| Revision as of 02:06, 6 December 2006 editKyndFellow (talk | contribs)519 edits →Lack of knowlodge on the topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:10, 6 December 2006 edit undoKyndFellow (talk | contribs)519 edits →Lack of knowlodge on the topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| ===Lack of knowlodge on the topic=== | ===Lack of knowlodge on the topic=== | ||
| :*Edgarde has demonstrated that he is unfamiliar with the terms pertaining to this topic. On November 7, I had to make a '''Misuse of |
:*Edgarde has demonstrated that he is unfamiliar with the terms pertaining to this topic. On November 7, I had to make a '''Misuse of terms''' section on the in order to explain such terms as ''pedophilia'', ''age of consent'', and ''child abuse''. | ||
| :*{{fact}} | :*{{fact}} | ||
| :*{{fact}} | :*{{fact}} | ||
Revision as of 02:10, 6 December 2006
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: .
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, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Evidence presented by Daniel E. Knodel, M.A.
Repeated and persistent false accusations
- Accusations of inpersonating other editors:
- Editor edgarde has falsely accused me of impersonating other editors by using puppets (i.e. Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Devalover), as indicated on the Request for Arbitration.
- Edgarde personally acknowledged that his accusations were wrongfully made , when he responded on my talkpage to advocate Fred-Chess reporting the results of the puppet review.
- Even after the results of the puppet charges showed that I did not use puppets. Edgarde continues to persists with these accusations .
- Edgarde has also made these accusations of other editors using puppets , , & .
- Accusations of being paid off, promoting myself, & campaning:
- On November 7, Edgarde put a flag over the links, and said I have a "vested interest" in the topic, so I reconciled with him and I thought the dispute had been resolved. I first interpreted this as an act of respect, but later discovered he was accusing me of being paid off .
- In his Request for Arbitration comment Edgarde says that my motivation for editing the sex tourism page is to 1) promote a view that will defend my link to Sly Traveler, which he says 2) is my website. This is not true, because Sly Traveler is not a website that I control, and my contributions to this page have accounted for multiple view points. I began introducing the principle of respect for customs of foreign societies based on the terms of their own culture, which is conceivably a neutral point of view. But I became more involved on the page when I was treated with such disrespect by Edgarde as he continuously removed my contributions completely with his repeated daily reverts.
- In his Suspected Sock Puppet page, Edgarde constructs some sort of conspiracy theory, accusing me of being involved in a secret campaign with editors who disagree with him. It's no surprise that the results of the puppet review charges do not support the existence of a secret conspiracy campaign.
- Accusations of inserting a link to a website that I control:
- It is not true that I control any of the websites that I have described as pertinent to the topic throughout our discussion, and have gone into greater detail in the Discussion about Sly Traveler section of the Sex Tourism Talkpage
- Accusations of inventing my own definition, and doing so for my own benefit:
- Though I began with a more general definition, I have compromised with Edgarde over the course of the discussion. The opening section of the sex tourism page that I ask for in the Arbitration Specifications section of Sex Tourism Talkpage undeniably asserts a neutral point of view that is both informative and accurate. I don't see how this would benifit me more than anyone else.
Disrespectful treatment toward other editors
- Insults
- On October 31, Edgarde insults the link I wanted to add as a reference to the forms of sex tourism that I describe in the discussion. He calls it a "commercial spam link", when it is in fact not a commercial website. As a result he attempts to dismiss my edits completely.
- On October 31, after various attempts to reason with him, Edgarde insults me by stating "My main issue is with your definition, which is disingenuous nonsense."
- On November 3, Edgarde responses to my revision of our definition and the introduction of a Dispute Resolution section, calling it "nonsense".
- On November 22, Edgarde insulted me with the following comment when he declined my request for mediation: "I just happen to be the only one foolish enough to respond to his disingenuous nonsense on this page."
- Rude Behavior
- On November 3, Edgarde posted a claim to end the dispute with a link that I was told to use. I followed his instructions, but found that it was only a rude trick to delete all my edits. .
- On November 22, Edgarde attacks a new editor who supported that a distinction be made from child sex tourism, accusing him of impersonating me in a rude manner. Edgardes words were "Mr. Knodel: put the puppet down. Answer the questions."
- All of Edgarde's false accusations agaists me and other editors who do not support his view point have been done with disregard for good faith.
Lack of knowlodge on the topic
- Edgarde has demonstrated that he is unfamiliar with the terms pertaining to this topic. On November 7, I had to make a Misuse of terms section on the Sex Tourism Page in order to explain such terms as pedophilia, age of consent, and child abuse.
Biased reporting
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 03:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Evidence presented by edgarde
Puppetry by Mr. Knodel
Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Devalover
Denied repeatedly. — edgarde 03:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Automanation
Can someone please do a Checkuser on Automanation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who keeps reinserting his "Female Domination" site in a fashion similar to Mr. Knodel, also deletes useful links, and offers similiar WikiLawyering defenses. The site's different, so I suspect Automanation is just a copycat. — edgarde 03:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.