This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KyndFellow (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 11 December 2006 (→4) Revert ''Sex tourism'' to a neutral revision). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Requested by edgarde

1) Checkuser on Automanation

Run Checkuser on Automanation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), compare with 68.5.116.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and KyndFellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (if different).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Automanation reinserts his "Female Domination" site in a fashion similar to Mr. Knodel, also deletes useful links, and offers similar WikiLawyering defenses. The site's different, so I suspect Automanation is just a copycat. — edgarde 03:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here we have another example of Edgarde turning his disagreements with other editors into personal attacks against them. Let me add I don't appreciate him associating me with the content mentioned in his complaint, or continuing his false accusations here. I understand the need to check for puppets. But don't you think this could have been done with less bias and a little more respect? As with the Devalover case, this editor was here before I even made my first edit, so it should follow that I’m not impersonating him.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Proposed by edgarde

WP:AN/I resists taking action because of this arbitration, which I would remind ArbCom was introduced defensively by Mr. Knodel. — edgarde 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1) Ban or block links to The Sly Traveler

Bar Mr. Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. (or anyone) from linking the The Sly Traveler (including differently-named piped links to slyguide•com) to Sex tourism or other articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Linking The Sly Traveller (diffs deleted) appears to be Mr. Knodel's driving issue.

I would support adding the The Sly Traveler to the spam block list. Because Mr. Knodel has canvassed and used sockpuppets in the past (and can recruit meatpuppets from his website's forum, not to mention his family), any editor's entry of The Sly Traveler should be removed.

This is per evidence of abuse and WP:COI included in my statement. I ask that this injunction be applied immediately, and for the duration of this arbitration. — edgarde 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This statement should be read with skepticism. I have never used a puppet to impersonate other editors, and evidence confirms this. ,,, But, it is true that I did write to editors from the Prostitution page and WikiTravel in order to to ask them to help resolve the dispute. I didn't think this would be a problem. It was done over a month ago, and I don't know if these requests would have much influence at this point. Looking back on it, this was probably not a good idea, and I can see why it bothers Edgarde. I agree that I should not write to other editors in this way again.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

2) Bar "Mr. Daniel E. Knodel, M.A." from editing Sex tourism

Bar Mr. Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. (in all his IDs and *puppets) from editing (or reverting) Sex tourism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per abuses listed in my statement. I ask that this injunction be applied immediately, and for the duration of this arbitration. — edgarde 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

3) Block IP users and new accounts from editing Sex tourism

Block IP users and new accounts from editing Sex tourism for the duration of this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Mr. Knodel is known to have canvassed (see above for diffs) and used sockpuppets in the past (and can recruit meatpuppets from his website's forum, and supposedly his family.

I ask that this injunction be applied immediately. — edgarde 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This statement should be read with skepticism. Please see my response to Edgarde's first point. I don't think this would be partical, because there haven't been many editor's on this page who would fit Edgarde's description. Few editors have had much influence beside Edgarde and I. Those editors who have been influential were obviously not biased in the way Edgarde is describing here.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 07:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

4) Revert Sex tourism to a neutral revision

Sex tourism needs to be reverted to a version not saved by Mr. Knodel, and not containing external links to ".com" sites

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Commercial spam links are being appended now that the gate is apparently open).

Mr. Knodel has been using this arbitration (while pending) to justify freezing the article with his website linked from Misplaced Pages for as long as possible . — edgarde 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If we arrive at a different state of the article that is an agreeable derivative of the Arbitration Speciations as outlined on the Tourism Talkpage, I'm open to making any changes that do so. Also, I'm not sure what Edgarde means by a "neutral revision" here. But if we can agree on a revision, it would be considered neutral. Or else a third-party may need to make unbiased judgments.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While this offer by Mr. Knodel is generous, it is obvious we won't agree on a neutral revision, which he may already understand. As for third party judgements, Mr. Knodel just reverts them . — edgarde 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this current revision by Devalover. He has respected the content in our Arbitration Specifications, while making an important point about the need to stay brief on expressing controversial material. It seems neutral to me, and we both seem to be on good terms with this editor.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Mr. Knodel

1) Prevent further misrepresentation

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please do something to prevent Edgarde from continuing to misrepresent me. I’ve done nothing to deserve this treatment, and I’m getting very tired of it. He seems to have a memory impairment, which should be considered in reviewing his claims. For example, the results of the puppet review charges clearly show that I did not use puppets (i.e. ,,), and Edgarde has apologized for making these disrespectful charges (i.e. ,). But here he continues his false accusations. I was hopeful we would be able to start working together when the editor that he accused of impersonating me returned to defend himself and even offered help with resolving the dispute. But Edgarde turned it into a personal attack against me again, by making false claims and completely ignoring good faith, as demonstrated on this page.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 05:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

2) Further edits should respect our Arbitration Specification content until receiving third-party feedback

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Further edits should respect our Arbitration Specifications content until receiving third-party feedback as outlined on the Sex Tourissm Talkpage. Recently editor Delover has acted as an unofficial mediator and content may be resolved before completion of arbitration.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I want it to be clear that while Devalover is editing Sex tourism, he is not acting a "mediator", and that my concerns with Daniel E. Knodel's actions are not resolved, nor is any motion being made in that direction. — edgarde 23:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is true. Delover's involvement is "unofficial".

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 23:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I might add that Devalover's recent edits were substantially reverted by Mr. Knodel, and in response to this, Devalover has chosen to defer to Mr. Knodel's requests, resulting in this introduction. I think this adds some context to Mr. Knodel's claim that Devalover is acting as a "mediator". That said, I'm not criticizing Devalover's attempts to edit this article, which I think are in good faith.

Mr. Knodel's attempt to promote Devalover to de facto mediator status is consistent with a pattern of attempts to game the system. — edgarde 22:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No one is obliged to follow arbitrary rules made on the Talk page by Mr. Knodel. The "Arbitration Specifications" can not reasonably be considered binding over the state of the article, and should not be used be used by Mr. Knodel as a tool to freeze the article in a state he dictates .

If Mr. Knodel wishes to refrain from making edits contrary to what has been discussed on Talk:Sex tourism, I can point out a few Talk page comments that he routinely ignores. — edgarde 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Edgarde, I don't continue the dispute in my section. I put this on here to tell what I want from the reviewers, not to keep fighting with you.

Further edits should respect our Arbitration Specification content until receiving third-party feedback. This is not meant to freeze the article, but to account for the content that we outlined in the Arbitration Specification. If we arrive at a different state of the article that is an agreeable derivative of this outline, I'm open to making any changes that do so.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 05:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Behaviour in disputes

1) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." Two outta three. And by some definitions of vandalism (c.f. Talk page vandalism), I might make a case for the third (warnings: ).

I'd admit civility, and writers' rules of engagement could be better-followed than in this case. — edgarde 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that good faith is not applicable to such things as to impersonating other editors with puppets, vandalism, or lying. But there is no "evidence to the contrary" because I did not do any of these things! I'm not going to entertain this. Just look as the evidence that we do have. I have mistakenly deleted other edits and things like that, but only because I'm new to Misplaced Pages, and it was not done with malicious intent.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 23:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Seems to be generic with every case that arises here, but nonetheless, reading through /Evidence, it certainly looks needed. Daniel.Bryant 00:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: