Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

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.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Bunchofgrapes

[edit] Eternal Equinox is the latest in a long chain of Sockpuppets

  • Eternal Equinox is Hollow_Wilerding (talk • 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: [2]. Eternal Equinox hints quite broadly at being Hollow Wilerding in a "goodbye" message.
    • June 7, 2006: [3] I ask her to stop edit-warring over a link in Wikipedia: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: [4]. "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: [5]. 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.

[edit] 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 [6] [7] [8]. 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.

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


[edit] Evidence presented by getcrunk

[edit] 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.

[edit] Attempt at a list of sockpuppets

  1. Eternal_Equinox (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
  2. Hollow_Wilerding (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
  3. Winnermario (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
  4. DrippingInk (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
  5. Cruz_AFade (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
  6. Empty_Wallow (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
  7. TwoDown (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
  8. Solar_Serenity (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
  9. Siblings_WC (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
  10. Siblings_CW (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
  11. Cruz Along (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

[edit] Evidence presented by Bishonen

[edit] May 2005—November 2005: DrippingInk and Winnermario

These accounts were operated from the same computer as later Hollow Wilerding.[12] DrippingInk (talk • contribs • logs • 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 • logs • 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.

[edit] 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[13] 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. [14] 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[15], telling strange mutually inconsistent tales about her true identity. [16] 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.

[edit] 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[17], (an incident that was the direct cause of a good contributor leaving the project),[18] 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 [19] (although Everyking defended her against my bullying, as he had already done at much greater length and pressure in January.[20]) Some of the posts from that occasion may illustrate her characteristic demeanor when thwarted: [21], [22], [23], [24]. 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.

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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).

Addendum. There was no way of keeping her out, but with the IP range block possibilities created by the new software, I'm thinking that now there is. That may be worth thinking about. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Evidence presented by Giano

[edit] 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 [25] (when yet again she was denying she is HW) or angry [26] and agian [27] 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 [28] made when Sanssouci was about to pass FAC, and again [29][30] (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)

[edit] Evidence presented by Editor88

[edit] Links between Eternal Equinox and Hollow Wilerding go back much earlier

The earliest indication of a connection between HW and EE goes way back to this edit of January 31, EE's 23rd edit under that account and the third day of that account's existence.

[edit] Evidence presented by Eternal Equinox

Note: The Eternal Equinox account's password was changed so that the original operator could not reaccess it. The account Veryinteresting1 has been created to participate in the RFAr until July 19. This is absolutely NOT a sock puppet account and its password will also be changed once the date in question elapses.

[edit] Giano

I suppose I might as well supply a dish of evidence while I am still here. I am going to point out all major issues here, especially those concerning mocking and downright, obvious stalking. Giano has been the most ignorant in this entire situation, where he has left several rude remarks regarding my presence on Wikipedia. After I requested the deletion of my user profile, he recreates it with this and also sent this, both of which were unnecessary. This was the same person who left this message, where he says that he will leave me alone amid other bewildering comments, on my talk page months before after I had spoken to Bishonen via e-mail (I would only assume that she encouraged him to stop). Sometime later I asked people not to post messages on my talk page. While one left me a message of sympathy, Giano wrote in his edit summary "Blanking page in order to comply with the late and most lamented Eternal's final wishes". This time I would have only assumed that my page was blank again, but instead this piece of mockery was sitting there. He has also left me questionable comments which are likely in part of making fun of my identity (here). I responded questionably and he posted this, which I can only assume meant something along the lines of me being killed or something (now that I know what a "puffer fish" is). Giano has also called me an "arcitect of [my] own misfortune" (here). I do not know whether other users asked him to stop being rude outside Wikipedia — because they certainly didn't on his talk page — but I will admit my surprise that Bishonen or another administrator did not do one thing to make him stop, other than the time I think Bishonen may have, which he eventually evaded anyway. I have been punished for doing less. If anybody is guilty, I think Giano needs to wise up and stop the following:

