Misplaced Pages

RfA Statement by edgarde

*Content review: Paragraphs, phrases, sentences, links, and implications have been micro-reviewed on this Discussion page (starting here, a long read) to no avail. Furthermore, after such a review concluded, any addition to the article would likely reboot the edit war.

That said, I'm willing to reply to any of the points listed in Mr. Knodel's arbitration spec if an Arbitrator thinks they merit discussion.

• Mediation: It's illogical to accept mediation when I know in advance that Mr. Knodel will not abide by any agreement that requires him to not enter his spam link. Having his site linked from the Article drives him to make further POV edits.

What I want as soon as possible

Mr. Knodel revised Sex tourism to a somewhat slanted hybrid article, purportedly to "include all available information under review until the dispute is resolved by the arbitration committee". This was probably done with the intention of freezing the Article to benefit his website for the duration of the Arbitration process.

Since this Arbitration is framed as a dispute between me and Mr. Knodel, a reversion to any edit by another editor other than User:edgarde or User:KyndFellow would be acceptable during this process. This will spare me the trouble of a dispute with Mr. Knodel over the content of the hybrid page.

Preferably, it should be a page not linking to a commercial sex-related site, at least in the External links section. —edgarde 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

For the committee's review needs, here:

* a page with Mr. Knodel's current edits (prior to the arbitration request)

* the previous page with other editors' work, reverted by Mr. Knodel.

My goal here is not to preserve my own work, but to see this article is kept encyclopedic, NPOV, and all that good stuff.

What I want from this arbitration

Limits on Daniel E. Knodel, M.A.. His edits are self-serving, unencyclopedic, and disruptive, and he seems willing to go to any length to push his POV.

1. Mr. Knodel should be required to not add his website to Misplaced Pages.
2. Mr. Knodel should be required to not edit pages on subjects of sexuality or sex industry. He has not demonstrated the ability to do so without attempting to draw traffic to his website, or the ability to refrain from injecting POV edits.
3. Mr. Knodel should be Discouraged (but not outright banned) from editing Discussion pages from sexuality or sex industry topics.
4. Because Mr. Knodel has used sockpuppets in the past (and could recruit meatpuppets from his website's forum), any entry of The Sly Traveler should be removed. If merited, equivalent but more notable websites can certainly be substituted. (An obvious exception should be in the case that either Mr. Knodel or The Sly Traveler themselves become the subject of a Misplaced Pages article.)

Please be advised

I left the following out of my Statement, strictly to keep things concise.

• Prior to 2006-11-29T20:59:48, User:KyndFellow and User:68.5.116.235 always used the unlinked text signature "Daniel E. Knodel, M.A.". Mr. Knodel (logged in as KyndFellow) has acknowleged that both these accounts are his. This may be confusing when you review the article history from more than a couple weeks ago.

• Mr. Knodel deletes other editors' Discussion page comments cagily, including warning templates — check contemporary Discussion page histories to be certain. He has been repeatedly advised on this, and always claims inexperience as a defense.

— edgarde 08:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC), Struck 17:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC) , see above

Comments

I suggest that the article include all available information under review until the dispute is resolved by the arbitration committee, and that this discussion be discontinued from the point forward until then.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 04:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm don't know that making a hybrid article serves a purpose — I don't expect the arbtitration committee will be doing a line-by-line review. Anyway, you left out a few things, some which were discussed on this page. I also think you've slanted some items, and favored your edits overall.

I'd point out the ones that I noticed quickly, but it's probably not worth the effort at this point. Anyway, I won't be interested in making a compromise page. — edgarde 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to briefly defend myself in response to Edgarde's most recent accusations. Although Addhoc is an advocate for Misplaced Pages, he is not involved in this case as an advocate, and has no authority here beyond that of other editors. Therefore, I have not broken any code of conduction concerning his input. He wants Sly Traveler removed, but I don't agree with him on that. In particular, as an editor, I have a right to contribute a link that I’m interested in, which pertains to the topic, and have not made any edits to the page content as a conflict of interests. As an advocate I think he has a responsibility not to take sides in disputes as a bystander.

Edgarde persists on turning our disagreements into a personal attack against me. Throughout this discussion he has disrespectfully called me a "fool" and said my ideas are "nonsense". He accuses me of being paid off and impersonating other editors. He tries to exploit my inexperience with editing Wikipeadia and make it look like I'm performing malicious acts. These are examples of how Edgarde has been extremely disrespectful to me and the other editors who do not support his point of view throughout this discussion.

