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

Puppetry further investigation

1) Compare with 68.5.116.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), KyndFellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (if different) and Def Trojan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (if different):

Automanation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - reinserts his "Female Domination" site in a fashion similar to Mr. Knodel, also deletes useful links, and offers similar WikiLawyering defenses.
RollingLucky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - early sock on Sly Traveler site, posts only in Sex tourism and Talk:Sex tourism
MrJohn_1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1]
84.72.162.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recent new contributer [2]
88.72.39.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [3]
88.72.40.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [4] [5]
212.74.185.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Automanation reinserts his "Female Domination" site in a fashion similar to Mr. Knodel. — edgarde 03:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

interim state editor revision for duration of the arbitration

1) Fred-Chess has offered to find an experienced Wikipedia editor to write an "interim version", acting as a trusted and neutral third party. Both parties will accept whatever interim state editor writes for the duration of this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I support this action by Fred-Chess, and agree to abide by the interim version for the duration of this arbitration. — edgarde 17:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately I would agree to this, once the third-party editor shows that he is familiar with the content that Edgarde and I individually feel is important. However, advocated Fred Chess seems to have misunderstood that the Arbitration Specifications were written together by both parties in the dispute, although I was the one to introduce this section. Fred Chess says, "I do not think an article should be in the state of the Arbitration Specifications that were written by one of the parts." This leads me to believe that the third-party editor may dismiss the content in my portion of the Arbitrations Specifications, which I have outlined as most important to me. So, the potential third-party editor would need to please respond to this and confirm that my content mentioned in the Arbitrations Specification would be respected, before I can agree. As an alternative, Devalovers revision seems neutral and informative.[6]. -- Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 05:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me then add:

My only request will be that the interim version conform to Wikipedia standards. As Fred-Chess will choose a qualified writer, I agree not to second-guess the interim state editor's work.
Fred-Chess is better-qualified to pick this writer than either me or Mr. Knodel (who, obviously, won't agree on anyone). I agree not to second-guess Fred-Chess's selection.
The "Arbitration Specifications" are not (and never have been) binding over the content of the article. I have struck out ^diff my portion of this Talk page red herring. No one is under obligation to follow arbitrary rules made on the Talk page by Mr. Knodel. — edgarde 06:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Arbitration Specifications are not binding. My portion of them tells what I feel is important in the dispute resolution, and Edgarde's portion of this section was intended to allow him to state what he feels is important. I thought this would be helpful information for the reviewers. I meant for the information in this section to be considered out of respect, not out of obligation. Edgarde has chosen to withdrawal his participation in this section, but it still contains what I see as the most important content of the article regarding the dispute.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 03:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Clarification needed on Wikipedia is not a soapbox

1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox needs re-writing so it is not construed as giving permission to self-promoters.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Mr. Knodel has twice [7] [8] cited Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which states "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic...", in defense of linking his website.

Might this statement be re-worded so it is not construed as giving permission to self-promoters? Is it currently ambiguous in a way that may give self-promoters the mistaken impression they can use Wikipedia to link their sites? Does WP:NOT#SOAP as written conflict with WP:COI? — edgarde 23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not promoting myself or suggesting that a commercial site be used. Please see the Discussion about Sly Traveler section of the Sex Tourism talkpage. The above statement constitutes further misrepresentation.

I think the current policy is well written. It would be unpractical to make changes to it. You would have to say something like, "Editors can not be involved at all with sites that they feel are important to a topic." There would be so many violations of such a new policy that it would be useless, and impossible to enforce. The fact is many editors are highly familiar, if not involved, with sites that they suggest, because they are experts on the topic that they write about.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 04:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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[9] because of this arbitration, which I would remind ArbCom was introduced defensively [10] by Mr. Knodel. — edgarde 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block links to The Sly Traveler

1) 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 [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] and used sockpuppets in the past (and can recruit meatpuppets from his website's forum, not to mention his family[16]), 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)[reply]

This statement should be read with skepticism. I have never used a puppet to impersonate other editors, and evidence confirms this. [17],[18],[19],[20] 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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

1) 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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Block IP users and new accounts from editing Sex tourism

1) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In recent weeks, an unusually high number new editors have contributed to Sex tourism. Most are anonymous IP users, most are new, and most seem to favor Mr. Knodel's POV.

84.72.162.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [21]
MrJohn_1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [22]
88.72.39.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [23]
88.72.40.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [24] [25]
212.74.185.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [26]
206.72.65.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [27] (not new, but very IP)

— edgarde 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway for someone to not agree with Edgarde's viewpoint without having presumably committed some sort of malicious behavior? I hope the reviews will notice that every time someone says something that Edgarde disagrees with, they are met with rude treatment and accused of making a policy violation. It is impossible to have an unbiased article of this continues.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 04:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Revert Sex tourism to a neutral revision

1) 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 Wikipedia for as long as possible [28] [29] [30] [31]. — edgarde 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. — edgarde 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this current revision by Devalover. [40] 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)[reply]

Comment by others:

-- Comment by Mr. Knodel's advocate --

This comment applies not only to this section but also to the three previous sections.

