Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:39, 17 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)

I'm curious why this is being discussed. Though the articles might note some of this information (perhaps, it seems rather minor, "one day J. Michael Bailey got a laugh out of his audience during a presentation" would be an odd sentence to include in a main page), it seems more like a justification. As in "yes, J. Michael Baley was harassed, but he deserved it because (he laughed at transsexuals/he used children's pictures without consent/he had a fucksaw demonstration in class/he is a big meanie)". While these events might be interpreted by editors as crass, crude or deliberately hurtful, none of them would seem particularly relevant for inclusion or justification that James Cantor should not be permitted to edit sexology pages. None of them would override WP:SOAP's prohibition against using wikipedia as a tool for promotion or WP:RGW/WP:ADVOCACY's suggestions that wikipedia not be used for advocacy. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious why you continue to characterize these serious ethical matters as a "minor academic dispute" or trivialize these incidents as you did above. This was a series of historically significant controversies that have bled onto Misplaced Pages. Your trivializing impulse seems similar to your assertion that I have a bias because of who I am, while implying you and Cantor do not. I presented this background and each selected controversy from an even larger group of controversies for reasons which will be evident in the fullness of time. In the meantime, the placeholder background information is there for context, because it's clear a number of editors already formed strong opinions before seeing all the evidence. Good things come to those who wait. Jokestress (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a place for advocacy or soapboxing. If these are "serious ethical matters" suitable for discussion on article pages, then I would expect this to be justified by independent, reliable sources that discuss and contextualize them as part of the overall topic. If these issues are not sufficiently notable or well-referenced to appear on the main articles, I don't think their inclusion can be justified by labelling them "serious ethical matters". The very reason we have COI policies and guidelines is because various incentives exist, financial or otherwise, for editors to distort sources, include minor or non-notable information or otherwise provide a non-neutral summary of an issue. I may be trivializing these issues (I look forward to seeing reliable, independent sources that establish these as substantial items within the history of sexology that squarely and primarily portray your opinions on the matter to be the majority opinion), but there is a risk that advocates (and I include you as a transexual woman at least a potential advocate in articles regarding transexualism) may exaggerate these issues to paint the topic or page subjects in a negative light resulting in a non-neutral page. I think this strikes to the very heart of why essays like WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY exist, why WP:SOAP is a core content policy, and why WP:COI is a core behavioural guideline. WP:COI, by the way, specifically states "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest." As a transexual woman, it's not unquestionable that you may have a personal connection to the scholarly discourse on transexualism such that your judgement as a wikipedia may be impaired and you are in a state of conflict of interest. I hope the arbitrators recognize it.

Put another way, just because editors believe something is important does not make it important in the sense conveyed by WP:NPOV. The fact that J. Michael Bailey laughed, or got a laugh out of his audience, in one presentation, is not a reason to portray his scholarly activities and research as fundamentally wrong or paint Bailey in a negative light. I've seen a lot of assertions by you that these are vital issues that justify Cantor being topic banned or your own conduct, but I haven't seen the quality or quantity of sources that establish this issue as something beyond your opinion. Context is part of how an issue is framed, and framing can distort, either accidentally or on purpose.

I look forward to your evidence, and any dissenting evidence that may be available. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, User:WLU, I wonder: how do you justify the bizarre deletion of properly sourced material citing Harry Benjamin in Blanchard's transsexualism typology here, on which I have just commented in Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology#"Scientific criticism of the theory" is now "Criticisms" - and mostly eviscerated by User:WLU? Are you merely careless in editing, or is this the result of a WP:COI? Sincerely, bonze blayk (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a COI, and arbitration is not the place to debate the content of a main article. I have justified my edits there. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:03, 17 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)

"They can do anything with "science freaks" depending on the nature of organization." User:My very best wishes, are you seriously suggesting that User:Jokestress' network analyses on those pages comprise a "hit list" for an "organization"? That is a ludicrous assertion. - Sincerely, bonze blayk (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW:

Dreger, A. (2006, May). The blog I write in fear. From One foot in: Thoughts on Academia.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, After she failed to suppress a speech I was invited to give at Northwestern, Dreger harassed me for years, eventually publishing a 50,000-word attack piece in the journal Cantor helps edit. I'll have more on Dreger's and Cantor's long-running tag-team attacks on their hit list, including this gem:

Dreger, A. (2008, May). Informed Dissent. From One foot in: Thoughts on Academia.

• (Dreger quoting Cantor) "I believe that much of the current friction is from people spin-doctoring statements into half-truths to give themselves an opportunity to stand on a soapbox blog and declare the other side as evil. Although these people call themselves activists, they are of the Al Sharpton rather than the ML King sort."'

Using a fake name, Cantor then adds his own attack on me from the Dreger blog to the Andrea James Misplaced Pages article, now attributed to the weaselly "some scholars":

• "Some scholars have likened her as 'the Al Sharpton rather than the ML King sort' of activist'".

People who claim they are "scared" in this controversy are usually just very angry at me and want to right great wrongs by attacking me here and off-wiki. Off-wiki is fine, but attacks here by involved parties are going to get a close examination during this case. More soon! Jokestress (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes, that tactic was indeed inappropriate of me. In my defense, I can point out only that I was on WP for less than a week then, and that my subsequent 4-1/2 years has been, of course, very different.
2. A fake name? What fake name?
3. Despite the tactic behind the edit, the actual content of my comment remains quite valid. Indeed, Jokestress has essentially adopted it in describing herself (here), although she compares herself to Malcolm X over MLK instead of Al Sharpton over MLK.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh. That again. Explain to me please, User:James Cantor, is Alice Dreger cringing in fear of sniper's bullet - which is what Nikolai Girenko, whom User:My very best wishes references above, got - or is it it harsh, perhaps even unreasonable, criticism from User:Jokestress? "FWIW": Nothing, given the level of offense offered in the comment User:My very best wishes' makes above: "Character Assassination" is not the same thing as "Assassination". - Sincerely, bonze blayk (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I try to make a habit of responding to questions addressed to me directly, I don't think it makes much sense for people to presume to know the mindsets of others. That said, Jokestress' history of involving Bailey's children, followed by Jokestress leaving Dreger hostile notes at her workplace referring to her child, would probably alarm just about any parent.— James Cantor (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is another great example of Cantor's vivid imagination (like claiming I am trying to "teach him a lesson" with my edits). This false account of events is similar to the oversighted personal attacks that sparked this ArbCom. Jokestress (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is it a false account? The sources that have been presented so far seem to tell this story, with possibly the exception of alarming "just about any parent" -- though I don't doubt for a second it would.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The accusation of "leaving Dreger hostile notes at her workplace" is not true and should be struck and possibly oversighted. I have pretty much had it with these false accusations at this point. I had never been in contact with Dreger until she started harassing me in 2006 prior to my invited visit to her campus for a speech which she was unable to suppress (the organizers told her to get lost). Then she spent a year trying to get me fired (again told to get lost) and trying to prove I am an enemy of academic freedom. Then she tried to stop a trans panel about her and Bailey's attacks at an academic conference (the organizers again told her to get lost). Astonishing hypocrisy.

I wouldn't believe everything Dreger said in the journal Cantor and friends control. Even people willing to participate in their little charade of "objectivity" observed that Dreger's personal involvement in attacking me and "one-sided" presentation revealed "her ultimate allegiance to one side - Bailey's." Jokestress (talk) 22:39, 17 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)

Without examining the sources fully, there is a massive difference between banning Bailey from teaching human sexuality and banning the teaching of Bailey's human sexuality course. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please examine the sources fully. That's Human Sexuality (capital H, capital S), the intro course that was his signature class until the fucksaw incident, which Bailey is no longer allowed to teach and has been scrubbed from Northwestern's curriculum and moved out of the Psychology department. The on-wiki evidence I plan to present regarding that incident will demonstrate Northwestern's decision represents a general academic trend among experts: looking at Sexuality from a more broadly gauged multidisciplinary approach, not just the rigid and narrow behavioral positivist approach that distorts most Misplaced Pages articles on Sexology topics.

It comes at a time when sexuality studies are gaining legitimacy nationally, Weismantel said. Northwestern's program has helped establish it as a leader of the field, she said. The university launched the new course with the intention of showing that sexuality classes can be taught responsibly. That doesn't mean that sexually explicit material will be censored, she stressed.

"The one thing we feel strongly about is, the controversy isn't about should you deal with very sexually explicit material or shouldn't you," Weismantel said. "It's about teaching students the ethical treatment of subjects."

This is an extremely complex and historically significant trend, and imagining punishments before all evidence is available and examined fully isn't very helpful. If you suggest wording you think is clearer on any evidence, I am happy to consider revising it further. Jokestress (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Of the 21 claims made, 5 are about me, at least 4 of which violate BLP:

B2. (re ). Untrue. Source is a non-RS blog.

B3. Untrue. Source is a word document from Jokestress’ own website. (Other source is a word document on Lynn Conway’s website, whose evidence for the claim is Jokestress’ website.)

B12. None of these sources mentions me at all.

C2. Untrue. Source is a non-RS blog.

D3. The claims themselves are untrue, but that Franklin implied them is true. (So, I’m not certain about how the BLP policy applies.)

I provided the evidence for Franklin’s errors in the International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, available here. FWIW, that pub was published open access, so I am free to post it anywhere. Franklin’s, however, is copyrighted by the publisher, so I am not sure about it being permanently archived on WP.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

At least some of us will have access to paywalled journals. Feel free to post links to them. NW (Talk) 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence problems

Jokestress writes above:
"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)"

The article says no such thing. This quote is from another article by the same author which appeared in the Daily Northwestern, a considerably less prestigious publication. It seems likely that this error reflects Jokestress' organization system, in which choice quotes are lined up like arrows in a quiver; she'd grabbed the wrong one, then wikilinked Inside Higher Ed to lend it authority.

Another problem:
When a user named Insomesia brought these redirects to her attention, Jokestress replied, "Hi there-- Redirects are cheap, as they say. I don't see any problems with those. It's a very obscure terminology which appeals to some people who used to be called "pseudotranssexuals" or "non-transsexuals" but who identify as transsexual. No one will ever search those terms, but there are very few redirects I would ever delete."(23:32, 8 January 2013)

These same redirects are now presented as damning evidence against Dr. Cantor.
75.151.102.50 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

The claim that James Cantor is "promoting" autogynephilia is supported with five diffs. All five diffs are of Cantor creating redirects to Blanchard's transsexualism typology (which "autogynephilia" redirects to) and four can be chunked into one really - narratives about autogynephilia. I'm not sure of the reasoning for the creation of these redirects, the page itself doesn't mention autogynephilic narratives. Perhaps this is an area of research and interest that is missing. Calling it "promotion" is debatable, what other page could or should they redirect to?

The fifth redirect is "Men trapped in men's bodies". Two sources (until this morning, I've since edited the page and now it's down to one) by Anne Lawrence use this phrase in their title. Again, what is a better page to redirect to? Perhaps that's a valuable conversation to have. A search for the term itself finds no other page on wikipedia that contains the search string . Calling this self-promotion is questionable in my mind, perhaps they are poor redirects or unlikely search terms, but nearly any search for "autogynephilia" will likely end up on the typology page. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

They were created to promote autogynephilia activist Anne Lawrence's 2013 book of anecdotal evidence titled "Men Trapped in Men's Bodies: Narratives of Autogynephilic Transsexualism," violating the spirit of his bogus "pledge." See also this autogynephilia promotion long after his "pledge": That book's acknowledgements include mentions of guess who... J. Michael Bailey, Kenneth Zucker, Ray Blanchard, and Archives of Sexual Behavior, the same stuff Cantor has been promoting since his first pseudonymous account. More soon on how this relates to promotion of himself and his friends, especially the hebephilia incident! Jokestress (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, all five redirects make sense now, all five relate to a book by Anne Lawrence, who uses the phrase "narratives of autogynephilic" in the title, some derivation of "autogynephilia" 44 times and "Blanchard" shows up 89 times. So Lawrence discusses autogynephilia and Blanchard's typology, apparently pretty extensively. Is there a better page those search terms could redirect to? Anne Lawrence and "Anne Lawrence" both show the typology page as the first hit to come up, and few other hits - none of which seem much better suited. Your personal webpage shows your dislike of it, as does your comment, but it is published by Springer Science+Business Media, a reliable publisher. The fact that it agrees with a viewpoint you dislike doesn't make it a bad or unreliable book.

This could be interpreted as a well-intentioned, and reasonably defensible attempt to link search terms to the most appropriate wikipedia page (If Lawrence had a wikipedia page, it would be a better choice in my opinion. The redirects contain no actual text, no statement that it is a good book, and if you actually search for the terms without the redirects, Blanchard's transsexual typology consistently shows up at the top of the list with the search term appearing in bold beneath the page name. Certainly not a blockable offence, and it seems like an extraordinarily tenuous chain of reasoning to stretch this to self-promotion. If Anne Lawrence existed, they would redirect there, but in lieu of that perhaps a deletion discussion could be started.

What is the difference between "promoting oneself" versus "editing in an area of expertise"? How can one tell?

The pseudonymous accounts were used last in 2008, and WriteMakesRight (talk · contribs) had less than 10 substantive edits. Cantor's real-life identity is now publicly disclosed and has been for nearly 5 years. Perhaps it's time to let it go. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, and I would almost never delete a redirect that has the potential to assist in navigation. Having said that, I believe these edits by Cantor are part of a pattern which, when taken as a whole, clarify what's going on here in terms of COI/self-promotion. You have touched on two of the key issues of my ArbCom argument: letting go of stale disputes from 2008/2009 and determining where expertise blurs into COI advocacy. Jokestress (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress is correct that I created those redirects in anticipation of readers of Lawrence' new book, which uses those terms. WLU is correct that my intent was to direct any such readers to the most relevant article available. My personal view, and the implication of the search results on the evidence page, is that Autogynephilia should be it's own article. In the absence of there being one, Blanchard's transsexualism typology is the closest, despite that it is essentially an attack page against the existing findings. How redirecting readers away from the term I prefer and to a page I oppose is a symptom of my POV-pushing is not clear to me.— James Cantor (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability of trans people

• Susan Stryker - James Cantor tagged the page when it looked like this. Of 15 sources, 10 are to her own work. Whether Stryker passed the criteria for WP:PROF or WP:N in general is questionable, much of it was unsourced (including critically the points that woudl have indicated notability). Cantor did tag the page thrice, he also removed the tag once notability was established. This seems like a criticism for tagging a page in a borderline state of notability. Editors are urged, but not required, to expand borderline notable pages with reliable sources. Failing to do so is not a censurable offence.
• Stephen Whittle - I wouldn't have tagged this as failing WP:N, but it's a judgement call whether Whittle was notable at the time.
• Angela Clayton, at the time of tagging, was similarly of questionable notability . Clayton's only real claim to fame per WP:N would seem to be her Membership to the Order of the British Empire; I'm not sure if an MBE is sufficient to push someone into notability.
• The Gender Trust was entirely unsourced at the time of PRODding. It's ten current citations consist of the Trust being quoted, none really represent the unarguable, extensive secondary sources that push an entity past WP:CORP. I've always for the argument "it's been quoted in the news" a questionable justification for deletion.

The two diffs for Cantor's "wikihounding" , , are from 2008. In both cases there is an 18-month gap between Jokestress' last edit (Feburary, 2007 for both pages) and Cantor's tagging for speedy deletion (August, 2008) of these list-only articles. Wikistalking? Perhaps. Bad-faith editing? Considering WP:LISTN is itself quite equivocal, tagging them for speedy is hardly indefensible. I would ask whether more recent examples than 2008 are available. Certainly wikihounding is annoying and stressful. Certainly new editors engage in it. Certainly it's not a good thing if it does not result in a better wiki (and is questionable even if it does).

Also, if wikihounding is a problem, an interaction ban would address this. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've been supportive of James Cantor elsewhere but, given what he does for a living, I find it very hard to take credibly the idea that he could have had an honestly held belief that Stephen Whittle, for example, did not merit a WP biography. Could you comment on that, James? Formerip (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your confidence in my knowledge...I think. But I am/was quite genuinely ignorant. (I don't follow the politics or politicians of the GLBT and other alternative communities and just followed the page content.) That day, I was just kind of wandering around WP. I also prod'ed Elmer Batters, Bill Bridgeman, and Leg Show. That said, was it wise of me to prod in one sitting more than one trans- related pages? In retrospect: No, probably not. As WLU noted, I don't think anyone can say that these were slam-dunk pages, and I believe the relevant discussions were, for the most part, reasonable all around; but I would indeed have to acknowledge the role of optics when a challenge comes from me.— James Cantor (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence close date

Hi folks. Given that one of the folks involved says that "I expect to be away Feb 21-Mar 3" is it a good idea for Evidence to close during that time? I didn't see this discussed elsewhere, so I thought I'd ask. Hobit (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I would very much appreciate such an adjustment.— James Cantor (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe 10 or 11 March would be a better evidence close date. Jokestress (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We can reevaluate during the last week of February. If there is a significant amount of evidence that James Cantor would likely wish to respond to, we can push things off for a bit. I don't anticipate that as entirely necessary; a party is often better served posting their own account of things and backing that up with diffs rather than continually attempting to refute statements by other parties. NW (Talk) 04:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm more worried about evidence that appears after he isn't around. Hobit (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Per instruction of the drafting arb I have extended all the deadlines by one week. Evidence will now close on March 7. Ks0stm 18:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!— James Cantor (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)