I understand that Edgarde must be frustrated by having new editors change his previous contributions on this page. But, if any editor deserves to be suspended for misbehavior, it is him. Still, this is not what I’m asking for. I just want other editors and I treated with respect on this page, and be able to make new contributions without conflict. In particular, I requested arbitration in order to end the attacks and work together toward agreeable page content

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 23:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt I'm not an advocate for Misplaced Pages, I'm a member of AMA in the same manner as your advocate, which doesn't give any extra authority. Also, strictly speaking we have editing privileges not rights. Concerning your supporters, I would comment they are single purpose accounts and their views could, in this context, be discounted. Addhoc 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As an advocate of Mr. Knodel, I think I should mention -- as a defendand of his case -- that the page on Single Purpose Accounts is not regarded as a policy or even guideline on Misplaced Pages, and that it therefore by itself shouldn't be used to justify any actions.

Not withstanding, single purpose accounts naturally have much less credibility than established accounts.

Fred-Chess 17:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-did Intro

I tried to re-structure the intro with eveyrone's interests in mind. Hope it helps. Devalover 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for the article to remain static while people slug things out. It is easy to refference versions via the edit history.

Arbitration can take weeks and months. If you 2 want to stay out of it during that time, please do. My edits, I believe, move in a direction that is pleasing to all parties... which is the purpose of arbitration! Devalover 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delover, I see your point. But don’t you think that the second paragraph is a little too vague:

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.

I have no objection to including this if it is better explained, perhaps in a new section. Direct quotes on health, social, and cultural problems particular by the U.N, in this case, would be much stronger than a sweeping authoritative opinion. I hope you can understand, I still disagree with this as it is. If you want to try to work this out with me during arbitration, I'm willing to do so. But if we can’t come to an agreement, I'll ask to revert the page to full content until the dispute is resolved.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would love to tighten that up with more direct quotes or refferences.... and one step at a time! :) Devalover 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Devalover: I didn't even want to look at this article again, but I must say that's nice work on the intro section. Much appreciated.

If anyone goes into direct quotes and detail on that U.N. stuff, I think it should go below the TOC. Might need a new section, depending on what's being added.

I guess my remaining issue is the External links section, but it's a can of worms I don't want to open during the arbitration. — edgarde 04:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Devalover, I think you were right originally to not get involved. Your most recent edits to the sex tourism page ignore just about all problems I cited in the Arbitration Specifications section. This really disappoints me. Please just accept full content until we can get some help.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh. Looks like I shouldn't have commented. — edgarde 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this version? It takes out the time constraints and outcome assumptions, but still includes the WHO.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No one cares about "including the WHO". The point of that paragraph is to list common concerns about the bad effects of sex tourism — the U.N. is used as a concise citation because you had issues with "some advocacy groups". Please restore the paragraph.

You have deleted and weakened this paragraph frequently in the past, and it has been discussed repeatedly and at some length on this Talk page and in the current arbitration. — edgarde 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Kyndfellows's total removal of the cited material- however after sitting with it for awhile I realized that I see some wisdom in it. So, usually in Misplaced Pages, when their are controveries associated with a topic, in order to maintain NPOV, usually the controverises are not given more then a sentence or two in the intro and then they are dealt with below. I have tried to take into account what both of you are after- and come up with a solution that could work? As I sit with it, it really isn't NPOV to have so much poo-poo on sex tourism right in the first paragraph, however to not include all the poo-poo would be, well OR, there are probably very few reliable sources that have much POSITIVE to say about sex tourism! Devalover 02:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Delover, I see your point. But don’t you think that the second paragraph is a little too vague:

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."

Well, read source #1. The UN is pretty opposed to sex tourism! " 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; The General Assembly Rejects all such activity as exploitative and subversive to the fundamental objectives of tourism in promoting peace, human rights, mutual understanding, respect for all peoples and cultures, and sustainable development" I think that sentence in the article sums it up, the UN considers sex tourism as whole to be "exploitive and subversive to tourism!" Devalover 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Devalover, this revision is acceptable to me. It lacks substance, but it is neutral, and you made a good point about keeping brief on controversial content. I just want to mention that your use of entities such as "health", "culture", and "social" are much too ambiguous and general to apply absolute distractions to. HIV is lower in a government-regulated program of prostitution than in countries that don't have one. Crimes such as rapes and child molestations are also lower in these countries. Culturally, people have the freedom to follow their way of life and they have respect for their native customs. Socially, people are traveling to other countries to see other people. But still, you can find examples that support the same statements from a different view point. In short, I like your solution. :-)
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 07:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution does not equal sex tourism

An IP user added a number of destinations with another Wiki Rap dictionary as documentation. I'm not certain all these changes are 100% wrong, but it's obviously overinclusive — London, for instance, is not a Sex tourism destination, unless practically every city in the world is. When questioned about this, these links were offered as documentation. These pages may demonstrate the existence of prostitution in parts of England (which no one was disputing), but it's not relevant here.

Presence of prostitutes or red light districts is not the same thing as Sex tourism.

2nd revert. Please don't restore these edits.

P.S. That user also took the liberty of restoring the External links section in a fashion similar to Mr. Knodel. Perhaps he'll be claiming inexperience as a defense. — edgarde 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, I disagree with his RAP page definition of "red light district", as most such districts do not have "window prostitution", and the districts of Amsterdam and Mumbai are the only examples of this that come to mind. Second, prostitution is illegal in London, and England is not a sex tourism destination because this type of activity is not culturally expectable there.

Edgarde raises an interesting question of whether all red light districts can be considered evidence of a presents of sex tourism in these locations. Red light districts have traditionally catered to sailors, and in recent times, these districts are still found in heavily traveled areas. It is not common for native people to participate in prostitution at red light districts, because there are usually more exclusive forms of prostitution to be found in those countries. I agree that prostitution is not always sex tourism, as there are occasions when local people who are not tourists participate in prostitution. But red light districts are usually for foreign travelers rather than local people.

Also, I thought we were going to not have the Protection Project link? Did you want to include that now Edgarde? It's not a sex tourism link... If you must include it, please move it to the Child Sex Tourism links, because the essays that you showed us in Arbitration were clearly about Child Sex Tourism. I want to respect your edits, so I'm asking for you to make this change please.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple sources — I'd dig up some links but I'm in a hurry today and I think we're mostly in agreement for once — distiguish "travel to engage in sex" and "sex while engaged in travel". In other words, if someone sets up a brothel in a city that has lots of foreign visitors, and this grows into a Red light district, it's not ipso facto sex tourism even tho people from out of town are performing certain deeds there.

The obviously fuzzy line is crossed when sex tourists (i.e. travelers with sex as a primary goal) start coming (generally without other business or intents) because the place is worth the trip for just those activities. Until then (and the reasoning risks becoming circular here) it's not a sex tourism destination.

London? Maybe it has more desireable prostitution opportunities than the next town over. But even if a businessman chooses a meeting location based on where he can more easily hire a prostitute afterward, the decision does not by itself demonstrate sex tourism.

Sailors are a similar example — few navies choose ports on the basis of hooker supply.

In other news...

John Hopkins Protection Project link proffer

I've mentioned Protection Project a few times already, most notably on this page and in the current arbitration. You seem to already be aware of my opinions on this by now, so I won't repeat myself here. We've never agreed to not link Protection Project, nor that it is specifically a "child sex tourism" link (which it is not), nor that a separate "Child sex tourism" External links section has any merit (it does not).

My current minimum of activity in this article is not a sign of agreement with your edits or settlement with you — I'm basicly deferring to diminish the revert war. At this point I am just letting other editors change your edits because you revert mine reflexively. — edgarde 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is good to agree on some things regarding the content. I think it's more beneficial for the article when we can discuss the content in this way. That is true that you want the link to the Protection Project and that I think it is generally irrelevant, as we had discussed before. Also, I think it is unfortunate that you continue your hostile attitude at the end of your statement. Other editors are just as likely to change your contributions over time, and if you treat me with disrespect I'll be likely to support them. But if we can agree on content such as with the relationship between red light districts to sex tourism, we will be able to maintain the article with greater stability over time. Also it is good to see you demonstrate some knowledge on the subject in this previous statement, instead of posting for argumentation sake alone.

You didn't discuss the changes you made to the external links section, which do not follow either of our Arbitration Specifications. I wouldn't object to putting the Protection Project up, at least temporally, since you showed the essays related to sex tourism, although the site generally concerns criminal activity such as human trafficking, child molestation, and child pornography. Also, I wouldn't object to using your new format with the titled links followed by descriptions. Would you want restore the link sections of sex tourism and child sex tourism into a single group? The Projection Project poses an example of a site that deals with both of these categories and can just as well be placed in either. This causes a conflict with our current dichotomic system of classification. If you want to use just one section for all external links we can, at least until the conclusion of Arbitration. I've currently placed all external links into one group. What are your thoughts on this?

