between you and Wattle. She may have been the first person to spot the problem, but it would still be a problem if someone else had spotted it first.

Your remark just above encapsulates the problem.

Also, if you dont find any contemporary records, that is an indication of your research skill as howcome me the total wipeout can find them? ... I generally work off primary sources such as archives stuff or actual scientific evidence, rather than something that is something that someone wrote off soemthing else someone wrote copied from something else.

Your approach is fundamentally unacceptable on Wikipedia. This is a decision made by the founder and enforceable by any editors or admins. The policy is simple: No Original Research.

So Jimbo likes latered sources does he. Pretty interetsing isnt it. Primary sources are core sources. Its when others gets works and alter tham such as the stuff that gets put here, all credibility flies out the window and establishes what is put here as nonsense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.180 ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia editors are not allowed to do research in primary sources and describe the results here. It's just that plain.

Is it that plain. Primary explorers journals have no weight but a map made up by a wik contributor where those explorers went, does. Make up your mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.180 ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Let's say that I do some research into treatment of Native Americans from original sources and try to publish it here. No one knows who I am, or what my qualifications are, or biases. I could be a white supremacist trying to undermine Native claims to local territory, a Native activist trying to gain leverage for a court case about land claims, a faithful and disinterested researcher, or completely incompetent. Since there is no way for any other editor to evaluate my work, it is not permitted on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if a professional historian like Doris Kearns Goodwin, or a well-published amateur like Ed Steers were to do the same research and publish it in a history journal or book, then I could write about it here. Publishing in professional journals or respected book publishers involves at least some level of fact-checking and reliance on a person's previous work and reputation. Such books also attract the attention of other professional historians, for example in the form of book reviews in other professional journals. If I write about their findings, any other editor (or at least one with access to a good library) can cross-check my work, or add the criticisms and evaluations of other historians weighing in on the matter.

This means that Wikipedia may not always report the "truth" about a subject, or that Wikipedia may lag behind current research trends, and we have to accept that limitation. The alternative is chaos. For example, imagine the mess we would be in if another anonymous editor from Gundagai starting following your contributions, not merely to assert that they are unproven, but to claim that you are lying, or crazy, or just plain wrong. Maybe this new editor would assert that Neville Williams told him he had made a false claim about a massacre in order to blackmail the government into paying him a settlement. It would be total war, he said/she said, with no way for any third party to resolve the dispute and determine who was telling the truth.

WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE IMEMDIATELY ABOVE ABOUT. IS THATCHER SEEING AUSTRALIA THROUGH WHAT HAPPENS IN HIS NATION. HOW BIASED AND WHAT A WAY TO DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOUT OZ. WHAT 'SETTLEMENT'? OZ DOESNT DO MASSACRE SETTLEMENTS THATCHER. WE DO MABO AND WIK PLUS MORE RECENT ADJUSTMENTS, BUT NOT YOUR 'SETTLEMENTS'. As a wik person you need to stop discussing stuff in such a delusional inappropriate manner. Australian Aboriginal Massacres are not regulated by the legislation your nation may run under blieeve it or not. Australia is NOT your nation believe it or not. I should sit here and start checking stuff re your nation at you from an Oz legal pov. There is this general ability from people on the amrican continet to be really condescendign re Australia and to imagine Australia is run by the US and its dynamics. Guess what. It isnt. Now you seem to imagine the law you are under, is what happens in this nation. Go get a life thatcher. Go learn world history and just what happens in different places re law. Stop showing your total ignornace re Australia re thise idiotic delusions you state above. youy make it up as you go. You need to go write a comic book not be advising people on here.

Thatcher you get a minus z for your ability to understand some stuff. This is Australia this end and content about Australia is Australian not wikian or american or canadian.

Imagine me working in with others here if this is the level you work at Ewwww!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.180 ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Therefore the official policy is Verifiability, not truth. If a book author was baised, you have to find a more recent historian who said so, in a reliable context like a book review, book, or professional journal article. If there are oral histories that talk about a massacre, you have to find a historian who specializes in documenting the oral histories of indigenous peoples and who has written about it in a reliable source. If there are archeological sites that are private or restricted, you can't put them on Wikipedia (on knowledge derived from them) until they are made public in a government report, book, professional journal article, or similar source.

If you can work collegially with other editors to improve articles that interest you by adding verifiable facts, your contributions will be welcome. But there is no point in continuing to insist on the insertion of original research and personal knowledge. Thatcher131 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Peabrain thatcher....why dont u let it go. You obviously have serious issues. Are you aroudn 8 years old and just cannot process some stuff. If u go check, apart from the massacre post, anything I put up is very verifibale with accompanying cites. What is wrong with you. Dont tell me though as I really do not want to know. Just be proud that the behaviour such as yours and others here, does hunt people away as you are too troublemakign and stupid for peopel to need to be near that sort of nonsense. That said, wik deserves you. Do you have a clown suit? You are a pack of pathetic bullies so be very proud. It doesnt affect me much but you will bully others, so be very proud of that certainity.