Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:22, 13 February 2013

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Question for James Cantor

In your evidence about Jokestress, you list " Sustained/repeated counter-consensus additions of homosexuality to List of paraphilias to use page 'to teach Cantor a lesson' in what it's like to be classified as paraphilic (Cantor is openly gay) (2008, 2010, 2012)."

Did Jokestress ever explicitly say her motivations for adding homosexuality to List of paraphilias was to teach you and other non-heterosexual people a "lesson", or is that something you inferred from other things you said? I haven't looked into it too much yet; I just did a basic Control+F through the links, but that's something that jumped out at me. NW (Talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You are correct; it is rather an interpretation on my part. Each of those re-additions followed her dislike of my edits somewhere else. Nonetheless, now that you have brought my attention to it, I will delete that portion and stick to the edit content.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for expansion

Is this where I request additional space? I am at a disadvantage for three reasons:

1. My content complaint involves problematic Sexology issues involving James Cantor, Legitimus, WLU, Flyer22, and Herostratus, who form a voting bloc which maintains their POV. I have to describe activity by all five, but they are merely angling to bring sanctions against me.
2. My user conduct complaint also involves misuse of Misplaced Pages to make very serious false personal attacks against me by numerous editors.
3. The related decades-old off-wiki controversies are ABOUT sexology and academic misconduct, not simply debates WITHIN sexology/academia. It's an extremely complex and esoteric series of interrelated controversies surrounding James Cantor's employer CAMH and the academic publications his allies control. The controversies center on use of sexology as means of social control over reviled minorities. As such, academics have written extensively about the controversies to defend their industry and fields, but affected minorities generally do not have inclination or access to air their views in an academic setting, and the press has little interest in covering the complex problem. In addition, there have been many attempts by involved academics to suppress opposing views in academic settings. It's important background to the on-wiki dispute, but requires room to explain.

I'd like to have an on-wiki place either here or in my user space (preferably here) where I can reasonably expand on all this. Jokestress (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Totally a nosy non-involved opinion: Write up a short summary here with links to the most important items, and link to a full presentation done in your user space. This sort of thing has been used in the past to present long and/or complicated evidence presentations. The flip side, is that working to focus your presentation down to the word limits may help you really get at the basics of your position, which will absolutely help the comittee to make a lasting resolution of the problem. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

While I am not an arbitrator and I don't play one on TV, all parties should note that James Cantor's presentation of evidence is an example that should be followed. Without commenting on the merits of his evidence, providing clear headings with numerous and descriptive diffs provides ArbCom with the most valuable tool: a clear way to examine past behavior in order to ensure future disruption is curtailed. ArbCom is unlikely, however, to have much to say about the content questions here, which I understand are extremely pertinent to most of the parties given your professions. Spending much time trying to bring ArbCom up to speed on the conflict may prove counter-productive; parties should instead try to show meaningful, on-wiki evidence of actual disruption to the community rather than the exterior battles that the committee has no power to control.

Specifically in response to Jokestress: ArbCom has recently given leeway to users who feel they must respond to numerous accusations, but it will still behoove you to be laser-focused on the Misplaced Pages side of this conflict. The background to this dispute matters only inasmuch as it's the reason you're all butting heads, and while I too bemoan the marginalization of minority views in the academy, Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that discussion. You (and the other parties) will do best to stick to Misplaced Pages, especially since there seems to be no shortage of conflict on the 'pedia. My apologies if I've just been a gadfly. Archaeo (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You can request additional space if you wish, but please attempt to fill up the space already provided first so we can get a decent accurate impression of whether such a request ought to be granted or not. NW (Talk) 07:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Objecting to false and misleading statements

In addition to the false statement removed by James Cantor following NulcearWarfare's closer examination, there are several other false and misleading statements about me on the Request and Evidence pages. In fact, I have been "brought to trial" here for defending myself against false and misleading statements by Legitimus, Herostratus, WLU, and Flyer22. Do I object to those misstatements here? I would rather not use up my Evidence space refuting false information. Also, as much as I appreciate comments above by uninvolved people, I am only interested in responses from Arbitration Committee members who can officially answer them.

I'd love to get answers to both questions above from whoever can officially answer them, as they significantly affect the materials I plan to submit. Jokestress (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You should attempt to refute statements made by other editors if you disagree, but remember that diffs often speak louder than words. While you should attempt to be brief, please note that you can request an evidence limit increase should you desire one. NW (Talk) 07:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I would also like a definition of the difference between a "voting block" and WP:CONSENSUS. In my experience, a large number of experienced editors coming to a common agreement would seem to characterize the latter. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I plan to define it as a group of like-minded editors whose consensus on what to include contravenes expert medical and legal consensus. This civil battleground has ended up reifying and operationalizing concepts through over-representing a medicalized minority point of view. It's also led to personal attacks on me up to and including working together to retain actionable libel about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokestress (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

But editors must demonstrate using sources that an opinion is the expert medical and legal consensus and that the result is a reification, operationalization and medicalization. Again, from scholars, not editors. I will also note that James Cantor has also been called a self-promoting single purpose accounts, which is pretty close to a personal attack as well. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom people, do I really have to waste my word count refuting Cantor's demonstrably false accusations that I somehow "suppressed" the autogynephilia article? If so, he and his allies can continue making stuff up about me until I have no room to discuss their demonstrably bad behavior. Jokestress (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a comment about this evidence from Jokestress: While promoting his controversial book on trans women, Bailey exploits images of gender-variant children without their consent in a "comical and vulgar performance" that provoked much laughter. When reading the associated reference, no where does it mention consent, and indeed the phrase was emphasized by Jokestress. I don't know if the arbs are going to read every attached source/diff, but I suspect deviations such as these should be noted when they appear.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to be aware that the cite is Joan Roughgarden. Roughgarden and Andrea James (User:Jokestress) have been coordinating their attacks on Bailey since 2003. I am not aware of any independent accounts similar to Roughgarden's. — James Cantor (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any independent accounts of Bailey's speech similar to Cantor's. Cantor and Bailey have been coordinating their attacks on Roughgarden since 2003. Cantor says the laughter was "affectionate recognition of the truth." Jokestress (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Elementary school children are incapable of giving informed consent. Consent is what all of these controversies are about:

• "Allegations include violations of ethical research conduct such as lack of informed consent and dual relationships."
• "Bailey and several of his research subjects clearly do not agree about whether an appropriate standard of “informed consent” was met when he included their personal histories in his work."

