Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Proposed decision

message: Can the injunction be imposed yet? --Golden Wattle  talk 10:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the arbitration policy, an injunction takes effect 24 hours after receiving its 4th net support vote, so that would be sometime today. The clerk for this case, User:FloNight, should probably tally the votes (not difficult) and declare that the injunction is in effect; she probably has this page watchlisted, or you can drop her a note. The Clerk would normally also put a note on the affected user's talkpage, because she (the anon) may not be watching /Proposed Decision, but obviously that's not practicable here; maybe a prominent notice that there is now an injunction in effect on the /Workshop page, which we know the anon reads regularly, would be a satisfactory substitute. Hopefully the overall case can be wrapped up soon; I think the arbitrators can readily incorporate much of Thatcher131's workshopping, which follows their usual formatting, directly into the final draft. Newyorkbrad 11:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If you review my block log, you'll see the anon is currently active and is being made aware of the injunction in my blocking notices. They've chosen to resume old unacceptable behaviours and we don't need to tolerate this crap any longer than necessary - consider them a banned user whilst they continue to edit anonymously IMHO. The injuction has overwheming support - why prolong the pain? -- Longhair\talk 11:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If she's undisputably aware of it, implementing it now wouldn't bother me (not that my view matters much one way or the other, anyhow). Newyorkbrad 11:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh they're aware alright, but they won't admit to being so. A block notice is the only means one can present to their face when they choose to change ip so often. -- Longhair\talk 11:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made your (Longhair's) block into a range block of 203.54.186.0/24 and 203.54.9.0/24. I hope I've done it right--it's my first range block and I just used the parameters Thatcher gave me. It is anon only so if she wishes to create or use an account, she can. Regardless of the anon issues, the personal attacks are unacceptable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If she comes back after the 31 hour block I would tend to block in increments of 1-2 weeks at a time to save us the trouble of doing them over and over again.  We also have to be aware of any edits from other ranges; she has only rarely used other ranges but it is a possibility.  Also, I believe the injunction allows those of us who are "involved" to make the blocks since it is no longer an issue of our own judgement.  Finally, the blocks should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors#Log of blocks and bans. Thatcher131 12:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone posts here to the contrary, I'll take you at your word, Thatcher. Durova 15:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: RDNS on the optus account shows UniversityCoOperativeBookshop.52gdc76f02.optus.net.au.  If she was just passing through that day, it may not be a range she can use often.  Anyway I would recommend long term anon-only blocks for her home ranges and short term anon-only blocks for anywhere else she might pop up. Thatcher131 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary injunction