Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

message: 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.
*Support. Dmcdevit·t 18:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eternal Equinox limited to one account 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox]]: clarification on ruling