Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Thatcher131 in topic Clarification request moved from WP:RFAR

Eternal Equinox limited to one account

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments9 people in discussion

Eternal Equinox continues to edit anonymously, both disrupting articles and continuing to violate bans received under probation for the disruption. Eternal Equinox is hereby limited to one publicly known account, preferably Eternal Equinox. All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user.

Eleven arbitrators are active and none are recused in the Eternal Equinox case, so the majority is six. The motion to restrict Eternal Equinox to one account passes by 6-0.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Eternal Equinox limited to one account

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago21 comments12 people in discussion
This was originally posted under motions in prior cases, but only arbitrators can make such motions. I guess this amounts to be a request for clarification or further action in the Eternal Equinox case. A motion was subsequently passed. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

User:Eternal Equinox came back a few days ago, editing her favorite articles as an anon, from her trademark range. She has already amassed a fairly impressive log of blocks and bans The user is editing by ArbCom permission, she's not banned; so could that permission be made conditional on her creating an account and being limited to using that only? I think I saw her claim a while back that she has munged the Eternal Equinox password--IIRC--but she could obviously easily create a new name account. The floating cloud of IPs she's using makes it very difficult to keep track of her edits and infractions, to block her (I got collateral damage on the brief range block I imposed last night) and to communicate with her. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC).Reply

I am fairly sick and tired of all this. I returned on September 5, 2006. It's now September 10, 2006 and I've amassed five bans/blocks. Pretty ridiculous-sounding for six days of editing. There seems to be a problem here, which is that the Arbitration ruling has gotten to those users who still won't leave me alone (Bishonen, Bunchofrapes, etc.). They are abusing the ruling as an excuse to block me whenever they feel it appropriate. In these five cases:
  1. Bunchofgrapes blocked me for edit-warring with another user and refers to my edits of debate and discussion as "disruptive". Extraordinary Machine and I have been trying to achieve consensus — which is working — but Bunchofgrapes interfered with the excuse that I was being disruptive. Where am I disrupting?
  2. Second ban/block: I declined the ban because it was obnoxious and ridiculous. Bishonen comes along and begins abusing the ruling by banning me because of my comments and why I thought it was unfair. This suggests to me that whatever they say is going to happen; that won't be.
  3. Third ban/block: I stated that the ban at Cool (song) was insincere and I would continue editing it since I was trying to resolve issues that have been coming along pleasantly. (See the process on the talk page.) Of course, Bunchofgrapes bans the IP for "violating" his "ban".
  4. Fourth ban/block: Extraordinary Machine, the user in question of the discussion at Cool (song) resets the ban, perhaps presumably to avoid discussing and achieving consensus. This suggests that he wants his edits to remain when I found some of them questionable. But the process is going well, like I've said.
  5. Fifth ban/block: The most abusive actions taken of the ArbCom ruling was this one. I was trying to post a response on Talk:Cool (song), when suddenly I've been blocked. When I see that it's Bishonen, I cussed a lot at her, especially since this "ban" was absolutely notorious. What she claims here is almost entirely false.
  • She says that I "repeatedly piddled" with the images on Simon Byrne. Utter nonsense; I edited twice here and here. Editing twice is not "repeatedly piddling" with an article. I was first reverted by Sagaciousuk for not providing an edit summary (which I'd forgotten). I said okay and went back and provided an edit summary. Bishonen then "magically" appears two minutes later and claims that I was toying with the image and claims I was "trolling". My browser indeed does have an image-display problem, and decreasing it by a single pixel would have made it the appropriate size for my monitor. She ignored this, but my main concern is that she is 100% convinced that I edited the article because it was authored by Giano. I detest Giano and had no idea that he'd edited this article. A few days before Belton House was on the main page; I knew he'd edited this article and didn't bother with it because I knew Bishonen would come up with an excuse. So when Simon Byrne appeared on the main page only a few days later, I didn't think twice that an article authored by the same user would appear soon after (this is something that should become official on Wikipedia). I didn't even make a major edit to the article and she says I was trolling. Two edits is not trolling, especially since I was first reverted for not providing an edit summary and because the user who reverted me does not have any affiliation to me. I had no idea Giano wrote most of the article until afterwards checking the history. Here is the "fifth ban", which is very misleading.

