Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

Case Opened on 11:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 13:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

 * (AKA  & *)
 * (initiator)
 * (Orane)
 * (Orane)
 * (Orane)
 * (Orane)
 * (Orane)
 * (Orane)
 * (Orane)

Statement by HeyNow10029

 * User:Eternal_Equinox (edited under the username Hollow_Wilderding from November 2005 to January 2006; previously as Winnermario) is extremely hard to work with, she has had disputes with a number of respected users. God help you if you ever end up wanting to make an edit to one of “her” pages, because she reverts edits made to pages she "protects" on a daily basis. Edit wars are common place for her, here are some of her most recent: (edit war on the S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 page ; policing the Cool (song) page ; edit war on the Images and media for deletion/2006 June 3  page in which she claims ownership as the caretaker of the Cool (song) page; even changes other user’s comments ) She has also proven to be extremely difficult to work with on the FAC nominations she has initiated for the We Belong Together page. On her first two nominations  she was accused by multiple users of strong arming oppose votes until they changed their minds. The third nomination was thrown out by User:Raul654, and the fourth nomination ended in User:Eternal_Equinox delisting the nomination and promising “not [to] edit this article any further following this FAC” A promise she broke just recently when she listed the article for a fifth time. She flies in the face of consensus: even when she’s told by multiple users that her edits aren’t helpful and in some instances misleading, she continues to rv changes onto pages she knows little about.   If that’s not enough she has a total disrespect for other users who contribute to the project, especially those who disagree with edits she makes, in this post she refers to the Wikipedia community as  "bitches" and tells everyone to "fuck off" . In this post, just posted minutes before I submitted this RFAr; User:Eternal_Equinox admits she made past posts, “partly out of vengeance” against User:Bishonen In another post, she threatens to sue User:Bishonen,  or rather Adam & Courtni, two people who she claims also use the User:Eternal_Equinox account threatened to sue.


 * Full disclosure: I am, in no way a Pollyanna. I have in the past let Eternal get the best of me and have succumb to her efforts to antagonize me; including this outburst. But that is one instance during numerous disagreements with User:Eternal_Equinox, in which I have the great majority of the time kept a leveled head.

Statement by Bishonen

 * is below. Meanwhile, I appeal to the ArbCom to not throw this case out merely because EE says below that she'll never edit Wikipedia again. She's always saying that. (On this occasion I was counting.) Bishonen | talk 00:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC). Continued below.


 * I don't believe Eternal Equinox wants to hurt the encyclopedia. I think her goal is to contribute and especially to have the articles she contributes to reach Featured status. These are benign purposes, and I don't take part in this RFAR in the hope of getting her banned from the project. (I'm quite convinced a ban would in any case only lead to more socks and more IP editing.) What I hope for is rather the kind of remedy where any admin gets to ban her—the individual, the person—from any page she's deemed to disrupt (any page, not just any article—I'm thinking especially of WP:FAC). This would be a big benefit and relief to the encyclopedia and the editors who attempt to work with her, as she's in fact—in effect, regardless of intentions—very disruptive and very ruinous to the work of others. The net result of her presence is negative, in spite of theroretically good intentions and contributions, because she plays so abysmally with others.


 * The good news is that Eternal Equinox in June isn't as openly abusive as Hollow Wilerding in January, not even close. EE has clearly made an effort to overcome her rage and to become a respected editor. I honor her for it, but I also see her slides, increasingly rapid ones, into classic HW mode during these six months, and very much in the last month or so. (For a convenient view of classic "HW mode", I suggest reading HW's second FAC nomination of "Hollaback Girl and her RFC on myself, which turned round and bit her.) EE in June also has some more devious and no less harmful outlets for anger. Although I don't indeed believe her a troll in intention, yet in practice, in action, she constantly attacks, trolls, teases, provokes, tries to get a rise, pecks away. The pointless insertion of herself into my conversations with other people on my page is one small example; she does this to plenty of other people, notably to friends of mine, who she seems to have researched and mapped thoroughly. As several people have already mentioned, she has recently taken to proposing "stylistic improvements" to the latest Featured articles authored by Giano, me, or Bunchofgrapes. This is only small-scale but very much on the rise, and it's a totally frivolous rain of pebbles at a clutch of FAs.,   With her mouth virtuously full of WP:OWN   and impervious to arguments from grammar or style, she's always ready to step up these cockamamie or pretend "discussions" into edit wars. Just like in the old HW days, she's utterly outraged when blocked, and will use dynamic IPs to play the same games more abusively. On June 13, I made a final threat/appeal to her: "Isn't it better to pull the Eternal Equinox identity back from the brink and have another shot at being a respectable editor? Think about it.". That didn't work. I feel I've come to the end of the road in trying to monitor/mentor her, under any identity. I should have walked away sooner, perhaps. But it's not just me she reacts to with taunts, attacks, and trolling, it's anybody who thwarts her in any way, by resisting her edits, or by voting against her FACs. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

Statement by Geogre
I have no hesitation in being listed as a party to this dispute. Although I have had as little to do with Eternal Equinox as possible, preferring to live than to discuss living, I have been, throughout, a firm believer that Hollow Wilerding never served the blocks proscribed for vote stacking at FAC. This user, as several different identities, has been blocked for various amounts of time and has consistently evaded blocks by editing as a swarm of IP addresses. That is germane only in that the user cannot leave anything alone and must have the last word. My only success in dealing with him has been to simply let him say whatever he wants and not reply. Otherwise, no matter where it is -- article space, article talk, or user talk (yours or his), he must reply, whether under his own name or as an IP. By itself, that's no more than petulance, and the state of his psyche is not very interesting to anyone but him, I'm sure. Rather, it leads to not listening to requests to leave one alone and, most of all, persistent warring over anything. It isn't content disputes. It's a need (not desire) to get the last word, to get the last version, to go back and insist, again and again and again. When Hollow Wilerding said that We Belong Together would be an FA because "she" gets what "she" wants, and when he renominated the article over and over (and voted for it under more than one account name), it was an offense against procedure, but it was also a harbinger of how the user would behave about everything. This has not been a particular aggravation to me, as I just try to step around him, but it has certainly risen now to the level where several users are having their editing disrupted and their efforts frustrated because of a vendetta or childish insistence by this user. Geogre 00:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Response by User:Eternal Equinox

 * Note: EE has posted in Bunchofgrapes' and in both of my sections, and deleted my request on her talkpage to not do that. I've moved her ripostes to her own section. Bishonen | talk 08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