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

External links desegregation proffer

My opinion on your "dichotomic system of classification" of External links has already been stated explicitly, notably on this Talk page and in the current arbitration, so it's surprising to hear this is unknown to you. Still, I appreciate your changing position on this, even temporarily. — edgarde 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Arbitration Specifications" red herring

Also, it sounds like you've still not noticed that no one considers your "Arbitration Specifications" binding over the content of this article, per statements in the current arbitration and on this Talk page. I've not seen this procedure (which you introduced here) described as official policy anywhere on Misplaced Pages, so your insistence that we abide by it seems arbitrary and unreasonable. To avoid further confusion on this, I have struck out my portion of that statement on this page. — edgarde 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page discussion requirement

While I support discussion of changes on this Talk page, one of the problems I have with your requirement that all changes be "discussed" on this talk page (which you say above is "beneficial", and in other places simply demand) is that you don't read, don't remember, or perhaps simply at your convenience ignore much of it (as documented above in the John Hopkins and links proffers). Which, since you've been editing and reverting so aggressively, means my writing on this Talk Page often is simply typing into a void. — edgarde 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Locations

Thailand. While Phuket is a more popular and well known general tourist location in Thailand that includes sex tourism. Pattaya is clearly a location that is dedicated almost exclusively to sex tourism. I dont know Phuket that well but well enough it is bigger but probably has alot more non-sex tourists so if I were going to identify a place in Thailand if not the world I would mention Pattaya instead and I am tempted to edit. I hazard a good guess that on any day there is much more "sex for money" going on in Pattaya than Phuket. But for someone considering the phrase "sex tourism" as not necessarily pejorative I have to qualify this conclusion.

Note that "bar girls" in Thailand never refer to themselves as prostitutes and this probably goes for most of the general Thai population also. Although I beleive that there are words in Thai for prostitute they mostly (at least the girls) prefer to call themselves "rented wifes" albeit for "short time" rather then "long time". I therefore need to be qualify my Pattaya versus Phuket statistic in order to be accurate as excluding sex between husbands and rented wifes particularly of the "long-term" married western kind that typically eventually end up with a large exchange of capital in the "wifes" direction whether during the marriage or at its end or both. There is no such thing as a free lunch and "everybody pays for it".

Mattjs 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mattjs, this is just excellent. Everything you have said here is true as far as I know. Polygamy and concubines are acceptable customs in many Eastern countries. The term prostitution is not often present or translatable, as it actually means to defile or degrade. This does not have respect for the values and customs of these countries. Sexual relationships are more often based on trade such as arranged marriages or payment between families. For example, in India it is traditionally customary for a man to pay the woman’s father before asking for her hand in marriage. Compensation for a sexual relationship is not looked down upon.

As far as the locations you mentioned in Thailand, you are probably more familiar with this than me, since it seems you live much closer to them. But the areas that are most popular in Bangkok are the district of Patpong and the areas along Sukhumvit Road. The locations you mentioned maybe connected to these, or translated in another language. I would appreciate if you could explain this a little further. I have no objections to you editing this page.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point about Bangkok which I entirely forgot, although I dont really know Sukhumvit, I do know Patpong and it is very small compared to Pattaya even if we allowed for a very very much larger Sukhimvit I feel. Guess I will have to find some prostitution oops "rented wife" ststistics to back up my claims eventually I am sure that they exist in the form of local council licences if not for "beer bars" then certainly for "gogo bars" which are highly regulated in Thailand and typically much more so than "brothels" in most countries in the west. However the local thai council records may not be able to distinguish between houses for "farang" (western sex tourists) and for the locals in their statistics so "sex tourism" may be a notorious difficult field to quantify I feel which may also add to the vagueness and impracticality of this term I feel. I note also that Thai (men) are also by far the largest consumers of their own produce again without citation but which goes to some of the cultural issues I have already mentioned. Mattjs 07:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(Mattjs: I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of fixing your paragraph breaks where I could find them. Long, unformatted text dumps are hard to read!)

You seem to know what you're writing about, but Misplaced Pages could use some citations. Can you link an article or something?

Also, a lot of your insights here run off-topic, and this really isn't the place to rail against exploitation of factory laborers. (Yes, I understand you're comparing it to sex work, but it's off-topic argumentation that doesn't help the article, and might fit better under Prostitution, local nomenclature notwithstanding.)