There is a problem with this ArbCom ruling and adjustments will have to be made in order to ensure that these users do not abuse it the way they have been. Also, I will absolutely not create an account since I'm only editing Wikipedia on occasion now. This is Hollow Wilerding, which you have been told (and obviously received the e-mail for since you wrote my name in one of the "bans"). I'll be sure to tell E.E. that you're failing to respond to him. Hollow Wilerding 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have made the motion, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Dmcdevit·t 18:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think I've made myself quite clear: I will not access accounts. Also, don't abuse the ArbCom ruling. 64.231.113.136 22:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are you saying that rather than choose a logged-in account and stick to it you intend to use a variety of IPs? --Tony Sidaway 00:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Because I edit a few times per day now, unlike beforehand (which was very many), I choose to edit from an IP-only account. 64.231.154.178 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
That reasoning is not sufficient. In fact, it does not even logically follow that editing anonymously is more useful for lower level of activity. However, it is a lot easier to violate article bans when you are a changing IP. Dmcdevit·t 22:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
It may not be sufficient to you, but it certainly is to me. 64.231.153.78 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you guys believe us now, huh? Here you have the Hollow Wilerding demeanour in a nutshell. I request permission to ban her for more than a week from pages she disrupts. "Up to a week" is a feeble remedy for this editor. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC).Reply
This is not for you to determine or request; since the RFAr is effective, you are to operate it as stated. Abusing it, as you currently have been (blocking for trolling? What trolling?) is disruptive enough. Most of my edits since September 5 have been neutral and what you establish as "disruptive" has been far less than that. My last edit has nothing to do with "the others believing you now"; I stated that editing anonymously is sufficient to me because I'm not editing as much anymore (which was stated in an edit a bit further up); this is my second edit today. 64.231.153.78 02:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Given the above I suggest that any IP editor from Canada (especially but not restricted to Sympatico in the Toronto area) that disrupts articles in a recognizable manner should get a one-week anon-only block. Thatcher131 14:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
How biased and full of nonsense. 64.231.152.103 19:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
In reply to Bishonen, she can block a disruptive editor for as long as seems reasonable. Arbitration probations are permissive with respect to administrator action; they are not intended to limit administrator action. Consult on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 20:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
A reasonable period of time seems appropriate. I will complain if she intends on blocking for non-disruptive and purely discussion-related material, however. Also, "one week" does not apply to Talk:Cool (song), which is solely discussion (as of now). 64.231.152.103 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Eternal Equinox is inaccessible. If you want me to create a new account, it will have an entirely new name. 64.231.119.5 23:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I will make an exception to the "treat as banned" to reply to this. That's fine. The arbitrators already said that's fine. Please tell us what your new name is after it is created. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is the new account. I don't want Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes or Giano posting on the talk page unless strictly necessary. Also, any unfair blocks will be discussed; edit-warring is not "disruptive" if it's progessrive. I want them to acknowledge this and stop abusing the RFAR. That's all. I have nothing more to say. By the way, you'll need to pardon me if I accidentally editing anonymously without realizing it (because I'm sure most of us have done this). Veltron 01:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
By the way, this is unacceptable. Posting on my talk page is not trolling. I'm utterly confused at admin actions at this point. Veltron 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox:request for clarification of clarification

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

There is a new ruling that Eternal Equinox, aka User:Velten is limited to a single account; and after a lot of carry-on (some of it appears at the foot of this section), she seemed resigned to following it. However, today she again edited anonymously, supporting herself at Promiscuous (song) and making this sneaky revert. There was no apology or "oops, forgot to log in" or anything of that nature, in fact the IP had already been used for another edit four minutes earlier. I assume not very much good-faith forgetfulness in this case. (I know, I know, but with respect, the arbcom hasn't already spent as much good faith on the editor as I have.) She apparently "foresaw" herethat it would happen soon, even though I can't say I can remember the diligent Eternal Equinox (etc) persona having any tendency to forget to log in. Anyway. Does the ruling have any teeth? It doesn't specify any penalties for editing anonymously. Can she be blocked for it? If not, I foresee she soon won't log in at all. (As above, on the good faith already spent.) Bishonen | talk 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC).Reply

"All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user." This was intended to mean enforce as per WP:BAN. Revert on sight, dole out whatever blocks are necessary to get it to stop. It's rather like fighting vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

In response to Bishonen: yes, I predicted that I might edit anonymously and I did. (Occasionally it happened when I used Hollow Wilerding, but that was long ago, so I can't remember.) If I do this again and another edit following from the Velten account occurs, I'd appreciate that I don't have to explain myself. Like I said, it happens because the browser logs you out sometimes and I didn't realize it. So I don't want to have to explain each time; because I've told everybody here, you'll know that it's me accidentally editing anonymously.