I would like to inform the arbitrators that I am leaving Wikipedia tomorrow; I will never edit on this website again. It should be noted to the arbitrators that I believe this RFAr is somewhat peculiar; the parties involved were very much aware that I would be leaving Wikipedia on June 26, so it is certainly interesting to see one opened against me the day before I leave. Here (June 14) I posted the information on my upcoming departure, and since then, Bishonen and Giano had left me a message. I am convinced that they knew about my departure 100%, but I think this may have been a bad faith RFAr. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * HeyNow10029 is an incredibly ignorant Wikipedian who has displayed uncivil behaviour in numerous locations on Wikipedia, most notably on Talk:Kelly Clarkson. If you're interested you should take a look at Talk:Kelly Clarkson where she states the following: You know, Eternal I'm getting really sick and tired of your garbage. You don't own this page, it's not up to you to decide what goes and what stays. She had included four images in the Kelly Clarkson article, which I removed because they lacked fair use rationale. I then added an image that included its sources, however, HeyNow10029 always removed it from the article without good reason. Oftentimes I would have offline-Wikipedia conversations concerning this matter, where the person I would be speaking with felt that she removed it because she wanted her images and only her images in the article. I agreed with this. For making personal attacks, she was given a warning here, and for removing an image that contained fair use rationale, she was told to stop here. Most notably, she was informed here not to reinclude this image in the article. A few months later, I decided to take a short break from Wikipedia; I returned to find the image reinserted (the first image in the diff edit) in the article, even though she was told that it was not a good idea to include it because of copyright issues. HeyNow10029 was clearly ignoring the fair use policy. Here is an edit she made in bad faith, too. Additionally, it should be noted that I never once threathened to sue Bishonen; if anybody wants evidence of this, I can send it to them. (The person who threathened Bishonen via email was a roommate of mine.) In the case of Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes, I have nothing to say &mdash; I just want them to forget about me so that they can enjoy editing the encyclopedia. I would like to forget about them too. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I may or may not return to Wikipedia later this year (October/ November). I am currently not at home in Canada, but in Japan. Therefore, I may come back towards the end of the year, or not. I will no longer participate in this situation. If I was acting badly and wrongly, then HeyNow10029 was acting just as wrongly. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I have noticed it in HeyNow10029's summary, I think I ought to respond to it: Here I very clearly state the following: I was introduced to several very ignorant Wikipedians who stalked me and followed me around because of a previous relationship that they had experienced [...] Although I would not be surprised if they suddenly popped up and left a message here or on my talk page. As it just so happens, HeyNow10029 a link to the edit I made on the same talk page two minutes later, which can confirm that these users have been constantly looking through my edits and stalking me. Since the users in question are going to want to elaborate on this, I have provided the basis. But, again, I will not be editing after tomorrow, so there is nothing much I can do. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to dispute resolution by Bishonen
 * All right, here, I am going to respond and I want you to know that everything I say from here is the truth: please listen, please. I am Hollow Wilerding; yes &mdash; now you know. However, I am not Winnermario. Winnermario was a roommate of mine. This is the truth, which concludes that you were partially correct during the "votestacking" portion back in January, and I was intentionally partially incorrect. When I returned, I was doing nothing wrong because I really did just want to edit. I know you knew this, because before I came in contact with you, that is all I did &mdash; I just edited. But... I feel as though when you found out who I was was the time I began to become somewhat harsh again. You and your friends were constantly insulting and/or making fun of me on someone's talk page, and even when I was reverting IP address edits (because if they wanted to make an edit, they should have been logged in. How would I have known that was the user editing from an IP addresses?) you assumed that I was attempting to evade objections on FAC. Of course I was not doing that, because that would be ridiculous. At the time, however, there were some votes and/or comments that confused me slightly. I do not know which e-mail you are talking about, but if you verified, then I might come to agreeing the arbitrators (or whomever you want) to read it. However, you must promise me, that if I return in the future, to simply not talk about and to me. That is all I ask of you. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to statement by Bishonen
 * That was a month ago when you infuriated me by conducting an edit that was solely based on bad faith; I got over it. Again, I have had that message posted on my talk page for two weeks now: I am not staying and you will clearly see as such. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to statement by Bunchofgrapes
 * No, my statement that I will be departing should NOT be ignored because I am leaving &mdash; I am not coming back. You have to really stop claiming that I will set up another "sockpuppet". That is not the case; if I return, I will set up a new account, yes, but how does this make it a "sockpuppet"? I do not edit under Hollow Wilerding, so how is Eternal Equinox a sockpuppet? It is simply a new account. But either way, if I do return, then I will edit under Eternal Equinox. The long chain is two: HW and EE. I do not have any other accounts. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the last message in my section concerning stalking, Bunchofgrapes adding this sums up my statement. I had made those edits minutes before this RFAr was issued. I would assume stalking. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Bunchofgrapes
Eternal Equinox's statement regarding his imminent departure should probably be ignored; we have had similar statements from him many times in the past. (And note that his statement above currently says both "I will never edit on this website again" and "I may or may not return to Wikipedia later this year (October/ November)".) If the account does stop editing, it would be in keeping with past patterns to start up a new sockpuppet: Eternal Equinox is the most recent in a long chain. As for his desire to avoid me or Bishonen, he has an odd way of showing it -- he has edited few pages outside of his core interests of pop music and videogames that aren't articles with significant work done by Bishonen, Giano, or me. In this talk page post, she describes such edits as being "partly out of vegenance" (and partly out of having an obsession -- with alphabetical order in prose -- that has no place at Wikipedia, so far as I know.) Eternal Equinox is a disruptive editor. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User: Giano
I am not directly involved in this particular case, but I am well aware of Eternal Equinox and her behaviour, so feel I am qualified to comment here. This is not the first incident of her disruptive and vindictive behaviour. I have watched (at first silently since she appeared as Hollow Willerding) later in various incarnations it became obvious that she had an obsessive hatred of Bishonen, I attempted to draw her fire, at first in a sometimes humorous way to attempt to defuse the situation. This failed. The reason this failed is because in my opinion EE is a fantasist, she does not just invent socks, she gives them personae and believes what she has written, and will defend that lie with aggression and threats. For example: Hollow Willerding was a female school teacher, EE is the prepy student son of a rich family - who next? - one wonders. That as EE she fully intends to leave today, I have no doubt. I also have no doubt that as of today a new personae will appear, and is editing at this moment. Her behaviour towards HeyNow10029, is typical of her stalking methods to irritate and hinder the development of Wikipedia, other examples of this can be seen in this edit history here and this edit history here  all silly little edits designed merely to irritate and hinder the principal editor as a page approaches FAC standard. She is also not above changing archived WP material which betray her true character, as I pointed out to her here

