Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
It is extremely important in order that your submitted evidence be considered by the Administrators that when you cite evidence to provide a link to the exact edit which displays the transaction, links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Rezo to the article Der Angst expanding the Education section use this form:   (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php?title=Der_Angst&curid=1012&diff=0&oldid=8642).
This section is not for general discussion - for that, see the comments.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.
Be aware that the Administrators 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 voice your objections on the comments page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others.
Evidence by the plaintiffs
Well, I'm not sure about the use of arbitration as a means here but as goober suggested it I'll go with it. Thing is, Syskeyia has been misbehaving here for a while. Yes, he has made some useful contributions (which I welcome) but on the other hand I have to check every single entry he makes for childish comments and (sometimes) vandalism. Examples:
- Adding silly RL comments in Der Angst entry, after which DA warned him clearly not to do it again.
- That did not stop him from Adding childish RL comments to my 19th century history , which I subsequently removed with comment.
- Adding 'Fuckian' as a language of SeOCC was an example of plain vandalism. He was warned about this on his by me on his talk page. This was a clear violation of the rules. Syskeyia never bothered to respond to this warning.
- Knootian independence entry declaring that my edit was 'supposedly' written in 1581
- I consider these edits to the Utrecht entry to be childish and bordering on vandalism. Removing the link to Knootian independence to replace them with the implication that Lavenrunz is Spain certainly was over the line.
As a normal user (not as a sysop) I'd recommend that something be done about all of this. From our warnings AND all the reverting edit comments it should be abundantly clear that we did not want such edits. (And he reads the reverting edits, since he uses them himself to reply to MY reverting edits so it is IMO a bit difficult to feign ignorance on that matter.)
Now, seperate from this is the matter of the Tanah Burung entry. See the Talk:Tanah_Burung corresponding talk page and edit history, really. I'm willing to describe in more detail if that is required. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 21:52, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)