However, I was editing Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) as early as these edits:

To EM: indeed I'm a fan of Nelly Furtado, but Gwen Stefani is still the best; don't be silly now. I wasn't harassing you and please don't block me if you aren't aware of the details. Discussion should always be incorporated and consensus might be achieved.

By the way, the 64.231 cannot be blocked upon sight since it's from a library. If it's musically-related, it's likely me, but there's still a chance it won't be. I'm saying this just so everybody knows. Velten 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your previous edits to Promiscuous (song) consist of nothing but updating chart positions and minor rearrangements of the text, which is what you have done for dozens of song articles. Are you meaning to tell me your decision to revert one of my edits and completely overhaul a whole section of the article wasn't because I'd edited it just six hours before? This edit to Say It Right is equally worrying. Strangely enough, your first non-chart edits to any Nelly Furtado-related article occurred right after I told you I was a fan of her and owned her latest album (and the tone of your reply indicated you weren't even sure who the woman was). Coincidence? I think not; let's not forget, from the same period, [1] and [2], [3] and [4], [5] and [6], [7] and [8], [9] and [10]. Or, from before that, [11] and [12], as well as [13], [14] and [15]. Or how about [16] and [17] less than three weeks ago: piddling edits made to then-FA of the day Simon Byrne, to which user:Giano made major contributions that led to it becoming an FA. And I haven't even dug up the diffs that show you making equally trivial edits to articles watchlisted by Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes, and whoever else you've decided to harass. It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again. There's nothing vague or open to interpretation about it. Not only that, but you're edit warring on Promiscuous (song) over the same issues you edit warred about on Cool (song), from which you were banned from editing for a period after you attempted to assume ownership. You're on extremely thin ice here. Extraordinary Machine 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  1. That's what you do to; rearrange and/or rewrite the text. I still edited it before you, so you have no defense here.
  2. I didn't know who Furtado is until you mentioned her? Stop being silly.
  3. You never told me you had her album. Stop creating excuses to prove a point.
  4. Those diffs were explained offline. The consensus of those edits were either coincidence, intentional, or I had information to update. Incase nobody has noticed, EM and I edit the vast majority of music-related articles and because of this, that's obviously not stalking. If it was, then all the edits you made directly after mine on a music-related article would be considered stalking.
  5. I already explained that I had no idea Giano authored Simon Byrne. I knew he had edited the article featured days before, Belton House, so I didn't touch it. The fact that another Giano-article was featured three days later was relatively questionable. I've already explained the details.
  6. It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again — it's quite clear? Really? What's your source?
  7. You are edit-warring on Promiscuous (song). You are responsible for not providing answers and removing content (which you are basing upon the Billboard format).
Velten 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  1. EE/Velten's claims above shouldn't be read under the assumption that they're true; sadly, she's once again defending herself with falsehoods and misrepresentations. As the diffs above show, the harassment goes back to January, at least, and the main reason I've mostly ignored it until now isn't that there wasn't an ArbCom ruling at the time that would allow me to "have my way" whenever I disagreed with her (which is what she's claiming on my talk page), but because I thought sooner or later she'd come round and reconsider her behaviour and attitudes towards other Wikipedia users. This wasn't the reason I didn't provide evidence at the RFAr; I was just too burned by the whole affair to think about it anymore.
  2. Fast forward to a few months later, and EE/Velten's still trying to pull off his usual shenanigans. Now, it didn't occur to me to take the novel (at least to me) course of ignoring overwhelming evidence (including an MSN chat I had with EE herself, in which I told her I owned the album) that proved beyond reasonable doubt she had harassed myself and other users, allowing her to have things her way and letting her claim ownership over even more pages, and then not doing a thing as she mysteriously parachuted her way into an article I had just edited. If that's what's now being endorsed as Wikipedia policy, I'll know in future, and will call on admins (and be prepared for others to call on me) to assume someone is telling the truth even in the presence of clear and present evidence to the contrary. No, actually I'll not do that; even if the ArbCom were to approve of it, I find it incredibly foolish, and I'll not go along with it.
  3. The "edit war" to which Velten is referring involved me restoring an edit identical to one I had justified and explained to death on another talk page (Talk:Cool (song), from which she was temporarily banned for causing more disruption, quarreling and attempting to assume ownership). After she reverted, I asked her to provide a source for a claim she made on the talk page that she said justified her revert; she instead opted to set up a straw man argument against me and accuse me of "making excuses" and "not providing answers". This alone isn't exactly EE at her most disruptive, but it gets quite close once one factors in her main reason for starting the edit war. Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Anonymous IPs aren't accounts, so if Velten is limited to one account, she's following that rule. Mistakes happen. Do whatever is needed to protect Wikipedia, but don't punish someone for forgetting to login. It's easy to do (I do it myself regularly). - Mgm|(talk) 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • From the ruling: "All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user." The ruling was in fact entirely about getting him or her to stop editing from a cloud of IPs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox: clarification on ruling