Children cannot consent to use of their likenesses, especially if their likenesses are then used for purposes of derision. I can unbold "without their consent" if that will resolve your concern, but consent is a very important aspect. Jokestress (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Consent, in the context you are using appears to be a legal term. Thank you for clearing that up.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Due to space limitations, I can't explicate in my evidence, so some very esoteric terms of art in this complex controversy have to stand unexplained. I was going to do more wikilinks, but it was looking very messy when I did. If you have other questions, please let me know. Jokestress (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Some questions evidence might address

Some thoughts that have popped out from the initial case request, and from a brief look over evidence thus far. I would love it if the parties added evidence/diffs regarding areas of significant editing by parties outside of the sexology topic, and evidence of constructive or problematic editing in those areas. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to respond, but I think I'm on solid ground to say that I only rarely edit outside of sexology. A good example of constructive/stable edits of mine would be the Hypersexuality page (before vs. after). Regarding Jokestress' edits outside of sexology, she is an extremely productive editor. I have no reason to contest her edits outside of topics about which she has a strong personal or political attachment.

Is that a help?— James Cantor (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh, what a dreadful article. Looking over hypersexuality, it is an excellent example of the systemic bias in the subject area. Just to mention two, there are huge feminist and philosophy of science bodies of literature about "nymphomania" and "hypersexuality" and other psychiatric attempts to regulate sexuality through social control. One of hundreds of examples completely omitted from the article in favor of scientific reification: Nymphomania: A History. Michel Foucault observed that sex science functions as the ars erotica of the Western world, and that categories and archives created by sex scientists, like List of paraphilias where James Cantor edits heavily and hypersexuality, become a source of pleasure for the sex scientists, because the lists stimulate and titillate both them and their readers.

This isn't a question of righting great wrongs, as some editors claimed in their comments. This is about including ALL reliable and verificable POVs, not just the ones that appeal to the typical Misplaced Pages editor. People like Cantor exacerbate the problem by promoting Sexology to the exclusion of observations ABOUT Sexology. The fact that Foucault's The History of Sexuality, one of the most important works ever written on human sexuality, isn't even mentioned at hypersexuality, only hints at the depth of the problem. It's such a huge problem I wouldn't even know where to start, as I get in brought up on charges for simply trying to point out the massive body of legal scholarship on these topics. But that's a matter for another day. Jokestress (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs, I just answered your question under Editing outside Sexology. Space allowing, I will add info about the other editors as well. Jokestress (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a help. Thank you both. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Honestly, I do not think this part of off-wiki evidence is at all relevant. It tells about an alleged gang of pseudo-scientists led by Dr. Bailey who "defame their critics in an academic journal they control. ". Even if anyone believes it (I obviously do not and can explain why), this is still irrelevant. Yes, I understand that Dr. Cantor is allegedly one of them. I think the only really relevant problem off-wiki are these blacklists of people , , because they exist right now and include at least two wikipedians with whom Jokestress has/had a dispute. Looking at these lists, they are obviously not a criticism of scientific theories, but designed to intimidate people and possibly harm their employment (the allegations of "academic misconduct"). Such "enemy lists" posted at websites of political activists and organizations should be taken very seriously because no one knows what the political "followers" are going to do with people on the list. They can do anything with "science freaks" depending on the nature of organization. I do not think that anyone should do that kind of things with fellow wikipedians. Jokestress, how about removing these lists from your website right now? My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible to split this into other case(s)?

ArbCom people, is there any precedent for splitting complex cases into more manageable ones? This case has three components (see above), and addressing Cantor's behavior is in many ways distinct from the voting bloc problem and the personal attacks problem. I did not know I would have to answer questions and refute Cantor's misinformation in my own space when the scope of the case was being determined. Jokestress (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a case split as likely, especially since irt your comments above, the third component simply isn't something ArbCom can handle; even if it were within our remit arbitration wouldn't be a particularly useful venue from which to approach it. I would focus your time and evidence on evidence of user misconduct on Misplaced Pages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP

WP:BLP applies to these pages too, no? I notice that the claim that "Bailey's banned from teaching Human Sexuality" in this evidence section is not supported by the source, which says that the Human Sexuality course (given by any professor) was cancelled by the university. By no means the same thing. What should be done about this? I am loath to edit somebody's evidence, but this sort of BLP problem can't really be allowed to stand. There may be more of these... this was the first one I checked. Slp1 (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP absolutely applies, but I believe I am limited to 100 sources. Via Inside Higher Ed: "One year ago today, Northwestern psychology professor John Michael Bailey held a voluntary extracurricular event after his Human Sexuality class. ....The result was a storm of publicity that made the front pages of newspapers, outraged parents and donors and ultimately led to NU officials banning Bailey's course from being taught again." (emphasis mine) I also added a Chicago Tribune source about the course they now offer instead. It's relevant because it's part of the trend in sexuality studies that examines ALL published work and not just the medical/disease models.

Does this fully address your concerns? I'd rather not add every source because I think it counts against my diff count, and it is a very complicated incident with almost no coverage here. Jokestress (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)