Case Opened on 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

KyndFellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Mr. Knodel
68.5.116.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
edgarde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment[edit]

RfC requested on 2006-10-31T17:55:52

Statement by Mr. Knodel[edit]

I would like to request arbitration as a last resort in resolving a dispute that has perpetuated for over a month with almost daily reverts and editing conflicts. The dispute has been stressful and unproductive to all editors involved. There is simply no other way to resolve this without third-party intervention. I've outlined my request for specific content to be reviewed on the Arbitration Specifications section of the Sex Tourism Talk Page.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I filed arbitrate to stop accusations such as these. My request is serious in all points that are addressed, and I expect page content to be treated with respect as well as the links. All agruements I have presented throughout the discussion are completely valid. I was not paid off. I am not promoting myself. Sly Traveler is not my website. I did not use puppets to impersonate other editors. I have been insulted and treated rudely throughout the discussion. What do I need to do to be treated with respect, and not have other editors attacked when they don't agree with your point of view!

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me address the Def_Trojan puppet charge. He is my brother, Patrick Knodel, who lives on the other side of town in California, and we both use COX Communications as an internet service provider. I did ask him to support me. I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that he was me, but I can only imagine it might have been that we both use the same ISP. I still maintain that I have not acted dishonestly, and that I never impersonated other editors.

As for Delover, I don't know him outside of Wikipedia.

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by edgarde[edit]

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. has been edit-warring (against multiple editors[1] [2] [3] [4]) to introduce and repeatedly reinstate POV edits to Sex tourism, and to reinstate his website, The Sly Traveler, to the External links section.

Mr. Knodel began editing on October 28, linking the Prostitution article to Sex tourism, then adding extensive pro- sex tourism promotional POV edits [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ^cumulative to the Sex tourism article. I reverted these edits.

Since then, about 90kB of text has been added to the Discussion page where Mr. Knodel has WikiLawyered, unilaterally declared arbitrary rules, resolutions and moratoria (always favoring retention of his edits), purported insubstantial changes to be cooperation, acted put-upon and persecuted, canvassed[11][12][13][14] , misrepresented (and deleted[15][16][17][18]) other editors comments, ignored feedback from several editors, and put on a puppet show.

Even this RfA seems like an attempt to freeze the article with his website linked from Wikipedia for as long as possible [19] [20] [21].

Sample POV edits by Mr. Knodel (his earliest, and most recent):

Mr. Knodel long fought to redefine [22] "Sex tourism" (an established concept[23][24]) as including activities such as observing other cultures and visiting sex museums — though unable to cite references[25], and with no support (and majority opposition) from an RfC ^request.
Mr. Knodel frequently reverts[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] a well-annotated Sex tourism article paragraph (the 3rd) listing common concerns about the effects of sex tourism from the United Nations perspective. Reason given in his Arbitration spec: the U.N. statement (and I quote) basically says "all aspects of sex tourism are bad." (Mr. Knodel then asserts that the in-line references for that paragraph nowhere state what is in fact stated near verbatim in the first reference).

Many other examples can be provided. And always, he links his website. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]

Linking The Sly Traveller appears to be Mr. Knodel's driving issue. His other edits are probably intended to defend and promote traffic to his website. — edgarde 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup per the Epopt[edit]

Per the Epopt's suggestion, I have filed a report with WP:AN/I. They lean toward waiting for an acceptance/rejection decision from ArbCom, despite my observation that no RfA has received more than 5 votes in recent months.

If this case is accepted, I request the following immediate injunctions be applied:

Bar Mr. Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. (or anyone) from linking the The Sly Traveler to Sex tourism or related articles. As The Sly Traveler's content is neither unique nor notable (several similar but more established sites exist), I would support adding the The Sly Traveler to the spam block list.
Bar Mr. Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. (or his *puppets) from editing Sex tourism.
Block IP users and new accounts from editing Sex tourism for the duration of this arbitration.
Revert Sex tourism to a version not saved by Mr. Knodel, and not containing external links to ".com" sites (which are currently being appended now that the gate is apparently open).

— edgarde 18:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fred-Chess states below^diff that I for some time agreed to allow The Sly Traveller be linked from Sex tourism, but changed my mind. This is incorrect — I have never, ever agreed to this. Please do not mistake my unwillingness to revert-war as even tacit acceptance for any of Mr. Knodel's self-serving, disruptive, POV edits.

I can only presume this belief by Fred-Chess is the result of taking something Mr. Knodel said at face value. — edgarde 23:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mr. Knodel's advocate, user Fred-Chess[edit]

I suggest to await the results of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Devalover before proceeding.

If it turns out Mr. Knodel didn't use sockpuppets, it will be an important setback for edgarde. And vice versa.

Fred-Chess 10:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using Checkuser, Knodel is almost certainly DefTrojan, or used the same semi-static IP at least. Devalover is probably unrelated. Dmcdevit·t 20:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My first action as an advocate was to tell my client that he would probably find it problematic to add the external link to Sly Traveler. [58] A week or so later he told me he was about to have reached some agreement on the page, but that it was disturbed by edgarde's actions. I suggested he file a Request for Comments to get input from other users, and this was done too.

The RfC did not lead to consensus on how the article was supposed to be formulated, as I had hoped. At one time edgarde agreed to let the link to Sly Traveler in the article, but he later changed his mind. I did not see anyone agree with him though.

Essentially the dispute by then appeared to be between only two users. Devalover (talk · contribs) made a few edits, was never deeply involved, IMHO. For a while I therefore thought that mediation would be best. However, I now think it wouldn't lead anywhere, because edgarde is determined not to allow the link to Sly Traveler, while Mr. Knodel is determined of the opposite. I now think that further comments from unrelated others would be the best way to resolve the dispute.

There has been accusations of misbehaving from both parts, but I think both parts have acted comparatively well-mannered, and I don't think either one would persist with his actions if the community expressed support of the other one's version.

Mr. Knodel maintains that Def Trojan (talk · contribs) was his brother, and they shared the same ISP. I don't know yet if we can confirm this. However, it can at least be confirmed that Mr. Knodel has not used any other sockpuppets, which should speak to his advantage.

Fred-Chess 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/1/0/0)[edit]

Accept Fred Bauder 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject — obvious violations of WP:COI should be handled by the Corps of Administrators, perhaps by putting the subject Web site on the spam block list ➥the Epopt 22:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Nothing that obvious about conflict of interest cases, in my view. Charles Matthews 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. WP:COI is in new form and administrators lack direction, IMO. Best we take this one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. (Now active arbitrator on this case) FloNight 02:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles[edit]

Conflict of interest[edit]

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