Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Evidence - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Eternal Equinox

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bunchofgrapes (talk | contribs) at 01:38, 16 July 2006 (→July 15: Eternal Equinox is back and still editing from the same Toronto-area IP range: Another IP and another diff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:38, 16 July 2006 by Bunchofgrapes (talk | contribs) (→July 15: Eternal Equinox is back and still editing from the same Toronto-area IP range: Another IP and another diff)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: .

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Bunchofgrapes

Eternal Equinox is the latest in a long chain of Sockpuppets

  • Eternal Equinox is Hollow_Wilerding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Editing patterns made this very likely and very clear, at least to me. Eternal Equinox consistently denied it. Until...
    • May 29, 2006: . Eternal Equinox hints quite broadly at being Hollow Wilerding in a "goodbye" message.
    • June 7, 2006: I ask her to stop edit-warring over a link in Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Underneath-it-All (a piped link displaying "Hollow Wilerding" but linking to "Eternal Equinox"), pointing out her earlier admission of shared identity. Eternal Equinox replies: . "Ah, stalking, I see (and it's evident). No, I didn't admit it, I implied it. Hollow Wilerding was operated by two accounts."
    • June 26, 2006: . Now telling "the truth", Eternal Equinox admints to being Hollow Wilerding in this RfArb; now, no mention of the "two accounts" or people that were supposed to have operated her.

Eternal Equinox has harassed me, Bishonen, and Giano

Eternal Equinox's harassment takes the form of going out of the way to make edits or comment on article he knows one has an interest on. This May 21 comment of mine on EE's talk page lays out my case. Over 250 edits, she had 16 that weren't in the areas of pop music or video games. Of those, all but four were to FAs mainly authored by Bishonen or me. The discussion on my talkpage after I confronted EE about this is interesting (It's all a big coincidence, apparently); here is the last edit in the discussion, which is at the bottom of my talk page in that version.

Here, on June 25, we have Eternal Equinox saying that edits on "an article of hers" (Bishonen's) were "partly out of vegenance, but also partly because I have this obsession with placing words alphabetically when listed".

Around June 21, Giano was working Belton House toward a featured article nomination; Eternal Equinox made several edits to the article and talk page . Common sense reveals these to be attempts to annoy rather than improve; Giano had been embroiled in confrontations with EE for months if not years by then.

July 15: Eternal Equinox is back and still editing from the same Toronto-area IP range

Evidence presented by getcrunk

EE/HW has been abusive and has made personal attacks

When she does not get her way, she makes personal attacks:

Despite numerous "I am leaving and never coming back" messages, EE/HW has always returned.

Attempt at a list of sockpuppets

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
  1. Eternal_Equinox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  2. Hollow_Wilerding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  3. Winnermario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  4. DrippingInk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  5. Cruz_AFade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  6. Empty_Wallow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  7. TwoDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  8. Solar_Serenity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  9. Siblings_WC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  10. Siblings_CW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  11. Cruz Along (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Evidence presented by Bishonen

May 2005—November 2005: DrippingInk and Winnermario

These accounts were operated from the same computer as later Hollow Wilerding. DrippingInk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was (perhaps) the original account, beginning to edit in May 2005. 64.231.71.189, from EE's trademark IP range, may have been the first abusive sock: it edited in a spurt on July 10th, 2005, showing up purely to support DrippingInk on talkpages. From a random dip into DrippingInk's contribs, he seems a bit uncompromising, but the first out-and-out problem account was Winnermario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which began editing in September 2005. Winnermario was downright uncvil, was in angry conflict with Mel Etitis, quarrelled on FAC, and got blocked for personal attacks on November 5 2005.

November 2005—January 2006: Hollow Wilerding and the January sock farm

Within hours of Winnermario's block, "new user" Hollow Wilerding appeared, took up cudgels for Winnermario and took over her efforts to get Hollaback Girl featured. There is no need to belabour the point that HW was deceitful and disruptive; see for example this archive of one of her FAC nominations, or this WP:ANI discussion of her actions. When she requested adminship I was galvanized into action and asked for a CheckUser, then blocked her for deceptive WP:FAC practices. Since then, I believe she ascribes all her misfortunes to my malice—see this post, and her RFC on me which turned round and bit her. Many socks, some of them listed by Bunchofgrapes above, were created in January to evade the two-week block, accompanied by insistence that she was morally entitled to do this, because how else could she edit, which was her inalienable right. I honestly don't know what she takes the function of a block to be. Both during and after her block, she was frequently seen in the form of IPs from a very large, dynamic range that was in practice unblockable, editing pop music articles, often edit warring, and, just like the name accounts, telling strange mutually inconsistent tales about her true identity. In spite of the outrageous behavior as Hollow Wilerding, it seemed pointless to RFAR her at this point, and I elected to ignore the ongoing low-level disruption.

January 2006—March 2006: Eternal Equinox

In early February, several pop music editors contacted me and pointed to a "new" editor, Eternal Equinox, whose editing patterns were strikingly similar to HW's. People complained about EE being difficult to work with, but I checked out the edits and there didn't seem to be anything over-the-top at that time. I concluded HW was trying to return, and trying to behave well, and silently wished her luck. However, she started to nominate articles on FAC, and to become more and more HW-like, attacking objectors to her articles, pushing aggressively, insisting that objections were not actionable. I contacted her by e-mail on February 19 to warn her against going further down this road. I assured her I had no interest in outing her, provided she tried to be civil and collaborative. We reached an understanding. EE soon slipped back from her undertakings, however, and when she deleted negative comments on her FAC discussion under some wikilawyering excuse, (an incident that was the direct cause of a good contributor leaving the project), I intervened again, to ban her from FAC for three weeks. This action was supported by the Featured Article Director and many FAC regulars such as Taxman (although Everyking defended her against my bullying, as he had already done at much greater length and pressure in January.) Some of the posts from that occasion may illustrate her characteristic demeanor when thwarted: , , , . As Geogre says, she must always win, no matter the merits of the arguments. The e-mail dialogue I was simultaneously having with her went a little better, and we again reached an understanding of sorts. I withdrew the ban.

March 2006—June 2006: Eternal Equinox

EE has been going into full HW mode, and the ban obviously didn't do a blind bit of good—it only soured her temper. Yet it didn't seem an alternative to leave her at large to hold WP:FAC hostage and make productive and useful editors leave the project in disgust, either. I'm not prepared to do any more negotiating, especially since both her e-mails and wikiposts to me have become increasingly abusive lately. Towards the end of June, I was myself regrettably snappish and sometimes sarcastic towards her, but would plead long and extreme provocation. Perhaps I should have stepped away sooner, considering that she hates me—she might perhaps have been less bristly if somebody else had tried to monitor/mentor her (not that anybody seemed eager to). As I say in my original statement, I don't believe the individual behind these accounts wants to hurt the encyclopedia. I think she wants to contribute, and especially to have "her" articles reach Featured status. It's my guess that the puppetmaster behind this sock farm is editing Misplaced Pages under some other identity even as we speak, for that individual is surely a wikipediholic. I hope she's not banned, both because her goals are benign, and because there's no way of actually keeping her out. As a swarm of vengeful IPs, she would surely edit more problematically than anything we've seen yet. But I do hope she's put on some revert warring and disruption restrictions, to give admins more effective powers to protect editors and processes from the stress she causes.

Bishonen | talk 20:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

Response to apology on talk page originally posted under EE section

I do not doubt that the user is apologizing in good faith, so I'll hold off asking for that injunction until tomorrow. But I certainly don't want to stop anybody else, it's entirely up to you. An e-mail to the arbcom is the best way; the the technically correct spot doesn't command wide attention, in my experience. EE, as a token of good faith, cease and desist with the stylistic improvements, you're killing me. Bishonen | talk 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC).

Evidence presented by Giano

First assertion

I have little to add to those diffs and comments above by Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes which I fully endorse. Regarding her stalking of me I have found a firm comment whether humorous (when yet again she was denying she is HW) or angry and agian seldom has any effect on her. I think she is wary of me, and only attempts to really rile me when I have some work on the FAC page, such as here made when Sanssouci was about to pass FAC, and again (Bishonen has already listed these two diffs) she began making odd edits to Belton House when it was on FAC, individually they are innocent enough edits or remarks, but they are always "out of the blue" and trivial designed to hinder and/or irritate, in fact in this she succeeds. Nowhere does her editing show her to have the slightest interest or knowledge of architecture, so why edit just my pages on the subject always at a crucial and nerve wrecking moment. In short EE is a disruptive nuisance. I am convinced she will be back, if she is not already. If she is allowed back I very much hope steps can be taken to prevent her wholesale persecution of Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes Giano | talk 09:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by an IP address accessed by Eternal Equinox

Nonsense and messages on talk pages

In response to Bunchofgrapes comment on July 15: Yes, that is me. I have returned for four days because I have a break. No, that IP is not from Toronto, it is from my computer, which, as you were told way back in January, is connected to the Library that I worked at. My edits to the article are not disruptive as you (very not surprisingly) put it; EM seems to have an issue with compromising the situation that I feel differently about, so the ArbCom members can go ahead and ignore Bunchofgrapes' insistence that all I do is edit disruptively. To the ArbCom: I have returned until July 19 because I am on a short break. Following this, I will not return until October unless I have a break again, which I am telling you so that these ridiculous editors do not go about and simply tell everybody that I am full of nonsense. This is what I have to provide, and now I will be here until that date. 64.231.77.2 23:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I caution the ArbCom to be careful with what some of these users claim as "disruptiveness" — when I have attempted to tidy an article somewhat, they will tout it as useless or something similar. 64.231.77.2 23:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have done my best to apologize to Bishonen here for any drama that came between the two of us since I won't be active much longer. Although this is likely no longer on her talk page, I would like the ArbCom to in the least recognize that I attempted to sort things out even if it was too late. Thanks. 64.231.77.2 23:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Bishonen in this edit: Thank you, Bishonen. However, I have to tell you that the stylistic improvements at Cool (song) are not in bad faith; after all, I have been working on that article for nine months now. And no, I'm not killing you: you are killing yourself by even slightly suggesting the thought. Remember, I'm only here for a few days and I don't have time to drive people up the wall; it just so happens that EM does not want to arrive at consensus with me. 64.231.66.47 01:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)