edit

The ArbCom ruling states that: "All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user". However, the 64.231 IP address is connected to the Toronto Reference Libraries, which all parties involved in this case seem to have acknowledged. As a result, I hereby request that this portion of the ruling be lifted so that others can edit from the libraries if they desire to. It should be noted that the library has new material that can unblock Wikipedia-enforced bans, which Bishonen acknowledged. Please remove this from the ruling. Velten 16:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me? I acknowledged what? The library has... What are you talking about? I think it's possible that your erroneous claim of my acknowledgment of this strange thing represents a mixed-up memory on your part of me telliing you that Wikipedia has new software that can block a whole IP range without affecting logged-in users. It's not much like what you're saying, but it's the only guess I have. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC).Reply
  • I'd also appreciate it if Bishonen removed all content regarding me and/or EE from her talk page. She very suspiciously added this (without providing an edit summary expectantly) and I want it removed immediately. I don't care if Giano's name remains there though. Velten 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • The RFAR and other bookmarks at the top of my page are there for convenience, as Thatcheer says. I need them there. But I can easily change the visible part of the one affecting you to something less conspicuous. I'm sorry it never occurred to me it might be disagreeable for you the way it was. Done. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC).Reply
The point is that IP edits to your favorite articles in your characteristic style may be reverted in order to create an incentive for you to stick to an account. I suspect if library users edit other articles no one will notice or care. As for the talk page, it looks like bookmarks to things that interest her, and you are only one of several. Thatcher131 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but my point was concerning the music articles themselves — reckless reverting and blocking when one doesn't know whether it's me or someone else is silly. Velten 19:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall it ever being proven that the 64.231 IP address belonged to a library; note this old but rather illuminating comment from Giano. Also, the "block anonymous users only" feature enables any other people editing from that IP range to create an account if the IP range has been blocked. Extraordinary Machine 17:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
This business about "the library has new material that can unblock Wikipedia-enforced bans" is obviously nonsense too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Velten, the 64.231.0.0 range includes 65,000 addresses, probably a library (why not) but also a big chunk of the Toronto area. We do have the capability of blocking anonymous editors but not registered users, but that is at our end, not the library, and it is not always used. The bottom line is that admins will use their discretion when looking at edits from that range. Productive and useful edits will probably not be reverted at all; disruptive edits to your favorite articles using your style will be reverted and probably blamed on you. Assuming you have turned over a new leaf, you should always log in, not the least so that your good edits and good behavior are properly attributed to you. If you forget to log in or are accidentally logged out, a word on your talk page or the talk page of the article you are working on will ensure there is no confusion. Good luck. Thatcher131 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Clarification request moved from WP:RFAR

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago23 comments11 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox: clarification on what to do for other user/ Extraordinary Machine

edit
copied from WP:RFAR [18] Thatcher131 17:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm having a major ongoing issue regarding an inappropriate block and a massive misuse of sysop abilities, and I wouldn't be surprised if one thinks I'm simply placing this here because Velten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User talk:Velten was protected not long ago. I am editing from an IP address because the original operator of Eternal_Equinox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wants to return to Wikipedia, but does not want to use the same account as I (Hollow_Wilerding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) currently am. I'll understand if this is removed, but there's no other way to ask this as of now.

While I'm here, I'd like to request something of the arbitration committee. In the past few weeks, I've been receiving increasingly abusive blocks from Extraordinary_Machine (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) which range from reasons such as "removed a template that I think should have stayed there" to assuming that I've edited from an IP address when it can't be proven. Again, I'm sure this will be ignored and removed altogether, but his abuse has got to stop. I'd provide diffs, but most are currently on User talk:Velten and I'm not up to it since this is likely not going to stay here. If I'm going to be placed on an ArbCom decision, there are going to be circumstances under which I can become blocked, because EM has so far abused it to his likening, which is evident through the following:

  • First I made two edits to Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song) where we held a debate. Extraordinary Machine kept reminding me that I'm not supposed to engage in edit wars, but I was trying to express my view on the matter. He then went ahead and blocked me for a week because of this and called it "harassment".
  • He gives me three-weeks worth of a ban for this and this. How in the world does this warrant a block?
  • Because an IP address (74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) edited Cool (song) with a similar edit summary to mine (which I do admit, find somewhat peculiar, and wonder if someone's out to get me), I'm positive Extraordinary Machine used this as an excuse to restart the three-week ban over again. I don't even know who this person is!

