Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

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.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Daniel E. Knodel, M.A.

[edit] Edgarde has assumed bad faith

Accusations of inpersonating other editors:
  1. Devalover -- Devalover is probably unrelated. [2] ( New evidence reveals that Edgarde further acknowledges wrongful charges) [3]
  2. Def Trojan -- Sorry about assuming that you used a sockpuppet. I just couldn't imagine anything else, but I see now that it is very possible that it could have been your brother. [4]
  • Edgarde personally acknowledged that his accusations were wrongfully made [5], 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 [6]. On his evidence statement he has ignored the results. [7]
  • Edgarde has also made these accusations of other editors using puppets [8], [9], & [10].
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 [11].
  • 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. [12]
  • 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 and artificially linking pages:
  • It is not true that I control (i.e. "own") 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
  • I linked other pages to the Sex Tourism page because they are closely related subjects.[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18].
Accusations of fabricating my credentials:
  • Bacholer in Psychology, minor in Cultural Anthrology -- Unversity of Southern California: Student ID 562-63-2062
  • Master in Clinical Psychology -- California State University, Northridge: Student ID 000260211
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.
  • I did not write this description by myself. It represents a collaborative progression with other editors.[19], [20], [21], [22]

[edit] 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" [23], when it is in fact not a commercial website. [24]
  • 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." [25]
  • On November 3, Edgarde responses to my revision of our definition and the introduction of a Dispute Resolution section, calling it "nonsense". [26]
  • 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." [27]
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. [28].
  • On November 22, Edgarde attacks a new editor who supported that a distinction be made from child sex tourism, accusing this new editor of impersonating me in a rude manner. Edgardes words were "Mr. Knodel: put the puppet down. Answer the questions." [29]
  • All of Edgarde's false accusations against me and other editors who do not support his view point have been done with disregard for the Assume good faith policy.

[edit] Edgarde lacks 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 talkpage in order to explain such terms as pedophilia, age of consent, and child abuse.[30]
  • Edgarde repeately confuses terms such as human trafficking, child prostitution, and child pornography with sex tourism. His insertion and defense of the link to Johns Hopkins University Protection Project as a good reference on sex tourism is a very strong example of his misreporting of the topic. This link is not about sex tourism at all, but instead centers on illegal activity and pathology. In Edgarde's own words: "This is probably the best link we have in the article. Deleting this borders on vandalism." [31]
In his evidence statement, Edgard later inserts two new essays [32] that he never mentioned in the discussion. These essays were never used as external references, and are only remotely associated with the Protection Project link. Moreover they further demonstrate his confusion of terms, as they are about "child sex tourism" and not the legal and culturally acceptable -- much more common -- forms of mainstream sex tourism, which is the subject of our article. The occurrence cited in one essay of "human trafficking" is also misleading, as it is rarely a factor -- most prostitution forms of sex tourism involving foreign sexworkers are legal under a 90-day working visa including a consensual contract and health exams (e.g. destinations such as Aruba, Curacao, and St. Maarten where the majority of sexworkers are foreign). Human trafficking is generally an extraneous term in how it relates to sex tourism, along with most of the other crimes covered by the Protection Project. Not that the Protection Project is not a valuable website, but it is not about sex tourism.
  • Throughout the discussion Edgarde demonstrates next to no knowledge of the topic. Where I have described my observations of sex tourism destinations around the world, he has only made Google searches. Where I have applied my background in clinical psychology and cultural anthropology, he has shown confusion of terms. Where I have provided external references to the sources of real-world sex tourism attractions that are legal and culturally acceptable, he has continued to deny their existence and replace them with irrelevant descriptions of child molestation and crime. [33]

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 03:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus on how the article is to be formulated

added by Mr. Knodel's advocate, Fred-Chess , as a response to Edgarde

  • There is no consensus on how to formulate the article. Assuming, per Edgarde below, that the dispute started in late October, most edits to the article during that time have been by either of the two parts [34]. / Fred-Chess 10:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The talk page Talk:Sex tourism is also dominated by edits from these two users ever since late October [35].
  • Mr. Knodels believes in good faith that a link to Sly Traveler will be benefitial to the article. Edgarde has repeatedly spoken out against adding the link, (e.g. [36] (at the bottom) and [37]), but no-one else has done so, which is what one could expect in all obvious matters. As such, Mr. Knodel eventually came to believe that Edgarde was the "vandal" in this issue. / Fred-Chess 10:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Addendum, after Edgarde's reply. I stand corrected in that Addhoc (talk · contribs) on four occasations removed the link, and on one occasion added a short comment to the talk page, where he adviced Mr. Knodel not to add the link. [38] However, it is still debatable whether two users constitute consensus. / Fred-Chess 09:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Mr. Knodel has his point of view, which has its right to be represented in the article. The RfC gave support that Mr. Knodel's POV has a place in the article, here by Atomaton (talk · contribs): [39] / Fred-Chess 10:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Knodel has acted courteous in resolving the dispute

added by Mr. Knodel's advocate, Fred-Chess , as a response to Edgarde

  • Mr. Knodel has no intention of vandalizing the article. In Talk:Sex tourism#Much-needed cleanup, November 4th, he expressed his support of the version by user:Addhoc, an uninvolved user [40]. He also contacted Addhoc in the hope that input from uninvolved users would resolve the dispute [41].
  • He welcomed the RfC made by Edgarde and thanked him for filing it [42].
  • Mr. Knodel has been cooperating with other users. Here is an example of a constructive cooperation with user:Devalover. [43] / Fred-Chess 10:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It was Mr. Knodel who filed the arbitration request [44] , seeing it would be futile to continue the debate with Edgarde. / Fred-Chess 09:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Mr. Knodel would have attempted Wikipedia:Mediation (on my suggestion) before filing for arbitration, but Edgarde didn't want mediation. [45] / Fred-Chess 09:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The reason why Mr. Knodel never field for mediation is because he didn't know how to do that, and didn't understand the mediation process. He already asked me on November 23 with assistance in requesting mediation, but was uncertain of Edgarde's willingness to participate. [46] Fred-Chess 17:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earlier aggressive editing by Mr. Knodel was due to inexperience

-- written by advocate Fred-Chess --
This is a reply to to the statements by edgarde, which shows Mr. Knodel misbehaving in the following ways:
  • deleting messages from the talk page of the article
  • deleting messages from his own talk page
I would like to state that these actions -- which are not uncommon among new users -- are explained by Mr. Knodel's inexperience with editing Wikipedia. Mr. Knodel has apologized for such mistakes, and to my knowledge he has not improperly deleted messages in recent weeks.

Fred-Chess 17:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets charges lack foundation

-- written by advocate Fred-Chess 00:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC) --
  • The only thing that the requests for IP CheckUser showed (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Devalover), was that Mr. Knodel was editing from the same IP range as Def Trojan (talk · contribs). Mr. Knodel says that Def Trojan was his brother, using the same ISP. The evidence should support that Mr. Knodel has at least not abused sockpuppets in the way typically associated with sockpupeteers. E.g. Def Trojan has only made three edits to the debate: [47] [48] [49] (with the last only being a minor correction, so essentially two). / Fred-Chess 00:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by edgarde

A summary can be found in my statement.

My replies to to Mr. Knodel's advocate, Fred-Chess (including to the due to inexperience defense) are at the end.

[edit] POV linkage by Mr. Knodel

Knodel's edits in Sex tourism#External_links are consistent with a policy of pro- sex tourism promotional POV, adding links that seem like good PR [50] [51], and removing links that cast an unfavorable light.

[edit] Deletion of child prostitution links

Knodel deleted links critical of sex tourism involving children [52] [53] [54] [55], with Edit summaries suggesting it were a separate, unrelated topic. Even links not specific to child sex tourism, but mentioning the topic, were segregated.

[edit] Segregation of unfavorable links into "Child sex tourism"

When this became untenable [56], Knodel created [57] an External links subheading for "Child sex tourism", to which he moves links about Sex tourism that include information about "Child sex tourism". This favors his POV because references critical of Sex tourism often mention young sex workers, leaving only very sunny (if insubstantial) links in the "Sex tourism" section.

I explained why this was a bad idea here diff. Knodel reinstated anyway [58] [59] [60].

[edit] John Hopkins Protection Project

Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies' site contains two lengthy articles specificly on "Sex tourism"[61][62], plus more on related topics. A site search for "Sex tourism" gets 114 hits. They are not flattering however to Knodel's POV.

One of Knodel's favorite links to delete [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69].

I protested diff this deletion, but Knodel continues to delete the link [70] [71] unexplained, as part of other reversions. He explains on this Evidence page[72].

