Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:43, 8 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 . On his evidence statement he has ignored the results.
  
• 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.
• 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 this new editor 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 against 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 talkpage in order to explain such terms as pedophilia, age of consent, and child abuse.
• 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."
• 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.

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

Evidence presented by edgarde

A summary can be found in my statement.

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 , and removing links that cast an unfavorable light.

Deletion of child prostitution links

Knodel deleted links critical of sex tourism involving children , with Edit summaries suggesting it were a separate, unrelated topic. Even links not specific but mentioning child sex tourism.

Segregation of unfavorable links into "Child sex tourism"

When this became untenable , Knodel created 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 . Knodel reinstated anyway .

John Hopkins Protection Project

Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies' site contains two lengthy articles specificly on "Sex tourism", 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 .

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

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

POV edits by Mr. Knodel

"Child sex tourism" distinction

Note how Knodel's External Link deletions classify "Child sex tourism" as not "Sex tourism", rather than as a subset of sex tourism.

Knodel overwrites an intro paragraph on child prostitution 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.

In Edit summaries, Knodel calls this distinction from "child sex tourism".

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 . Knodel hasn't provided references on this 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).

Paragraph listing bad effects

When Knodel restores the above "distinction" paragraph, he usually removes a list of common issues with sex tourism

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.

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 and common sense, and seem like an attempt to find a "technicality" to exclude information that does not favor his POV.

The above two deletions 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.

Redefinition of sex tourism

Thought this was over . Knodel references the issue on this Evidence page .

Knodel has a novel definition of "Sex tourism" (an established concept) as including activities such as observing other cultures and visiting sex museums — though unable to cite references, and with no support (and majority opposition) from an RfC . Reverts? You bet.

Main defenses:

• "'sex tourism' has acquired a derogatory connotation"
• original research
• assertions of academic credentials and authority on the subject
• lists of links to the sort of businesses he wanted included in his novel definition.

(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" finds 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."

Mr. Knodel's attempts to drive traffic to his website

Linking The Sly Traveller

Linking The Sly Traveller appears to be Knodel's driving issue . His other edits are probably intended to defend and promote traffic to his website.

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. .

Ownership of The Sly Traveler denied repeatedly

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

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

Puppetry by Mr. Knodel

Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Devalover

Denied repeatedly. — 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.