I've already waited two a half weeks based on his original ridiculous block. I'm not waiting again for something I didn't do. Can the ArbCom please do something? Thatcher131 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said that he was concerned about this block and that it wasn't within the ArbCom's scope, which if I look at WP:RFAR/Eternal Equinox, is over two weeks the original punishment. This user is now deliberately trying to keep me away.

Could something be done? 64.231.64.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would comment that it is not a good idea for admins to block in the case of disputes in which they are involved. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is permitted, but obviously this is becoming a personal dispute. Another problem is that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Eternal_Equinox_placed_on_Probation provides that Veltan may only be blocked for the maximum of a week and Extraordinary Machine is passing out 3 week blocks. It is very hard to say if the ip is Veltan, but it does seem likely. The dispute seems remarkably petty. I just don't get it. Fred Bauder 16:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Fred, I don't have any opinion about the dispute between Extraordinary Machine and Eternal Equinox, but we're getting somewhat contradictory clarifications about the maximum block thing. When I requested permission to pageban EE for more than the maximum week back in September[19], Tony Sidaway (clerk) replied, with every appearance of relaying arbcom policy, that there was no maximum: "Arbitration probations are permissive with respect to administrator action; they are not intended to limit administrator action."[20] I assume that's what Extraordinary Machine has been going by. However, Tony also recommended consultation on WP:AN. Perhaps that would be Extraordinary Machine's best policy? The problem with him leaving blocking to other admins is that there are only a few admins who care to, or dare, act in this complicated ArbCom case (see recent posts on User talk:Velten for expressions of this sentiment) and some of us (=me) have no comprehension of the intricacies of pop music articles. You could easily run out of remedy-enforcing admins altogether. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC).Reply
This is a rather long response, so please bear with me. I agree with Bishonen here, with the exception that I wouldn't really say there is a content dispute (if that's what is meant by "dispute"), because a) I'd stopped edit-warring with Velten before the three-week block, or the one-week block for that matter, for reasons I have outlined below, and b) disagreements over article content certainly wasn't Velten's main reason for initiating the dispute:
  1. Firstly, it's already been established (at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox and the evidence subpage) that Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) and Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs) are one and the same. Already, alarm bells should be ringing that maybe her comments should be taken with not so much as a grain of salt, but several boxes of Morton's.
  2. The main reason for the week-long block wasn't that she was edit-warring in a manner similar to her conduct on Cool (song) article (over which she attempted to claim ownership), but that she had edited the Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) articles (and sneakily reverted one of my changes to the former in the process) just hours after I had done so. She has a long history of stalking and harassing other users, including myself; see the RFAr evidence subpage, [21] and [22]. (Velten has said that my evidence can be explained by the fact that we both edit pop music-related articles, which does absolutely nothing to explain her "stalking" edits to my own userspace or articles watchlisted by user:Bishonen and user:Giano, who never edit pop music articles.)
  3. At Talk:Cool (song), user:Velten (Eternal Equinox's new username) removed a link to an old AFD discussion that had been initiated in good faith. She has a history of tampering with other people's comments and attempting to conceal discussions on that talk page that contain comments with which she disagrees; see, for example, [23], [24] (note the edit summary here) and [25]. She also continued to harass me on the Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) articles, the latter of which I hadn't been edit-warring with her on (partly in an attempt to get her to stop stalking me there, and on other pages, and partly to demonstrate that the blocks had nothing to do with me trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute). Because of this behaviour, I blocked her for three weeks.
  4. Now Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Remedies says that EE/Velten can be blocked for disruption "up to a week in the event of repeat offenses". If a user is blocked for doing something and then, after removing the relevant messages from their talk page, does the same thing again as soon as they're unblocked, I'd think it would be appropriate to place a longer block. With regard to EE/Velten specifically, user:Bishonen (as he mentioned above) said on this page "I request permission to ban her for more than a week from pages she disrupts. "Up to a week" is a feeble remedy for this editor" [26], to which user:Tony Sidaway replied "[you] can block a disruptive editor for as long as seems reasonable. Arbitration probations are permissive with respect to administrator action; they are not intended to limit administrator action." [27] The next option after one week on the block page dropdown menu was one month, which I thought was unreasonable, so I placed a three week block instead.
  5. Tony Sidaway also said to consult on WP:AN, which I forgot to do initially but did after Velten submitted a request for unblock and user:Thatcher131 expressed concerns to me about the block. I said in my message that if anybody believed the block should be shortened to one week, they could feel free to do so and I wouldn't undo it. No-one undid the block; indeed, no-one other than Thatcher replied to the message. [28] Soon after, JzG (talk · contribs) declined the unblock request (citing Velten's attempts to game the system) [29], after which Velten accused him of not actually reviewing it at all [30].
  6. Later, the 74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs) IP edited Cool (song). The IP originates from the Toronto area [31] [32]; the edit summary was very similar to Velten's, but that wasn't the main tip-off for me. Velten's claims that a Toronto-based IP user editing a Gwen Stefani article, who not only edits it but reverts an edit made the day before, is not her, simply beggars belief. In accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking policy, I reset the block. Velten posted a second request for unblock, including a demand to have my sysop powers suspended [33]; Redvers (talk · contribs) declined it and protected Velten's talk page because of abuse of the {{unblock}} template. [34]
I understand why this may appear "petty", but that's the problem: aside from irritating other users, her disruptive behaviour seems to be designed purely to establish how much she can get away with. "[S]he constantly attacks, trolls, teases, provokes, tries to get a rise, pecks away", Bishonen once said, and I think this sums it up perfectly. Her recent behaviour and comments such as [35] and [36] demonstrate pretty conclusively that her behaviour has changed little (if at all) since she started editing in mid-2005, and that she refuses to acknowledge community concerns. As she's made clear on her talk page and in her editing elsewhere, her view is that she needs (not just wants) to get her way, those who disagree with her are wrong (and haven't read into it, or are misusing their powers and must have them removed immediately, or are making up stories or excuses, or something else), and that's all that needs to be said.
I won't pretend to know what the long term solution is, but I do know that the problem she poses here is extremely serious. Extraordinary Machine 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is exactly what I mean when Extraordinary Machine is simply silly. Here's a long post from me too.