Knodel has not restored John Hopkins to the current hybrid page he made "posting all avaliable content under review"[73].

[edit] POV edits by Mr. Knodel

Mr. Knodel began editing on October 28, linking the Prostitution article to Sex tourism, then adding extensive pro- sex tourism promotional POV edits [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] cumulative to the Sex tourism article. I reverted these edits. Since then ...

[edit] "Child sex tourism" distinction

As in Knodel's External Link deletions his edits seem to classify "Child sex tourism" as not "Sex tourism", rather than as a subset of sex tourism.

Knodel repeatedly overwrites an intro paragraph on child prostitution [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] preferring variants of:

Often the term "sex tourism" is mistakenly interchanged with the term "child sex tourism". A tourist who has sex with a child prostitute possibly commits a crime against international law, in addition to the host country, and the country that the tourist is a citizen of. The term "child" is often used as defined by international law and refers to any person below the age of consent.

... typically removing mention of law enforcement difficulties [94].

In Edit summaries, Knodel sometimes calls this edit 'distinction from "child sex tourism"'Talk page diff.

The difference between sex tourism and child sex tourism is self-evident for readers with even minimal english literacy; I protested this on the Talk page diff. Knodel hasn't provided references for this alleged confusion.

It seems this attempt isn't to prevent sex tourism from being confused with child sex tourism, but to prevent it from being associated with child sex tourism. This would be PR, and not encyclopedic in light of much of the available research (notably in links Knodel deletes from this article).

[edit] Paragraph listing bad effects

When Knodel restores the above "distinction" paragraph, he usually removes a U.N.-cited list of common concerns about sex tourism [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]

Current version of the paragraph Knodel deletes:

The United Nations opposes sex tourism citing health, social and cultural consequences for both tourist home countries and destination countries, especially in situations exploiting gender, age, social and economic inequalities in sex tourism destinations.[107][108][109]

Please read his objection to the United Nations paragraph.

Knodel asserts that "There are no direct quotes mentioned to support this claim..." However, it is almost verbatim from first reference.

[...] Aware of the grave health as well as social and cultural consequences of this activity for both tourist receiving and sending countries, especially when it exploits gender, age, social and economic inequality at the destination visited;[...]

As this is part of a lengthy, complex sentence, I see no need to quote more "directly". Knodel's requirement ignores pertinent discussion[110] and common sense, and seems like an attempt to find a "technicality" to exclude information that does not favor his POV.

Notice The preceeding two edits change the introductory section from a concise list of issues about sex tourism to a concise defense of sex tourism as no place for people who want sex with the underaged. This is POV and misleading.

[edit] Redefinition of sex tourism

Thought this was over [111], but it's referred to on this Evidence page [112].

Knodel has long fought for a novel definition diff of "Sex tourism" (an established concept[113][114]) as including activities such as observing other cultures and visiting sex museums — though unable to cite references[115], and with no support (and majority opposition) from an RfC request. Reverts? You bet. [116] [117] [118] [119]

Main defenses:

  • "'sex tourism' has acquired a derogatory connotation"[120]
  • original research (ibid, plus[121])
  • assertions of academic credentials and authority on the subject (ibid)
  • lists of links to the sort of businesses his novel definition would include.[122] [123]

(These lists are the closest Knodel has come to providing citations for any of his statements on the Sex tourism article.)

Knodel dismisses my assertion that Google searches on "Sex tourism" find few if any references to sex museums, swinger's clubs or FKK's with the argument "Thank you for telling us about your Google searches, but anyone could do that."[124]

[edit] Mr. Knodel's attempts to drive traffic to his website

[edit] Linking The Sly Traveller

Linking The Sly Traveller appears to be Knodel's driving issue [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144]. His other edits are probably intended to defend and promote traffic to his website.

[edit] Wikilinks to draw traffic to Sex tourism

Knodel links other pages to Sex tourism, perhaps to direct traffic to his site or increase its Googlerank. [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151].

[edit] Ownership of The Sly Traveler denied repeatedly

Conflict of interest repeatedly denied [152], notably on Talk:Sex tourism diff, and on this Evidence page diff diff.

— edgarde 22:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puppetry by Mr. Knodel

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Devalover

Denied repeatedly. [153] [154] [155] — edgarde 03:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to Mr. Knodel's advocate, Fred-Chess

This section is not intended as a dig on Fred-Chess, who is clearly doing the best he can with the material he has been given.