However, her behaviour is more than just irritating and disruptive, it is worrying. Her obsessive behaviour and inability to control it, makes her a dangerous person to have on this site. I seriously worry for those editors who have allowed her to know their true identities, should this behaviour leave the internet and enter real life. To the new and understandably naive editor she is a pleasant creditable person encouraging confidences - how often do we see her asking for email addresses? When editors finally see through her then her behaviour turns to obsessive hatred. I think it will be hard to permanently ban her, but some attempt should be made to do so. Wikipedia does not need this sort of person. Giano | talk 08:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by FrancisTyers
I ran into EE on the S. A. Andrée page whereupon they pushed some rather odd changes, including at one time reducing the images to postage stamp size and re-ordering perfectly good prose. The user did not edit harmoniously and appeared rather vindictive. I see this is not an isolated incident but rather a pattern and almost certainly needs to be dealt with. I'm no way near as involved as Bishonen or Bunchofgrapes and I would imagine that they would feel much more strongly than "needs to be dealt with". Furthermore, judging from past actions I would suggest that the "I am going to leave Wikipedia" announcement be strongly doubted. - FrancisTyers 08:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by getcrunk
will be here later today; it's on my to-do list. &mdash; getcrunk   what?!  13:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to reiterate that this case should not be thrown out, because HW/EE will most certainly be back. I would not be surprised if these "studying in Japan" comments are all merely made-up, intended to make the Wikipedia community think that she has gone.

One of the earliest/best "I'm leaving and never coming back"/"don't not hold your breath" is this one. She keeps saying that she's had enough and is never coming back, but as Geogre said, she keeps coming back to have the last word. This is beautifully illustrated here, here, here, here, here, and here. See also Requests for adminship/Eternal Equinox and Requests for adminship/Hollow Wilerding. Not to mention that this user has repeatedly threatened "legal action", needless RfCs, etc.

As Giano said, HW/EE keeps inventing new users: see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and this. Giano hits the nail on the head when he says When editors finally see through her then her behaviour turns to obsessive hatred. (see and then strangely  and ) Giano is also correct in saying ''I think it will be hard to permanently ban her, but some attempt should be made to do so. Wikipedia does not need this sort of person.'' HW/EE needs to be dealt with now before she comes back in three weeks and starts this cycle all over again. &mdash; getcrunk   what?!  15:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Journalist
I'm having trouble putting my thoughts together, but I'll try to keep my statement succinct, and do my best to remain neutral. My involvement in this ordeal started when Hollow Wildering left a message on my talk page in December 2005 wanting to work with me. At the time, my computer was down, so I don't think that I had replied. When my computer was fixed, H/W had departed due to the block by User: Bishonen. After I began working on We Belong Together, User:Eternal Equinox popped up from nowhere, and asked if I needed assistance, and I made the big mistake of saying "yes." I know not of Hollow Wildering's demeanor, except what is told by Giano, Bishonen or Geogre. However, they have provided convincing evidence that she is a nuisance to Wikipedia. As Eternal Equinox, she has perpetuated this type of behaviour (the others have already shown this. I see no point in repeating what they have said) and then played the victim when things got (for lack of a better expression) too hot.

Is E.E as bad as they make her out to be? Mostly. She constantly trolls, pests Bishonen (after promising not to), she pops up in conversations, follows people around and make bad faith edits, and I always (foolishly) defended her and assumed good faith (until I became frustrated with her behaviour ). Is she entirely at fault? I would be lying if I answered "yes". Repeatedly, she has been ridiculed on the talkpages of Bishonen and Giano when the stigma of her past behaviour caught up with her. Even when she attempted to distance herself from that image, others would not let it rest  (there is also this incident where things got a bit out of hand for everyone &mdash;myself included, and this one, between her and HeyNow, the initiator of this RFA ). With all this said, however, I have repeatedly advised E.E to ignore them and I have asked her not to perpetuate this entire ordeal. She insisted otherwise, and and this is the result.

I am not defending her. I made the foolish mistake of doing this here, and was made to look like a fool when, after her block expired, she continued with her disruptive behaviour and used my name as an excuse. I may be outta line here, but after seeing this, and after observing her behaviour during her block, I strongly believe that E.E needs counselling. She is obsessed with Wikipedia, and I have no doubt that she will return (possibly under a different name) and begin this cycle again. Journalist 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 02:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept.--Charles Matthews 18:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Civility
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Assume good faith, and to observe Wikiquette, Civility, Writers' rules of engagement, and avoid personal attacks.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Stalking
2) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor. If an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring can be appropriate, but constantly editing in another user's tracks is always a violation of the courtesy and civility expected in users. More limited stalking behavior, including making occassional edits made with the intention to harass, is also unacceptable.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Intentionally provoking other editors
3) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accounts
4) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