  1. He says it's been established that Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) and Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs) are the same editor. That is a rather bold statement since all the editors who participated in the RFAr are under no obligation to assume who is who; they have not met Adam or me and if that indeed was concluded there, it would be out of nothing more than ensuring that only one account be used to edit Wikipedia, even if they felt that there really were more than one person. What alarm bells should be ringing? You need to get your facts straight.
  2. Extraordinary Machine claims that he first blocked Velten because I harrassed him on Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song). There are no signs whatsoever in the past month that indicate I harrassed him — here, here and here. If this is considered "harrassment", I'd hate to see what he considers "personal attacks". We had a disagreement over the inclusion of a chart at Promiscuous (song), and I found it peculiar. On the talk page, he posted this claiming "As well as harassing other users, you should be warned about disrupting articles by edit warring, which your ArbCom case prevents you from doing". The only logical assumption is that he posted the link to the ArbCom case in order to break my defense down in case others read the talk page. They would see that I am a "disruptive user" and agree with his view. He's also done this on Talk:Cool (song), Talk:Mariah Carey and Talk:Pieces of Me.
  3. That request for deletion was not initiated in good faith. You didn't have the right to use that as one of your "reasons" for blocking me. You "considered" it to have been issued properly, but I didn't. Also, could you please provide links within the last four weeks that clearly show I've been "harrassing" you?
  4. So you're saying that you'd place me on a three-week block for making this edit and this edit? Really?
  5. After Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) did not respond to his initial backlash of the three-week block, I assumed he had forgotten about it or was not interested in becoming tangled in the web. I placed an unblock message on my user talk page and was declined by JzG (talk · contribs). He said I was "gaming the system". Immediately I was taken back and absolutely disgusted with this user's response. Gaming the system? What does that mean? This is gaming the system? I posted a statement here claiming that the user was full of nonsense and didn't review my block at all for that very reason. Gaming the system made no sense in this case of a block. Interestingly, one user claimed that my block was indeed overlooked.
  6. 74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs) edited Cool (song) recently with an edit summary that I found very striking because it was written in a style that I typically use; this worried me a great deal because I figured Extraordinary Machine would assume that it was me, which seemed like the only logical case. It was, and he reblocked and told me to stop evading my bans. I said that it was not me and that it was someone out to get me here; I also said in that same edit that if I was going to evade my ban, I wouldn't be stupid enough to make it obvious that it was me by writing a fairly similar edit summary. And today, though I already know this will be overlooked as make believe, I found out it was indeed someone who strongly dislikes me who made those "Velten-like" edits.
  7. Extraordinary Machine claims he reset the three-week Velten ban because of something I said here, which was posted well after he already initiated the block. If anything, he reset the ban upon noticing that the edit summary was similar to mine. Administrators are not supposed to lie to the Wikipedian government.
  8. I request that Extraordinary Machine be banned from blocking me altogether and editing User talk:Velten. At first I accepted his one-week ban because I felt I had abused my ruling, but after that, it was becoming nothing more than a game to him: his power and my weakness. He claims that I'm editing articles that he's edited and even though they are music articles, I have done this to Bishonen and Giano before. That was long ago and I have no intention on interacting with them again. If I am continuously blocked for editing a music article around the same time he does, I'll always be blocked. This is abuse of the ArbCom ruling and he is too involved in the case to be permitted to come to such conclusions.
  9. What am I to do about Adam wanting to edit from an account?
64.231.70.117 01:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Just to clarify, I am concerned that a three wekk ban exceeds the proscribed remedy, and I am also concerned that Extraodinary Machine may be too "involved" at this point to be making the blocks himself. However, I do not know enough about the situation to be comfortable unilaterally overturning the ban. Also, while I understand EM's comment about arbitration remedies being permissive, not limiting, I do note that the remedy is quite specific about allowing Velten to be blocked for a week; after 5 offenses, the maximum block time increases to a year. I personally would perfer to follow that schedule; if Velten is as disruptive as EM says then it won't be long before she reaches the 6th block, which could easily be 3 weeks or a month with no disagreement. Thatcher131 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
We did not include a block up to a year in this case. Maximum block is a week. Fred Bauder 05:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, my mistake for not checking again. Thatcher131 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
There is a really obvious problem with the logic being exerted here. This user (a school boy in Canada who uses new account names when blocked, evades blocks routinely, and does this by using his school library's computers, whatever name you want to settle on for him) has consistently gone to assert his will over all others and childishly followed those who have prevented his ownership. Since the user's interest is confined to pop idols, he's going to go into all of them and exert the same basic habits and personality. So, if EM is one of our best pop idol editors who does not engage in hostile editing and doesn't get injunctions laid on him, sooner or later HW/EE/V will show up (not to mention the vindictive element left over from EM's evidence in the rfar) and begin doing the same things he has done consistently. At that point, EM is not an involved editor: EM is an editor who has been involved. I.e. he did not initiate a conflict with EE/HW/V, but had V/EE/HW attach himself to EM's ongoing edits. The block is consistent with trying to prevent continual disruption of editing on these subjects. The RFAR demonstrated that the problem user had been remarkably consistent and unchanged in a year of activity. He has been virtually monomaniacal. We have no past evidence of EM behaving in such a manner, so it's strange to think that he is suddenly "picking on" a user who has demonstrated a deep commitment to violating editing courtesy. Geogre 17:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
The theory is that, at some point, he will grow up. Fred Bauder 17:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'll drink to that. I just wonder that we're taking his martyrdom seriously at this particular point. He's not really complaining that newbie editor X blocked him, but that one of the people who has managed to work consensually and moderately on pop music has. EM might have been inappropriate, but it's just not as likely as that EE/HE/V has been picking at the article to try to get the last word, over and over and over. Geogre 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
There is little practical difference between a series of one-week blocks and a longer block, except that other editors will have to put up with a small number of disruptive edits to trigger each successive one week block. Without an amendment from Arbcom, it seems that longer blocks are disfavored at this time. I suggest unblocking Velten, and Geogre and I can make ourselves available as uninvolved administrators to reblock, assuming Velten does not "grow up." I already watchlist arbitration enforcement. Will this balance the desire to protect a nice editing environment for productive long-term editors with Arbcom's intent to give Velten a chance to grow up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs)
That sounds like a fine idea to me. But I have one problem still: how about EE? He is in fact not a boy, but a 21-year-old (...okay, fine, you can call him a boy if you want) and I'm a 24-year-old female. As long as EM is not involved in these blocks (because they've been questionable), I'm happy. Also, don't be fooled by Geogre's assertion that EM is the better pop music editor of us; that's a ridiculous statement and while he's definitely brought more music-related articles to GA status or a specific standard, this doesn't justify our — that being Adam's and mine — contributions. 64.231.75.70 23:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
By the way, while it may be redundant to announce now, I've completed EM's original three-week block and think I've entered the fourth week. I'm not positive though. 64.231.75.70 23:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I won't continue playing these silly little games with Velten; he knows exactly what he's been doing is purposefully disruptive and why he was blocked, so any further efforts to get him to admit this will be a waste of my time and that of most other editors here. I do agree with Thatcher131's suggestion to unblock Velten for the time being - if he decides to "grow up" as a result of this then that's that (though, unfortunately, I doubt this will happen); if he doesn't...well, he can be blocked again. (I think Geogre explained the situation accurately when he said it was a case of Velten following me across articles rather than a legitimate disagreement over content, but I'll refrain from placing blocks if I become as involved as I was before, although I didn't think I was involved too much.) I have a suspicion he's gone back to editing from his cloud of IPs anyway. Extraordinary Machine 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I would appreciate it if you did me a favour. Could you please provide evidence that I was harrassing you which led you to initiating a three-week ban? Your previous post had six essential points, each with several diffs and other links, with the exception of She also continued to harass me on the Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) articles, the latter of which I hadn't been edit-warring with her on (partly in an attempt to get her to stop stalking me there, and on other pages, and partly to demonstrate that the blocks had nothing to do with me trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute). Because of this behaviour, I blocked her for three weeks, which was the reason why I brought this here in the first place. Some links would be appreciated. Velten 21:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, I still have not received suggestions about Eternal Equinox and his will to create a new account. Thoughts? Velten 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

