Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Eternal Equinox's Latest Section
Appears to not be evidence but discussion. (As does Bishonen's latest.) I would suggest they both move to the talk page here. I would also suggest that EE, you know, log in, so that we don't have to keep track of a flurry of rolling IP edits. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't feel the need to log in because that account expired June 26. Additionally, I think we know fair and well who 64.231 is. 64.231.66.47 02:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 64.231.66.47 responds to a part of Bunchofgrape's evidence
- 01:29, July 16, 2006 Fighting over headers on talk pages.
- Excuse me? I'm not fighting over headers, I simply do not want my name sported there. I am an IP now, and we don't need the whole community laughing over the case. 64.231.66.47 01:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I repost my message, click on the link already
I re-post my message below, since the point about e-mailing arbcom may be of use to somebody. Eternal Equinox, you misunderstood my remark about stylistic improvements. The word was a link because you were supposed to click on it. It's the worst fix of "sloppy writing" I've ever seen. Do you not see it, have people not told you enough times on FAC, must I spell it out? Stop "fixing" good English into bad English, you're killing me. Must you make tact impossible? Bishonen | talk 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC).
- 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).
- Humorously, the sentence I rewrote was originally written by me anyway. The example you provided is also quite poor since the writing was improved. Yeah, I'm going to go now, if I can. 64.231.66.47 03:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eternal Equinox
EE: Perhaps you should repost everything you've written here in the discussion thread. This is a RFAr on you; not Giano, Bunch of Grapes or myself. --HeyNow10029 02:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I wouldn't worry to much HeyNow, people only have to check out the edits and circumstances pertaining to the comments HW (or whatever she is currently calling herself) mentions, to realise she is merely proving the case we are attempting to make. Just let her get on with it. She's cross with me for giving her an award for humour, she seems oblivious to what so many other editors would have liked to give her! Giano | talk 16:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"HeyNow10029 is one of Wikipedia's most manipulative editors, and Extraordinary Machine has said this himself." - ahem, no. Absolutely not. This is a blatant misrepresentation of a comment I made during a private MSN chat. I actually said it appeared to me that HeyNow10029 was using Eternal Equinox's previous controversial run-ins with other users to gain the upper hand in a long-running edit war on the Kelly Clarkson article; note that I never once condoned EE's actions on that article or messages to HeyNow (it takes two to edit war), or edits such as [1] on a completely unrelated page (for context, see [2]). I definitely did not call HeyNow "one of Wikipedia's most manipulative editors". Besides, (s)he has at least expressed some regret for her behaviour on the Clarkson talk page, whereas EE hasn't. I have been burned enough from this whole affair that I originally decided I probably wouldn't participate in this RFAr, but it's completely unacceptable for EE to start making up things to defend himself and attack others. I think this indicates his so-called "evidence" should be taken not with a grain of salt, but several boxes of Morton's. Extraordinary Machine 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- The ArbCommers aren't likely to pay much mind to accusation without evidence in any case, but that kind of misrepresentation is sad to hear about. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- No harm done. Thanks for clearing that up, E.M. --HeyNow10029 21:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
How about we stop making up excuses? I will now correct what Extraordinary Machine in my evidence section, because I only vaguely remembered what he had said. You are continuing to assume bad faith in my evidence, which will certainly be looked at. —EE 18:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've used Extraordinary Machine's message as evidence, so I think the ArbCom will indeed pay much mind and attention. This may be a RFAr concerning me, but all of you have behaved incredibly poorly too, especially HeyNow10029. Regardless of who it is primarily based on, it seems as though the administrators will not take any punishment, but evidently I will and the other non-admins should too. I would have filed a RFAr against HeyNow10029 ages ago had I not been too lighthearted. It looks like I was very wrong. —EE 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Making up things to defend himself and attack others" — enough of this nonsense! Please explain where I attacked another by writing my misintrepertation? I need to also strongly include that I do not regret anything I have done on Kelly Clarkson as my edits concerning the images were all very appropriate. If HeyNow did express some regret, then I do respect her for this because it was a step in the right direction. I do applaud you for that in the least. —EE 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
