Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Workshop

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ISP operation: IP numbers and acceptable use policy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do you mean admin discretion or arbcom discretion? Durova 03:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rangeblocks or reverts? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ask , arbitration clerk for this case. Thatcher131 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More thinking out loud 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A new wikipedian?