[edit] Re: "Earlier aggressive editing by Mr. Knodel was due to inexperience"

Being "new to Wikipedia" is one of Mr. Knodel's favorite defenses. Its freshness date has expired.

[edit] learning opportunities Mr. Knodel has been given re: The Sly Traveler

On just the subject of linking The Sly Traveler:

  • Knodel has clearly read WP:NOT, making repeated citations [156] [157] [158] of WP:NOT#SOAP.
  • Knodel has been advised by me (October & November only: [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168]), by other editors [169], and by his advocate Fred-Chess [170] [171] [172].
  • Knodel has had his link removed by other editors [173] [174] [175] [176] (only including instances with explanations in the Edit summary).
  • A template notice warning about inappropriate commercial linkage was added [177] to Mr. Knodel's Talk page. It was (predictably) deleted by Mr. Knodel [178], then restored by a different editor [179] and deleted again (without comment, mind you) by Mr. Knodel [180].
  • Knodel was offered (and declined) the inclusion of a similar but more mature and more notable link to replace his own.[181]
  • Knodel's behaviour was conspicuously called a violation of WP:COI by an Arbitrator in this arbitration [182].

Mr. Knodel restored his website yesterday [183]. It is still up.

I ask Fred-Chess ... so how exactly does Mr. Knodel learn?

Knodel has yet to entertain even the possibility that his site should not be included in External links. He has offered several WikiLawyering defenses for its inclusion. This is no longer a beginner's mistake.

[edit] more

My issues with other aggressive POV edits can be similarly documented. Mr. Knodel frequently demands (and then ignores) Talk page discussion. He never waits until after such a discussion to make his edit. I would propose that such demands are tactical, to buy time for his edits.

[edit] Re: "No consensus on how the article is to be formulated"

At this time, no consensus can occur unless it includes key POV edits from Mr. Knodel. Compromise of this nature can only result in a bad article.

[edit] conflict portrayed as between edgarde and Kyndfellow

Fred-Chess's statement that "Edgarde has repeatedly spoken out against adding the link ... but no-one else has done so" is just plain wrong. Examples are listed above.

[edit] RfC

The RfC received three (3) comments. Two stated bluntly that Knodel had no case. A third (which Fred-Chess cites as "support") was User:Automaton who said [184] there was no definition so both sides needed to make a case.

I provided citations for the established definition [185]. Mr. Knodel promptly deleted them [186].

I don't believe anything about the RfC can be used to defend Mr. Knodel's actions.

[edit] Re: "Edgarde has assumed bad faith"

(as retitled by Fred-Chess from Repeated and persistent false accusations)

I'm not assuming bad faith. I am witnessing it.

[edit] Re: "Mr. Knodel has acted courteous in resolving the dispute"

[edit] Mr. Knodel proposes Mediation to buy time for his edits

Despite my agreeing to mediation seven (7) weeks ago (2006-11-05T07:09:28), and my reminding Mr. Knodel later (2006-11-06T05:48:15), I have never been contacted by a mediator. Mediation was proposed again after I asked for a sockpuppet investigation (2006-11-22T02:46:14). I declined, and gave a good reason. Even Fred-Chess agrees it would have gone nowhere[187].

[edit] recent reversion of Devalover's edits

Knodel is capable of courteous behavior when it advances his agenda, especially when he is getting his way.

Knodel tends toward indignant and shaming statements when an editor goes against him, then showering praise when that editor complies. I consider this manipulative.

Devalover's recent edits[188] [189] [190] cumulativewere substantially reverted by Mr. Knodel[191] [192] [193] [194], with a "Devalover, I think you were right originally to not get involved.... This really disappoints me."[195] on the Talk page.

In subsequent edits, Devalover has chosen to defer[196] [197] [198] [199] to Mr. Knodel, resulting in the current eviscerated introduction.

In response to this, Mr. Knodel began promoting Devalover as a "Mediator", specifying the eviscerated page as the model of compromise that should be used during this arbitration.

[edit] grooming new Sex tourism editors as allies for future edit warring

In a recent Talk page thread Knodel has begun encouraging a new user to contribute WP:OR without citations [200] [201], despite repeated warnings from other editors (Devalover, edgarde, Devalover).

I cannot help thinking this courtesy is an attempt to appear sympathetic to potential supporters during future POV edits in Sex tourism. I am not looking forward to this.

Can we have some voting now?

— edgarde 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] {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.

[edit] {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.