Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Workshop

Thinking out loud
Fortunately I haven't been an involved party in many arbitration proceedings (although that may change now that I'm an admin), so I'll set forth some thoughts as starting points for discussion.

When this arbitration was proposed, and when it initially opened, I supposed that a minimum solution would be to require this editor to join the mentorship program. I doubted that would be enough - and since then I've come to doubt that mentorship would work at all. This anon did seek outside opinions when she posted to Village Pump and three different editors responded independently. We all tried different approaches and all of those approaches ultimately failed in the same way: at some point we each had to say, such-and-such behavior of yours is unacceptable and has to change. No matter how mildly anyone phrased that concept, the anon responded abusively.

Nor has the anon been willing to adjust to Wikipedia. The issue of signing posts has come up repeatedly, and in itself is a minor matter, but seems to have become symbolic of a more general intransigence: the anon complained when arbitration was requested that no one had explained why it's important to sign posts. So I gave a detailed explanation on my user talk page which produced neither response nor improvement. A reasonable person who didn't understand why this matters would ask rather than ignore suggestions and wait for arbitration to say, nobody told me. Then, if things somehow got to arbitration, a reasonable person would at least make superficial efforts to comply with requests and refrain from antagonizing other involved parties.

The combative stance this anon has adopted leads me to suppose this editor just doesn't intend to adjust to Wikipedia. While I have mild regrets about showing the door to someone who appears to be knowledgeable about their subject, this disruptive behavior would not be tolerated in a work setting, a social setting, or anywhere else. This editor has behaved in ways that inspire little trust: many of this anon's edits were uncited assertions, so why should I place more reliance in this person's article edits than in their talk page assertions about psychotic Wikipedian cult bullies?

This editor needs to be shown the door.  Durova  16:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I note Durova, Thatcher131 and others have been dealing with this editor for less than 1 month. They have accused me of failing to assume good faith when my dealings have been for 5 months, but have failed to clarify how to deal with the anon.  What we need more than anything else is how do we deal with an anoymous editor (I don't think there is any confusion that there is more than one editor) who is using IP addresses.  Can we revert on sight?  Can we use range blocks (allowing sign up but not editing from the IP)?--Golden Wattle  talk 19:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I never accused you of failing to assume good faith. I did suggest that certain of the blanket reversions were unwise, but as you will note in my evidence section, I also provided a detailed explanation of how the reversions could be justified under the blocking policy's evasion clause.  I filed this arbitration case precisely to clarify your question; how to deal with a disruptive anonymous editor.  I envision a remedy similar to the Kven-user and Eternal Equinox cases; requiring her to register for a user name, place the user name on probation, and treat all IP edits as those of a banned user, i.e. revert on sight.  I don't know of any precedent for admins applying such a remedy on their own, and it was clear to me within just a few days that this was someone who could not be dealt with through ordinary channels.  I also agree with whoever said (maybe Durova) that this was a case of admins and users not getting community back-up in dealing with this editor.    It's too bad the arbitrators rejected the case in July. Thatcher131 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I heartily apologize for my prior opinion about Golden Wattle. I still disagree with bot-assisted reverts as a solution, but we're well past that point now.  Earlier in this dispute I had supposed that the guideline Disruptive editing might apply for this situation: administrators can now impose community topic bans and user bans when a consensus of uninvolved editors agrees that a user persistenly violates basic policies.  So while it might have appeared that I supported this editor, what I was really saying amounted to Let's take off the pressure and guide her in the right direction.  If she improves, great.  If not, the community can ban her without arbitration.
 * Now that this actually is in arbitration I'd rather see the arbitration play out. From my reading of other editors' research, it appears that the randmized IP range used by this editor is quite small.  Unless Australian ISP service contracts are substantially different from United States ISP service contracts, her exploitation of the randomized IP feature to evade blocks has been in violation of her customer agreement and would be reason for the ISP to terminate service.  I'll hold out the slim hope for a turnaround on this editor's part while the arbitration remains open, yet - realistically - it's more likely that this user's editing privileges would get restricted in some way and that this editor would evade the restrictions.  In that case I'd advocate contacting the ISP: it's such a small range of addresses that they probably wouldn't have much trouble identifying the customer and dealing with her themselves.  Durova  22:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was once employed by the anon's ISP so can speak from first hand experience here from the ISP's position (though I am not representing them in any way here now, as I am no longer employed by them in any fashion). Asking the ISP to do anything such as dealing with a disruptive user like this is like asking for week long rainfall in the middle of a major drought. It's very likely nothing will happen. The problem being, as I've said elsewhere on this matter earlier to Golden Wattle, the ISP is Australia's largest ISP and telecommunications provider, and they outsource their technical support services. When you contact the ISP, you're actually talking with a customer service representative from an entirely different company whose single goal is to get you off the phone within a minimum time frame, not to solve your problem. -- Longhair\talk 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ISP operation: IP numbers and acceptable use policy
The anon user would be allocated a new IP number each time she dials in. The allocation is random from within a range assigned by Telstra (her provider). She is only expoiting the feature in the sense that each time she is blocked she hangs up and reconnects her modem.

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

I have reported misuse of service several times to Telstra for "Defamatory material (eg: publication by another person of a false and derogatory statement about you)" citing some of the edits the anon has made and offering to supply further edit history. There has been no response. When I rang, I was told to firstly take it up with the site on which the comemnts were published (ie Wikipedia) and have the site remove them. When I explained I had sysop status and could do that but was seeking that defamotroy comments not be published in the first instance, the operative suggested I go to the Telecommunications Ombudsman (http://www.tio.com.au/). The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction in such matters as it does not cover matters of content - see further the answer to Q: What is an Acceptable Use Policy? at  which then elaborates how the exclusion of content matters would seem to affect the ombudsman's jurisdiction in this case.--Golden Wattle  talk 23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unlike certain forms of obvious common vandalism, I'm not surprised the telco didn't take this up, since it is more about content and behavior policies than outright vandalism or serious threats. Thatcher131 00:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So customer service at large companies is no better in Australia than in the States. Does anyone suppose Telstra would be more responsive to a formal site ban?  And given the narrow IP range, would it be an acceptable alternative to block anon edits from the range while allowing new account creation?  Durova  05:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Telstra actually outsource their dialup technical support to a US company, who has operations based in Australia. -- Longhair\talk 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * targeting those two narrow ranges with a rangeblock that only blocked anon editors would generally be the method for enforcing any blocks or bans resulting from this case. Still, they would have to be limited to a couple of weeks at a time, since they are dial up numbers.  They could be renewed as neccessary but should not be left in place indefinitely. I would not be in favor of contacting the ISP.  This is not a few school kids messing around in the library, or one of our deliberate prolific vandals making hundreds of edits at a sit.  This is someone who can't follow community behavior standards, and its pretty self-contained. Thatcher131 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Rangeblocks or reverts?
Although this anon's edits follow a distinctive pattern, they also cover topics of local history that would be reasonable subjects of interest for anyone else from that IP range. For this reason I think IP rangeblocks would be better. Other users from Gundagai could register and edit or bypass the variable IP filter. Reverts would have been a more practical solution if, for instance, this Australian editor's main topic of interest had been commercial navigation of the Volga river during Tsarist Russia.  Durova  14:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the exact mechanism of enforcement is usually left up to admin discretion. One mechanism would be a permanent anon-only ban on those ranges.  However, she has used other ranges occasionally and the ISP could reconfigure its server farm at any time, plus it violates the "anyone can edit" philosophy and would prevent her neighbors from editing anonymously at the Volga river.  Reversions are another mechanism; this has been endorsed in the case of Eternal Equinox, who has a similarly restricted set of article interests and IP addresses.  Neither mechanism is perfect, but I expect the arbitration committee will decline to specify a specific enforcement mechanism to the exclusion of others (assuming any enforceable remedies are applied, of course.) Thatcher131 15:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean admin discretion or arbcom discretion?  Durova  03:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Admin. Arbcom doesn't sit around and enforce remedies.  Usually it's pretty straightforward; if Thatcher131 is banned, then his account is blocked, and if he seems to reppear as a sockpuppet the socks can be blocked too, with or without checkuser evidence.  Here we have a choice between blocking anon editing and reverting anon contributions that "look like" this editor.  Neither is perfect, and in actual implementation a combination of the two will probably be used.  Your concern is duely noted and when the arbitrators (usually Fred) come around to see what we've done (and either run with it or write their own) you can ask him again about your concerns. Thatcher131 03:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring page
Sorry but I cannot bring myself to do it - plus I am busy and should be doing something else. Can someone please refactor the pag, removing inserted remarks, adding unsigned tags .... Thank you (I have spent hours doing this chore in the past for the anon)--Golden Wattle  talk 23:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's necessary to worry too much about the appearance of this /Workshop any more. Unfortunately, the necessary outcome here is becoming more and more inevitable per the discussion under "suggested remedies," with the anon's reaction to the "civility parole" suggestion as the proverbial final straw in my book. Newyorkbrad 23:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask, arbitration clerk for this case. Thatcher131 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

More thinking out loud
Another thing that concerns me is this diff in which the anon evades a twelve hour block to taunt Sarah Ewart. Is it time to begin rangeblocking?  Durova  17:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I blocked both /24 ranges for 24 hours. That's just unacceptable.  Hopefully, reblocking to enforce a block made by another admin is acceptable even though I am "involved." Thatcher131 17:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A new wikipedian?
A brand new registered editor has started editing the Gundagai page  Her first edit (other than several of her user page) is to add a signed comment about citing sources. It may be merely coincidence and happy for others to assume good faith, just note it includes an attack on Sarah Ewart and has joined in a community debate before commenting on anything else with markup that is quite competent for a newbie. Why attack Sarah on that page with reference to another article? Why assert Sarah is called something else? What is her point in referring to another stub (unreferenced) with reference to the verifiability of citations on the Gundagai page (which has quite a few references)?

There was another edit I should probably comment on here before I lose track of it at Talk:Captain Moonlite but from an IP range of another ISP  - Optus is the 2nd largest telco in Aust; it just raised my interest as it has been a topic of interest to the anon editor before and the style was somewhat similar but not conclusive.--Golden Wattle  talk 01:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keeping an eye as well. Remember we have been encouraging the editor to register for various reasons.  Watchful waiting is the best approach. Thatcher131 01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The anon does admit to the Moonlite edit from Optus but claims not to be Gretaw --Golden Wattle  talk 20:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have put in a checkuser for Gretraw not withstanding the anon's denial Requests for checkuser/Case/Gretaw--Golden Wattle talk 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)