  1. Violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  2. Violating Wikipedia:Civility
  3. Violating Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (using barn stars for ignorance)
  4. Violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Because I am not an administrator and because I am not liked by several administrators, I feel that the ArbCom is not going to take most of my evidence seriously, but if this is a community that is supposed to work together to resolve issues, all of the material should be looked into; not only some of it because others possess a higher "ranking". The next section concerns my long-running troubles with HeyNow10029. —EE

[edit] HeyNow10029

HeyNow10029 is one of Wikipedia's most manipulative editors. (Extraordinary Machine said that it appeared as though she was using me here). I was first introduced to her in February 2006 when I began to edit and tidy the Kelly Clarkson article. I explained to her that the images she inserted into the article did not have appropriately tagged fair use criteria, and this would eventually develop into the discussion here. She insisted that the images she was placing in the article had fair use rationale, but in fact, they did not and she continued to replace them even after she was explained not to. This discussion would come to be and she would start to post personal messages (in the before and after diff) and become persistently difficult to work with. In this edit I asked her to remove one image from the article, and she responds saying that the image I uploaded would be removed because it was of "poor quality", even though it was the only one with strong fair use rationale at the time. (Compare: HeyNow10029's first image on March 2/06, HeyNow10029's second image on March 2/06, Eternal Equinox's image on March 4/06, the day it was uploaded.) It was very likely that HeyNow10029 only wanted to have her images in the article. She did portray an effort by asking a sysop here how to write identical fair use, but she still remained uncivil. Chick Bowen responded on her talk page here that my image was used in the article appropriately — and not to complain about me — and that hers needed to be explained more thoroughly. HeyNow10029 removed Image:YoungKellyClarkson.jpg after she read the sysop's advice because of the several copyright holders it had. Another image, which is no longer existent on Wikipedia, was also removed, which left two of her images. No further issues arose.

However, when I thought all was calm, HeyNow10029 started to appear at the We Belong Together FACs. She would tout this as an excuse to object the article's FA status, and she would subsequently add this, this (as if it mattered), this, this (where I mention that our edit wars at Kelly Clarkson is the reason she has voted object), this, and here, among others, where she asserts that I am being rude to her. However, all I had said was I placed that message there because I have an intution that tells me you are objecting because of our discussion at Kelly Clarkson, similar to last time. Her intentions were strongly questionable, and I was not assuming good faith here because it did not seem logical. HeyNow10029 made far more edits toe the We Belong Together FACs. After more time passed, I decided to take a break from editing Wikipedia. In the time I was not present, she reinserted the image she was told not to have in the article, as well as the Grammy Awards image immediately after removing my image again. (Compare even stronger fair use, which exemplified her intolerance.) The music-sample box was moved downward so she could make room for her images. When I returned to find this, I became infuriated and decided to take new measures. —EE 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I listed two images for deletion: Image:YoungKellyClarkson.jpg and Image:KellyGrammyAward.jpg. For reasons I am not aware of, the former is still in the Kelly Clarkson article even though it should not be according to Chick Bowen. The other image was deleted because it provided no relevance to the article, but HeyNow10029 turned around and undoubtedly as vegenance listed two images used in Cool (song) (here) and one image in We Belong Together (here) for deletion. Evidently, this was bad faith and I immediately voted to keep the articles since two were used in a featured article and was one being used in an article that was at the time being promoted to FA status. Immediately, I copied the three images onto my computer (the "Cool" images were screen-grabbed and are now located only on websites that mirror Wikipedia) and after they were deleted, reuploaded them. Using common sense, since February 2006, HeyNow10029 has been a disruptive edior and a stalker. She has also bothered me greatly and even when I asked other users such as Bishonen or Bunchofgrapes to delete the image I originally nominated at AFD, they declined aggressively which led to this issue. All in all, HeyNow10029 has done and needs to stop the following:

  1. Violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  2. Violating Wikipedia:Civility
  3. Violating Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (nominating images used in a featured article out of vegenance)
  4. Violating Wikipedia:Etiquette
  5. Violating Wikipedia:Fair use
  6. Violating Help:Image page#Fair use rationale
  7. Violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  8. Not bothering (to my knowledge) to read Wikipedia:Images

Furthermore, HeyNow10029 wrote this on Bishonen's talk page, which indicates that the administrators in question such as Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes made no attempt to halt HeyNow10029's disruptive behaviour, but they did continue to remain on my case even when I was doing the right thing. This section of her talk page, which is now archived, may interest one on her terrible attitude that she has portrayed across Wikipedia. A comment left by Bishonen here presents no attempt to block her, but instead block me, and this was in the middle of the case involving the images, which leads me to believe that these users had no intention other than to rid of me. I think common sense, as BoG likes to put it, would be the only answer in this case of ridicule, spanning six months. HeyNow10029 has been using manipulation in order to have things run her way on various articles, but Kelly Clarkson is her most infamous. Next is the Bunchofgrapes section. —EE

[edit] Bunchofgrapes

Initially, Bunchofgrapes and I were friendly with each other (here), but things started to spiral out of control because of a Bishonen-related incident. He became demanding, vicious, and started to follow her every move as though he was being controlled like a puppet. He started to act in a similar fashion as Giano, but thankfully, he was far less abusive and not as taunting. While we may all be adults, I find his behaviour to be fairly childish and immature. During this RFAr process, I posted the message here on his talk page, and next when I asked him to respond on my talk page here (what else could I have implied? Lunch at the local café?), he responded with this lunacy. (Here is the further and continous mock which I chose not to respond to.) His final response in this disucssion stimulated more ridicule on his part when he insisted that I was not in Japan (which is where I am right now). While I did indicate that I had access to a computer in Japan, I chose to bring my laptop; it seems as though Bunchofgrapes has never changed his mind before, which I simply do not believe. Again, common sense tells all. Here he admits that he prolonged the entire conversation so that others could "see the ball of I've twisted myself into". I would call this manipulative and incredibly sneaky; I hope the ArbCom does bother to acknowledge this. It may also be notable that I started the conversation here, where I apologized before he developed it into something that I had not intended, which is, like I said, very uncivil. —EE

He hasn't been as vexing as some of the others, but there is no doubt that he has misbehaved too. I feel these policies have been broken:

  1. Violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  2. Violating Wikipedia:Civility
  3. Violating Wikipedia:Etiquette
  4. Violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks

This was first posted in Bunchofgrapes' evidence section

Clarify: EE says to Extraordinary Machine "Therefore, I most certainly do not believe you", accusing him of lying about whether he received some "offline messages" on MSN Messenger. From personal experience, I've seen those offline message not get delivered -- I think it happens when the other party has an older messenger client. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that Bunchofgrapes wrote this in his evidence section to make it seem like I did something wrong when all I was doing was stating the facts. When an offline message is sent, the MSN will tell its operator that it was successfully sent. Because I received this message, I assumed no less than Extraordinary Machine received it and read it, which I wrote on Talk:Cool (song). In this message I wrote "please do not refer to me as Eternal Equinox so that we can compromise the article's differences without having to look deep into Wikipedia" (regarding this RFAr). Additionally, I only had a few days off from school, so I wanted to make the best of them. However, Extraoridnary Machine did refer to me as Eternal Equinox. Knowing his history, a while back when I sent him a message and asked him not to refer to me as Eternal Equinox, he neglected to respect my request, and revealed my identity. Looking back at this, it seems logical to believe that EM did read my offline message. Also, if anybody would like the e-mail I sent to him (and the response), I'd be glad to supply it. (You must ask for it before 12:00 PM on July 20, which is when I will no longer be active on Wikipedia.)