By the way, I'm not seeing the religious implications in the Sex tourism concept. If you're arguing about cultural attitudes toward sex work, again that belongs under Prostitution. With sufficient references, you might contribute to an article on Sex work in asian countries, or maybe something broader about sexual mores in those cultures. Be sure to check for POV ("I hate value laden western labels...") in your work! — edgarde 23:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Matts yeah you have lotsa information and to add it into the article it does need citations.Devalover 03:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mattjs, Bangkok is definitely a highly relevant sex tourism destination, even more so than Amsterdam. The forms of sex tourism you describe in Asia are much more prevalent than in Europe. You are welcome to contribute on the discussion or this Sex Tourism article.

Your references to Western and Eastern religious difference are also well grounded. I don't see a necessity to elaborate on this with citations or otherwise, since I believe you wanted report on the locations of sex tourism.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 04:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Need for citations

... it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources.

— Jimbo Wales

Verifiability is one of the "pillars" of Misplaced Pages. (For the rest, read here: Misplaced Pages:Simplified Ruleset). If there is any doubt about this, please review Misplaced Pages:No original research#Citing oneself.

For tips on how to cite sources, read Misplaced Pages:Citing sources

Somewhere on Misplaced Pages, probably in a few arbitration decisions, there's a saying like "it is better to be verifiable than to be correct". Wish I could find it cos I'm not sure I have that verbatim, but that is the message.

No matter how well you know the subject, someone who objects to their country being listed can demand it be removed. We absolutely need citations; we're lucky to have lasted this far, since this article doesn't document every country listed, and a few others are only weakly documented.

And we've had editors append countries without reason, or with obviously poor reasons.

Like I said, it certainly appears you know what you're writing about. But we need citations. — edgarde 04:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mattjs, if you want to write about the locations, just please tell us a little more about them, so we can be in agreement of our edits on the main article. It’s not necessary to find citations for this type of information, although it would help if you can find it. There are plenty examples of this in Misplaced Pages. Praise be to Jimbo Wales.

I'm going to add a non-fiction book section for related publications on sex tourims, since it seems to be important to some editors to have these type of external sources.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 05:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, Edgarde. I noticed you put the books into prefect APA format. It looks much better. Thank you for taking the time do that.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 09:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm I request that Mattjs NOT write about locations and tell us a little more about them HERE. Please do that on a blog or your user discussion page. This page is for discussing the article, and unpublished first hand accounts don't have anything to do with this article.

Anyway- if you start up with your storoes, I'll have to start up with mine... and we'll have a WSA here at wikipedia!

It is VERY neccesary for citations, any uncited fact can be removed from wikipedia by anyone. And given that this article has been/was/is in the process of arbitration, citations are needed here more then ever.Devalover 17:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Publications on sex tourism locations

For anyone interested in learning more about sex tourism destinations mentioned in nonfiction publications, here are some books on the subject. These books can be found through popular sellers such as Amazon.com. Although these books are very informative and entertaining reads, they are not conclusive, because sex tourism is an ever-changing topic, which is the reason why participate-observation is also important. Nonetheless, these publications do support the observations mentioned above, and they will be helpful to anyone interested in visiting sex tourism locations.

Please add more publications on sex tourism locations if you feel they are important:

• Hello My Big Big Honey, by Dave Walker & Richard S. Ehrlich is a collection of love letters and interviews documenting the interactions between Bangkok bar girls and the foreigners who rent them, with a preface essay written by Dr. Yos Santasombat, professor of sociology and anthropology at Bangkok's Thammasat University.
• Hedonist: World Vacation Guide For Sex Tourism, by Brett Tate is an entertaining travel guide with information on the world's most popular sex tourism destinations.
• Sex Tourism by Chris Ryan & C.Michael Hall is a discussion on the issues which emerge from interactions between sexworker and their clients.
• Sex and Tourism: Journeys of Romance, Love, and Lust by Thomas G., Ph.D. et al. is an extensive review examining the different expressions of sexuality that arise out of tourism.
  