If I correctly understand the reason why this arbitration was opened, it was to determine the boundaries of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and whether Mr. Knodel can add an external link to Sly Traveler, a site he is affiliated with, albeit -- by his own account -- not financially affiliated with. As such, I do not consider it a good remedy to impose injunctions in a higher instance that would ban Mr. Knodel or prevent his editing on the article. If the blame for the conflict could so simply be pinpointed to Mr. Knodel, this arbitration would never have been necessary. / Fred-Chess 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. [41],[42],[43]), and Edgarde has apologized for making these disrespectful charges (i.e. [44],[45]). 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. [46] 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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

I might add that Devalover's recent edits[47] [48] [49] were substantially reverted by Mr. Knodel[50] [51] [52] [53], and in response to this, Devalover has chosen to defer[54] [55] [56] [57] to Mr. Knodel's requests, resulting in this introduction. I think this adds some context to Mr. Knodel's claims [58] [59] 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)[reply]

I'm on good terms with Develover, and we have worked out a revision that we both agree to. The above avidence provided by Edgarde supports that the article was never frozen by me, and that I have followed a usual editing process with arbitration began

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 04:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [60][61][62][63][64].

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)[reply]

Edgarde, 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)[reply]

-- Comment to Mr. Knodel's advocate re: interim state editor--

Fred-Chess: whomever you choose for third-party "interim state" editor, I'm okay with. Consider this action agreed to (at least by me). I will abide by that version for the duration of this arbitration. Please announce who this person is so their edits will be preserved. — edgarde 17:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

-- Comment by Mr. Knodel's advocate --

I do not think an article should be in the state of the Arbitration Specifications that were written by one of the parts. The best interim state for the article should, in my opinion, be composed by a trusted and neutral third part, one who is experienced with Wikipedia. I'm not certain that Devalover is the right person at the moment, as he is too involved. I'll try to engage someone to write a interim version. However, it will only work if both parties agrees to that version. / Fred-Chess 18:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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) Wikipedia 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[65] [66] [67] [68] [69] (warnings: [70] [71] [72] [73]).

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

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 Wikipedia, and it was not done with malicious intent.

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

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 ^{[ T · C ]} 00:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

1) It is inappropriate to promote commercial interests in the editing of Wikipedia articles, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorsed. — edgarde 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Conflict of interest

1.1) Sustained aggressive editing promoting a commercial interest may be considered adequate proof of conflict of interest. It is not necessary to show an external financial nexus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorsed. — edgarde 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ban for disruption

2) Users who disrupt an article or set of articles by aggressive biased editing may be banned from editing those sites. In extreme cases from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorsed. — edgarde 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sock and meat puppets

3) The penalties imposed on a user with a distinctive pattern of disruptive editing may be imposed and enforced against users whose activity mirrors that of the disruptive user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorsed. — edgarde 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would consider changing "penalties" to "restrictions" - the purpose isn't to punish anyone, but to safeguard our content and standards. Newyorkbrad 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:

KyndFellow

1) KyndFellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who uses the signature "Daniel E. Knodel, M.A.", is involved with a commercial website, Slyguide.com. It is, within the limits inherent to its subject, informative and tasteful, focusing on travel destinations which offer legal prostitution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse. No contest as currently stated. I would propose that KyndFellow is the principal operator of the website in question. — edgarde 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Proposed Decision page, one of the Arbitrators has included a partial Abstention in the section for a Support vote. While I won't change that myself, I think someone should. Either:

Change the proposed finding so that SimonP can vote for it without conditions, or
Move at least part of his vote to the Abstain section. — edgarde 05:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need. If the finding passes by more than a majority, his comment is irrelevant, if it closes with an exact majority, the clerks will only copy the first sentence to the final decision section. Thatcher131 13:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for explaining. — edgarde 15:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. -- Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 04:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Aggressive biased editing by KyndFellow

2) KyndFellow has edited articles which related to sex tourism in a disruptive, aggressive biased manner, particularly emphasizing maintenance of links to a set of commercial websites: slyguide.com, worldsexarchives.com, and perceptivetravel.com, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sex_tourism#Statement_by_edgarde

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorsed per my statement (as linked above). — edgarde 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed: Edgarde was the one who introduced the link to worldsexarchives.com, and he was the one to defend it in the discussion.