I don't think I need to provide links to each and every one of the incidents since the other parties did not. Bunchofgrapes has also acted strangely by constantly adding the Toronto-based IP addresses here. I think he has created this list to make it look like I'm doing things wrongly or that I've been blocked further, which has not been the case; if these parties are attempting to out me through discussions outside Wikipedia, you'd better stop. If not, this list is still silly and could have easily been designed by Bunchofgrapes himself. These ideas are not silly — they are logical. Why would one bother to write every IP address out unless they were acting suspiciously? He even claims here, as though it is a big deal, that I returned to editing from my laptop. In actuality, Wikipedia logged me out — as it does many of its users — and I did not realize this when I reaccessed the laptop. I was not trying to evade a block of some sort; after all, the block log would state as such. To conclude, I think this user has been disruptive like the others, but to a lesser extent.

It may interest the ArbCom: from my POV, Bunchofgrapes has acted "childish" and very "immature[ly]". It is likely that these parties will mock this assertion one way or another, so it may be a good idea to keep a heads-up on the case. —EE

[edit] Overview of my history on Wikipedia

[edit] 2005

Courtni's brother Cruz registered the account DrippingInk in April 2005. After a few months of editing, he quickly resigned his post and decided to leave the project. At the time I had heard of Wikipedia, but had no intentions of registering an account because of my personal life. In September 2005 an account named Winnermario started to edit Wikipedia; it was operated by Courtni herself. Because she knew that she was a very angry person, she went on and made personal attacks whenever she could. After she was blocked in November 2005, the same day she chose to try and start over on Wikipedia under a new name so that she could earn some respect and give more than she had before. Winnermario was blocked for incivility, but as you may notice in the block log, was unblocked for the reason "hopefully has cooled off". As far as I am aware, nobody ever had a conversation with the user who initially instituted the block. This made Courtni particularly happy and she chose to create the new account, the infamous Hollow Wilerding and rebuild what she had already shattered. I joined in as one of the account's two operators and for two months this seemed to have been working. However, when the vote-stacking accusations came to materialize, I was the one who had accessed the account constantly, and I did not know what the affiliation with DrippingInk or Winnermario was. Courtni later confided in me that she had used them abusively to help The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask successfully complete its FAC nomination. I was infuriated and tried to convince users that three people operated these accounts, and while this was true, nobody — especially Bishonen — believed this. Looking back now, I can see that it was deceitful, even though I did not play a massive role in it. —EE

[edit] 2006

So Courtni took off amid the personal attacks and incivility supplied by Getcrunk in his evidence section, but most of those comments do not seem to have affected anyone, really. I created an account on my own in January 2006 (Eternal Equinox) and went quietly on my way. However, I blame this RFAr for the parties above. When they found out who I was, they intentionally became a part of my life again and would not leave me alone, which infuriated me and pissed me off excessively. They made fun of me on their talk pages and sent me barn stars out of pure disruption, and yet they still seem to end up on the top end of the see-saw. Even when I committed the smallest "crime" they would intervene and make it seem like I was held responsible for dropping the bomb on Pearl Harbor. Anymore and I would have had to be slotted into an asylum. To date, all of my edits have been faithful — with the exception of very few — and I have been trying to work my way up in Wikipedia's hierachy. But it's because of these users that since last November I have been experiencing difficulties. For the better of Wikipedia, and regardless of this RFAr's outcome, which should absolutely result in the punishment of more than solely one user, I may not return to Wikipedia. July 20 — or today, beginning in a few hours — I will be introduced to my upcoming professors and am flying to Sweden to begin schooling. There won't be any access to a computer until September, and by this point if I am more concentrated on life than a silly little wiki, then so be it. I suppose these parties will be celebrating offline when I make my final edit today anyway!

This is the truth, most of which was always the truth. My final edit to Wikipedia will be made in the next hour. Cannonballs away! —EE

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Eternal_Equinox_Evidence_c2ff.html"