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

BEAUTIFUL! This kind of information could totally turn this into a very amazing article! Please cite stuff from this books. And I have 2 "Patpong Sisters" and "My Name is Lon, you like Me?" which I will get around to including. Devalover 22:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, Devalover. I haven't read those books, but if they're about Patpong, I image they must be revelant to sex tourism.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 07:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing Locations in the article

How should we cite the destinations in the article? There are a few important destinations we have left out. We might also want to include Argentina, Chile, Aruba, Curacao, St. Maarten, The Philippines, Japan, Indonesia, Israel, Turkey, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Spain, Ukraine, and Australia (where various forms of prostitution are legal and traveled to for). These are some other big ones that are included in the books on our list.

I will be away for a while after Christmas, due a medical emergency, but hopefully some of you can follow up on this, through the sources I have left you.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism accusation

Mr. Knodel seems to have learned a new word. Here is his recent Edit summary:

Deleting new link that includes porngraphic advertisments. Restoring Sly Travel. Edgarde commits vandalism twice, ignore abritration, and attempt to continue edit war

Here are my recent edits:

2006-12-20T22:57:36 m (→Female Sex Tourism Destinations - snip excessive quote)

2006-12-20T22:54:52 m (→Destinations - fixed reference (first name not showing in Notes, may be a problem with "authorlink" parameter))

2006-12-20T22:43:10 (rv undo accidental deletion)

2006-12-20T22:39:00 (rm repetitive " - Cairo (Egypt)" + more citations)

2006-12-20T19:37:25 (→Female Sex Tourism Destinations - add Caribbean Voice citation for Jamaica)

2006-12-20T18:51:11 (fleshed out in-line reference from WTO+ citations Brazil, Cuba + comment on Cuba & "major" destinations)

2006-12-20T18:25:19 (fleshed out in-line reference from WTO)

2006-12-20T18:24:59 m (spaced citation templates for easier editing)

2006-12-20T18:12:23 (→Notes - 2 columns, smaller text. This is gonna get long.)

2006-12-20T18:11:00 (→Destinations - Protection Project link for Dominican Republic)

2006-12-20T17:50:57 (→Destinations - fleshed out in-line references from Wired & New West Indian)

So Mr. Knodel: I think the first "vandalism" accusation you made was over removing the link to your website, The Sly Traveler, which several editors around here agree is spam. But what is the 2nd instance of "vandalism"? Can you identify this for me?

Here are your edits during the same period:

2006-12-21T06:16:57 (Deleting new link that includes porngraphic advertisments. Restoring Sly Travel. Edgarde commits vandalism twice, ignore abritration, and attempt to continue edit war)

So, you've been protecting your website, and coming out against sites which contain pornography. Certainly an unexpected development. You also added a list of books with locations for prostitution, which I formatted per MoS.

Me I've been providing citations, which is time-consuming work — especially since you often delete well-referenced text in this article — but is required by Misplaced Pages.

And accuse me of attempting "to continue edit war". Can you explain that a little?

Also, I think I have contributed substantially to the arbitration (that I would remind you, you initiated). How can you say I have ignored it? — edgarde 08:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Edgarde, I don't want talk to you again about policy violations. And I will not address you again unless it is purely about the content of this article. If I keep replying to this kind of thing, it is just a waste of time for everyone, and your subsequent rebuttal would be just as useless, and so on.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of policy. It was a personal attack. Vandalism is not an accusation one should make casually. If you believe I am vandalising this page, there are forums for your complaint. Unsubstantiated accusations in Edit summaries are not the place for this. C.f. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded. — edgarde 06:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

External links sections deleted

Good riddance I say. Nothing but trouble. Let's not restore them during the current arbitration. — edgarde 02:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion removing EL improves the article. Perhaps that will give incentive for someone to add the material that is perceived as valuable in those links to the article itself. If it is not worth the trouble, then the link probably served no purpose anyway. Atom 03:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Any opinion on the books? To the best of my knowledge, they were not used in the preparation of the article. However, some of the editors seem to want them reviewed or used for citations or something. Harder to verify, and I don't know how notable these tomes are.

And really anyone can just enter "Sex tourism" on Amazon.com for a comparable list. That's where I found all the ISDN #'s. — edgarde 05:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is at least more neutral. As the Taoist would say, "It does nothing, but there is nothing left undone.”

If arbitration cannot achieve a neutral solution to the links, I support having no links at all.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ U.N. World Tourism Organization Statement on the Prevention of Organized Sex Tourism''
2. U.N. Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women (OSAGI) Gender Mainstreaming Mandates
3. U.N. Congress On The Prevention Of Crime And The Treatment Of Offenders Press Release New Global Treaty to Combat Sex Slavery of Women and Girls