More than one person on an account
5) Explanations that several people are using a computer or the same user account are not acceptable. It will be presumed that all edits from a single computer or user account are the responsibility of one user.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The disruptive behavior of is at issue. Considerations include aggressive and inappropriate use of Featured article candidates, ownership of articles, and obsessive editing of pop music articles Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive61.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Eternal Equinox
2) Eternal Equinox has engaged in personal attacks and.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Taunting by Jim62sch
3.1) has engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Taunting by Giano
3.4} has engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox, , and.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Personalized struggle by Eternal Equinox
4) Eternal Equinox expresses her view of editing as a personal struggle with other users . He/She has stated, "I now understand that the entire community has been against me since the day I signed up here." Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive61.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hollow Wilerding and socks
5) Eternal Equinox formerly edited as and used the socks  and  as well as, , , , , and , see Requests_for_comment/Bishonen, Requests_for_comment/Bishonen, and Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox/Evidence


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaving
6) Eternal Equinox has "left" Wikipedia and is no longer editing under that account Special:Contributions/Eternal_Equinox, but has continued to edit Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox/Evidence. Her latest statement, made July 20, 2006, is that she may return in September.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Eternal Equinox placed on Probation
1) Eternal Equinox is placed on Probation for one year. Should they, editing under any username disrupt any page, they may be banned from that page for a brief period of time, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox placed on attack parole
2) Eternal Equinox is placed on personal attack parole for one year. Should they, editing under any username, engage in personal attacks they may be banned for a brief period of time, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch cautioned
3.1) Jim62sch is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Subsequent motion: Eternal Equinox limited to one account
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.

Passed by 6-0. 17:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Eternal Equinox has chosen the account User:Velten. 23:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * Banned from Cool (song) and talkpage for 48 hours. In response to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Bishonen has banned the user for 1 week from User talk:Bunchofgrapes, see for rationale. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked 64.231.0.0/16 (anons only) for 3 hours for violating the ban at Cool (song) and Talk:Cool (song). &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reset the ban for the same reason, in accordance with Banning_policy. Extraordinary Machine 16:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked 64.231.0.0/16 for 3 hours for repeated piddling changes of the image size to Simon Byrne, the FA of the day, mainly created by Giano. Making such edits to FA's (exclusively those authored by her perceived "enemies" Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes, and Giano) is one of the things she got sanctioned for, as obviously done to annoy. I think she knows well enough that she has (if anything) a browser issue with image display, it's been explained to her several times, so I'm not inclined to believe in the good faith of the edit summary she provided the second time. And no, I haven't posted a block message on her; where would I put it? The user is editing by ArbCom permission, she's not banned; so can't that permission be made conditional on her logging into a proper account? This floating cloud of IPs she uses makes keeping track of her edits and infractions very difficult. I take that to be her intention, but does the ArbCom have to allow it? Bishonen | talk 23:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Eternal Equinox has already done all these edits from 64.231.153.209 after, and in defiance of, the new remedy that she only gets to edit from one account, and not from IPs. I have blocked 64.231.0.0/16 for two hours, anons only, with account creation enabled. In other words, if she chooses, she can create the requested account right now and start editing from it. (I understand that she has munged the password for the preferred User:Eternal Equinox account.) Bishonen | talk 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC).
 * , an EE sockpuppet (see his/her contributions history and this explanation), edited Cool (song) today. This was after the motion to limit EE to one account had passed, and after he had announced he would resume editing under the username . As such, I've blocked What2do indefinitely. Extraordinary Machine 17:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * EE/Velten edited from her IP address without explaining why (either at the time or afterwards; it would be different if she'd said in her next edit summary "I accidentally got logged out" or something) and has recently stalked me across Nelly Furtado-related articles, namely Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song) (she has a history of editing articles she's never previously touched shortly after I have edited them, so it's safe to say she's doing it now with the intention of harassing me). Because of this, I've blocked Velten for 48 hours. Extraordinary Machine 18:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * EE/Velten continues to harass me on Promiscuous (song) and is edit warring on the article in a manner similar to her conduct on Cool (song). I've blocked Velten for one week. Extraordinary Machine 18:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Cool (song), Velten 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,, (note the edit summary here) and . She is also continuing to harass me on Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album). I've blocked her for three weeks. Extraordinary Machine 16:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Velten used the Toronto-based IP to edit Cool (song) yesterday  . In accordance with Blocking policy, I've reset Velten's block and blocked the IP for three weeks. Extraordinary Machine 10:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)