That you consider your multiple 'personalities' to be in fact different people does not mean that we have to believe you. We are not obliged to pander to your fantasies or your disturbed mind - or your pretense at such, if that's the case. Different treatment for differing alleged "identities" is not going to occur. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Extraordinary Machine has unblocked Velten so will see how he/she behaves going forward. I would suggest that Extraordinary Machine ask for a review before blocking, but it would not be inappropriate to block first if the circumstances warranted it and then post a request for review at the noticeboard or arbitration enforcement. I would also suggest a maximum block length of 1 week per Fred's comment. Of course, if Velten continues to be disruptive there will be little practical difference between a series of one week blocks applied every 8 or 9 days versus a single longer block. Thatcher131 22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think Thatcher131's proposal is fine. However, I don't think it's up to Morven to decide how many "personalities" I have or how many friends I have that edit Wikipedia. Once EE returns to Toronto, I'll tell him that he's free to create an account, unless you want him to edit from this account too, which he's somewhat protested to. Velten 01:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, playing Columbo here, assuming that what you have said on this page and at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Evidence#Overview of my history on Wikipedia are both correct, then you are Courtni, former owner of User:Hollow Wilerding and now User:Velten. Adam, who seems to have been a housemate, shared Hollow Wilderding with you, then when Hollow Wilerding got in trouble, he created User:Eternal Equinox. Since Eternal Equinox and Hollow Wilerding shared the same style and interests, he was eventually identified, and (he says) hounded, so he acted out. It also sounds like Adam is currently living with you but is moving out eventually.
Well. Hmm. We have numerous editors who are housemates or even married, and obviously share a computer, but they have different interests and different personalities, and are not disruptive, so the issue of identity never comes up. On the other hand, when two disruptive accounts share the same computer we have no choice but to assume they are controlled by the same person.
You're in a tough spot. Following continued disruptive editing you are restricted to one account. But you claim that "you" are two people. Shared accounts are not allowed, so assuming your story is true, Adam should definitely register and edit from a new account. If he does this secretly, and behaves himself, no one will ever know about it. If he resumes the disruptive behavior that got Eternal Equinox put on probation, he will probably be labeled as a Velten sockpuppet and both your accounts will be sanctioned. Harshly. I suggest that he announce his new account here and agree to submit to the same probation as Velten (which he deserves, being both Eternal Equinox and partly Hollow Wilerding), even though that might annoy the arbitrators who have heard the "it was my housemate" excuse about 10,000 times, and will now think I am hopelessly gullible. The only think I know for sure is that if checkuser ever identifies a disruptive account coming from your computer, you're going to get nailed, whether it's you, Adam, or the cat. (And I am only this gullible once.)
I'm more than a little dubious, and I'm posting this here rather than your talk page so I can be slapped down by the arbitrators if I'm out of line. But there is nothing especially unusal about my comments; as Mindspillage has said on more than one occasion, we have no way of knowing how many banned users have reformed and quietly come back under new identities; we only know about that ones that continue the behavior that got them in trouble in the first place. Bottom line: which kind are you? Thatcher131 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, since Adam won't be back for a while (actually, he doesn't plan on moving out, but everything else you said was correct), there's no problem right now. Later, I hope that we can edit together. The reason he's a housemate of mine is because we share similar interests and therefore edit the same articles. It's not impossible, but I can see why everybody is so reluctant to accepting this as more than make believe. (We met at a Gwen Stefani fanclub for goodness sake! What more can I say?) If he registers a new account, I hope everything can simply settle down. Velten 03:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox&oldid=551523873"