Perceptivetravel.com was introduced by an editor before I first saw this article, and I wanted to respect her edit. I was the one who removed this link from the article by the way, after considering Edgarde's feedback on it.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 04:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but it is your own website which is the issue. Fred Bauder 04:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:

KyndFellow banned

1) KyndFellow is indefinitely banned from editing sex tourism and related articles as well as their talk pages. It is presumed that articles regarding any whorehouse, accommodation, or sex tourism destination mentioned on his websites are related articles, but the ban extends to all articles which relate to prostitution or sex tourism destinations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse. I would support extending this ban to Cultural relativism, Moral relativism and related topics in Sociology, since part of Mr. Knodel's rationale involves WP:OR in these concepts, but he is not editing those pages at this time, so I understand that others may consider such a broad ban excessive. — edgarde 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. I think I have reported on sex tourism with accuracy and consideration for other editors. -- Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(On behalf of Mr. Knodel) I find it improper to ban Mr. Knodel in this manner, since it has not yet been established whether Mr. Knodel's actions are out of order. As far as I know, there is no RfC or thread on the Administrators' noticeboard that codemn Mr. Knodel's behaviour. The only person opposed to Mr. Knodel's editing has been Edgarde. I would say it is too rash to ban a user on such weak grounds. / Fred-Chess 18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy is amply supported by the proposed principles and finding of fact. Fred Bauder 18:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there has been a thread on the Administrators' noticeboard ^diff. They resisted taking action because of this then-pending arbitration. (Which I would add, was introduced defensively [77] by Mr. Knodel in reaction to a Sockpuppetry investigation.)

There was also an RfC where a few comments had some bearing on biased edits by Mr. Knodel. [78] [79]. My next action would have been a User Conduct RfC, but then this arbitration came up.

Also, there is currently in-progress an arbitration, which may establish Mr. Knodel's behavior as out of order [80]. — edgarde 19:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fred Bauder that facts, as they were, might support a ban. For that reason, I have since started two sections, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sex_tourism/Evidence#No_consensus_on_how_the_article_is_to_be_formulated and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sex_tourism/Evidence#Mr. Knodel has acted courteous in resolving the dispute, with the intention to prove that Mr. Knodel is not so impossible to work with that a ban is necessary. / Fred-Chess 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Fred-Chess is one brave Advocate. My replies are here:

— edgarde 08:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose that Mr. Knodel has, in addition to inappropriate edits he is accused of , has made useful contributions to the article Sex tourism and that he needn't be banned from editing its talk page. / Fred-Chess 12:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose that Mr. Knodel is as disruptive on the Talk page as anywhere else. I could link a lot of incidents — try this thread, for instance, or his repeated demands to "respect" a puppet-supplemented "majority of editors" — but my statement and my evidence cover this pretty generously. In addition, Mr. Knodel has hotlinked commercial sex sites from Talk:Sex tourism, and may continue to do so.

I would also propose Mr. Knodel's useful contributions are limited to setting a negative example that drove other editors to improve the article, plus whatever precedent this arbitration sets. / edgarde 13:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that Mr. Knodel's edits on the talk page are disruptive, but I would say that he has a valuable knowledge on the subject even if he has a strong point of view. I have limited time in adding evidence, so I'll start by just asking you if you deny that Mr. Knodel has added valuable contents to the article in question (regardless whether his forumulations remain word by word or have been copyedited), and that he is a knowledgeable (perhaps the most knowledgeable active editor) concerning sex tourism? / Fred-Chess 14:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, Mr. Knodel contributed a booklist that one can get searching "Sex tourism" on Amazon.com (if one discards titles that conflict with Mr. Knodel's POV) — none of those books were used to write the article. The rest of his contributions have been a combination of original research and PR.

In general, Mr. Knodel's "strong point of view" (I would just call it bias) would lead some reasonable observers to call his "knowledge" (original research) into question.

Mr. Knodel did provide us (me anyway) a living (Talk page dwelling) example of how some sex tourists rationalize their Moral relativism as "Cultural relativity"; I sure learned from that, and if I find a credible source I may develop it in the article.

Again, as a negative example, Mr. Knodel is an unusually rich source of teachable moments.

Mr. Knodel has been encouraged[81] to publish his original research on Academic Publishing Wiki, which, considering his purported academic credentials, might be a good match for him. This option will still be available if he is banned from editing Sex tourism on Wikipedia. / edgarde 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

KyndFellow placed on probation

2) KyndFellow, editing under any username or anonymous ip, is indefinitely placed on probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sex_tourism#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorsed. — edgarde 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. — Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 05:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sites promoted by KyndFellow

3) No decision is made regarding the appropriateness of mention or links to the sites promoted by KyndFellow; that question being left to editorial discretion exercised in the normal course of editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: