Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:00, 25 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'd like to note here that the content in Autogynephilia was merged into what is now Blanchard's transsexualism typology back in September 2010: 02:22, 11 September 2010‎ 70.57.222.103 (talk)‎ . . (137,762 bytes) (+2,240)‎ . . (→‎Merger complete: new section) - "As per the approach favored by all but two commenters in Talk:Autogynephilia, the articles Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory and Autogynephilia have been merged, and Homosexual transsexual is a disambig page." - bonze blayk (talk) 12:46, 19 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 has been eviscerated? 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) - (updated link to Talk subsection title which now conforms better to WP:TALKNEW) - bonze blayk (talk) 03:24, 18 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 sending Dreger hostile emails referring to her child, and showing up at her office unexpectedly 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)

This has already been asked and answered but for those that missed it Jokestress was using sarcasm (I believe that's the correct term) to illustrate how Bailey's morally hazy usage of trans people's pictures (when they were children) in his for-profit efforts were seen as degrading and insulting. Bailey put words on those pictures that were also seen as degrading to the people shown as children. I believe the individuals did not consent to the use at all. Additionally Bailey's children were a part of Bailey's tour and served as spokespeople espousing the same troubling comments as Bailey. Seen in this context the actions can more be judged in fullness while omitting what prompted the photos is simply dishonest, especially since this same discussion has been repeated many times by these same people. Insomesia (talk) 22:10, 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)

I haven't read the Dredger paper completely, but what I did see was someone who clearly felt intimidated, to the point that she was advised to contact the police. I've no idea if she did and if so what was their reaction (which might have been "lady, we've got more important things to do"), but this is the 2nd incident that I'm aware of where alledged intimidation has occured.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As I have said many times, the claim of "intimidation" is a disingenuous ruse. If you are really intimidated by someone, you do not troll them with hostile emails and blog posts. You do not attend a speech they give. You leave them alone and hope they will go away. Her first attack compared me to "a neo-Nazi" and Fred Phelps, so she is not a particularly objective source about what happened. After failing for over a year in multiple attempts to hurt me (all of which I openly mocked), she finally wrote her screed and got her bloviation published by her buddies. She may have contacted Northwestern's campus police in her attempts to stop me, but in the end they posted an officer at the speech to protect me and stop any James Cantor-style disruptions of my presentation. The Dean of Student Affairs even came and read an opening statement, showing support for the students’ right to gather information from many points of view. That might not have been clear in Dreger's 50,000 words. You can read more about Dreger's antics here. You'll start to see why she and James Cantor logroll each other all the time. Jokestress (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have responded on the mainpage to Jokestress' allegations of BLP violations. (Indeed, if that is my greatest inaccuracy, I believe my argument remains in good shape.) I have not, however, received any response to my evidence of Jokestress' violations of BLP, here.— James Cantor (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

James Cantor has not responded completely to the misstatements in his claims. I did not show up at Dreger's office unexpectedly. In fact, we had correspondence prior to my speech about times I was available to speak with her following the event, and that is exactly when I stopped in and had a brief chat with her colleagues, who were all eating lunch at a big table. Turns out Dreger was more interested in insulting me than in having a conversation. Since I have specified my concerns, I look forward to hearing what details of those five pieces of evidence James Cantor disputes. It seems pretty remarkable to claim multiple independent accounts of his behavior are all "untrue" or not about him. Jokestress (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no need to extricate the kernels of truth from those accounts. The statements I listed are unsupported by any RS's, making them BLP violations. When the problem is that Jokestress' source is Jokestress' own website, "what details" isn't particularly relevant, and a back-and-forth over them isn't wise.— James Cantor (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• @Bonze blayk. Activists kill doctors for performing their duties, such as making abortions. What else proof do you possibly need? Probably nothing will happen, but something may happen. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/68.42.78.139 - "Activists kill doctors for performing their duties, such as making abortions. What else proof do you possibly need?". So you generalize from a tiny minority of violent anti-abortion "activists" to the huge range of "activists" globally, incorporating "transsexual activists" also? That's certainly a remarkable claim… based on this logic, no "activist" should ever edit Misplaced Pages!

Your claim to being "endangered" rests on the absurd premise that (for example) this diagram delineating Academic pathologization of transgender people on Andrea James' website constitutes a "blacklist" and thus a "hitlist" for some organization of Transsexual Assassins who will deal out the bullets to "enemies" as one was dealt to Nikolai Girenko, in the obscene analogy made by User talk:My very best wishes above? That's an insane assertion; it borders on paranoia. And as a counterpoint, was this statement an invitation to violence? … "I would feel the same way were someone to be interested in, say, inviting a neo-Nazi to speak on campus." I don't see it that way myself; I see it as a rather stupid insult. Please note: that comparison between neo-Nazis and Andrea James was brought to you by Alice Dreger in The Blog I Write in Fear, which I believe I can safely characterize as "hyperbolic". So is Alice Dreger also guilty of "endangering" Andrea James? By your standards… apparently so. - bonze blayk (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

ADDING linkback to User:My very best wishes/68.42.78.139's modification of their original statement to which I responded above, in which their claim of "endangerment" appears. Perhaps you realize now this comment was ill-advised: I do believe it was, because you failed to read the paper by Andrea James, to which you linked and then mischaracterized: "In her 'scientific' publication J. compare others with racists and Nazi. If Arbcom wants to tolerate contributors who intentionally endanger other contributors by declaring them 'enemies' and making internet blacklists, this is their choice. If I do not want to be in the same project with such contributors, this is my choice." Please keep in mind prudence: every entry one makes on the Internet possesses a kind of… immortality. By the way, I appreciate the realities behind your fears, but in this case, they are entirely misfounded. - bonze blayk (talk) 05:12, 23 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)

Comments re MrADHD's evidence

(I am still out of the office and have only intermittent access to the Internet. While I do, however…)

Although MrADHD was involved only in one, there were actually two claims I removed from the hebephilia page due to (my belief in) their violating BLP. Together with the diff comments, they were:

• Reverting OR from IP editor.
• Non-RS. BLP issues.

The BLP problem of the latter (the one from MrADHD) was the claim that “The AMA board of trustees apparently had to step in due to a small group of psychologists digging their heals in…” That ‘small group’ consisted of three people, all of whom have WP pages about them. The claim itself was untrue, and there was no RS supporting the claim. (The source appeared only on the blog of a vocal protagonist of the debate claiming to have knowledge she does not—all members of the DSM committees remain under gag orders. No one has identified any other source to support the blogger’s (or MrADHD's) claim. Moreover, the use of “apparently” also denotes the uncertain status of the claim.) It is true that the names of the three people were not given, but WP:BLPGROUP does not (to my reading) require the names to appear when the group of people is small (and each member is identifiable). Immediately following my deletion above, I asked at BLP/N for input from uninvolved editors.

MrADHD also claimed that “ place of work receives money to research hebephilia...” That too is misleading at best: I do not and have never received any grant to study hebephilia unto itself. I have received two grants in my career, both have been to study pedophilia with hebephilia as an add on, because they are informative regarding their more extreme cousins and because there is no clear division between the two phenomena. MrADHD’s continued statement that my hospital or I receive money to “promote it as a proposed new mental health diagnosis” is untrue in its entirety (and is a BLP violation). Moreover, MrADHD’s argument asserts (if unwittingly) that experts who have received research grants to study a topic may not edit on that topic, which is not what any policy indicates.

Finally, MrADHD’s claim that “the on-wiki harassing” was started by me ignores the already posted evidence that Jokestress’ problematic edits in sexology precede me by several years and involves her attacking very many editors other than me.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, please look up the definition of what a biography is as it is not what you state it is or describe it as. I meant online harassing between you and Jokestress - I have no knowledge of any other squabbles or harassing that has gone on years ago among other people as I am new to the topic area. I do intend revising my submission of evidence, thank you for pointing out errors and perceived errors in my submission of evidence. Your request for outside opinion at the BLP noticeboard I see actually supported me that you were unfairly removing reliably sourced content.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me like your summary is also overly harsh against Jokestress - for example, certainly the diffs you cite go nowhere near the charge of "advancing pro-paedophile viewpoints", even inadvertently. I worry that people looking in at this dispute are going to take the easy way out, cast "a pox on both their houses", and fail to recognize that Misplaced Pages should be able to keep two people on opposite sides of a bitter ideological issue working together in relative harmony, just as we expect universities to do. The reason why they have been brought to this case is not that they are bad people, but because Misplaced Pages is badly run and does much too much to encourage editors to "legitimately" tear down one anothers' work. Wnt (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added another couple of diffs and tweaked wording slightly per your concerns but I still maintain that Jokestress's views and arguments regarding paedophilia are fringe. I agree that how I framed this was harsh and have made some tweaks as stated. For both individuals I try to impress on Arbitrators and the community that both of these editors make productive contributions. Did you miss that when reading my evidence submission? Thank you for your comments/feedback. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k? 15:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to call her views "fringe" - the article as it reads now defines pedophilia as "characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children", so her statements are simply attentive to that definition. Now of course in popular usage nobody finds someone molesting her daughter and says "well, maybe he's not a pedophile" - the average person is pretty quick to make the diagnosis, and I dare say would have little trouble thinking of some effective treatment. Which matches Jokestress' first comment - that it's a social problem, a matter of law rather than medicine. Now personally I disagree somewhat; I think that far too little attention has been paid to looking for medical solutions given how many children have been victimized and how readily many abusers recognize that they have a problem they would like to fix; but she is eloquent and erudite and we should cheerfully welcome her insights. This is one of those issues like creation-versus-evolution where there's no real need for people to disagree at all if they would carefully consider what precisely their beliefs really apply to. Wnt (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

MrADHD, you continue to conflate my "views" with my citation of sources. This is a problem James Cantor and I both have to deal with here, unfortunately. The view that pedophilia is an extreme form of normal masculine sexuality is not mine; it is the view of Havelock Ellis, one of the most famous sexologists of all time. Ellis is not even mentioned in the pedophilia article, despite being one of the most prominent sexologists ever to study the topic. This near-complete lack of historical context is the problem with all of these articles and is directly related to WP:OWN behavior by Flyer22 and others. My point of view on these topics is that we have one point of view overly represented: a medical model of human sexuality severely skewed to recentism and to the work and ideas of Cantor and his colleagues. I will be laying out this case shortly. In the meantime, I would ask you not to jump to conclusions about anyone's views in this dispute. My point is that the medical model is vastly over-represented, and people are so emotionally hairtrigger on this topic that anyone who even tries to bring up the problem gets branded a pedophilie or "pro-pedophile." I plan to lobby to make such accusations a type of egregious personal attack that warrants an immediate block, as it is absolutely outrageous to say or insinuate such things about a good faith editor. Jokestress (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Everyone can refer to what I stated here and here about Jokestress's views and claims. It all comes down to WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:CHILD PROTECT. Calling pedophilia "an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality," a view Jokestress cites to Havelock Ellis, is most assuredly WP:FRINGE. And wanting to give such views as much weight as the medical definition of pedophilia in the Pedophilia article is most assuredly WP:UNDUE, as is wanting an article that is about pedophilia to give an overwhelming amount of weight to non-pedophilic aspects. Jokestress's problem is that she does not like, respect or defer to scientific consensus at all, except for when she thinks that scientific consensus is on her side (such as in the case of hebephilia). Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not "fringe," it's a historical conceptualization that should be described along with others, like Freud's etc. Your ownership and fixation on narrow recent operationalized definitions are the main reasons we we not cover these topics completely. More soon! Jokestress (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed fringe. Like I told you before, in that first link I provided above: Just to be clear on what fringe is, WP FRINGE partly states: "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

That is exactly what we've been doing with the Pedophilia article. The mainstream definition among experts on pedophilia is that it is a mental disorder characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, which is also why they distinguish between pedophiles and child sexual abusers who sexually abuse prepubescents (as a child sexual abuser may or may not be a pedophile). They do not view pedophilia and/or an adult engaging in sexual activity with a prepubescent child as "an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality." Not to mention such a definition limits pedophilia only to men. Your claim that respecting/deferring to WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:CHILD PROTECT is WP:OWN is ridiculous; and others, like MrADHD, have seen that. There is nothing narrow about pedophilia being seen as a mental disorder by most scientists, as even you have acknowledged; and let's not pretend that you weren't referring to the scientific community instead of laypeople when you stated, "Hebephilia is overwhelmingly rejected as a mental disorder, and pedophilia is overwhelmingly accepted as one." Like I stated, you only agree with scientific consensus when it suits you. So, yes, bring on your "evidence" that my respecting/deferring to those things is WP:OWN and is something I should be sanctioned for. But good on you for managing to usually get me to fall for the WP:BAIT and reply to you when you mention me as though I am a leader of some wolf pack.

And for the record, to everyone else, editors at the Pedophilia article take very seriously the type of "adult-child sexual relationship" views Jokestress has expressed (whether being her own views and/or someone else's views) because, for years, Misplaced Pages had a very serious problem with pedophiles editing the Pedophilia article and/or articles related to pedophilia to try to normalize pedophilia and child sexual abuse. By "normalize," I mean making these things appear as though they are a normal variation of human sexuality. WP:CHILD PROTECT, which is a policy, came into existence because of that. Every editor that has been blocked and/or banned from Misplaced Pages because of their edits to the Pedophilia article and/or its talk page were blocked and/or banned because of expressing inappropriate views about "adult-child sexual relationships" and/or for identifying as a pedophile, and not for any other reasons than those. People who have a problem with that can take it up with WP:ARBCOM, who have blocked and/or banned most such users. Recent examples of such users are User:Cataconia, an editor Jokestress supported (as shown by my and MrADHD's diff-links), and User Genstarcraftj. No one consistently expressing the type of "adult-child sexual relationship" views Jokestress has expressed (whether being her own views and/or someone else's views) have been good-faith editors. The only reason Jokestress has not been blocked and/or banned for expressing such views on Misplaced Pages is because she is significantly more familiar with the way that Misplaced Pages works and is more careful with her words. Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, you have put your finger on the reason why many people have been nervous about the CHILDPROTECT policy from the beginning. In this instance we know who Jokestress is, we know she's not a pedophile, and not trying to justify such behavior, we know that she represents a significant school of thought, that she's someone who can give seminars on this kind of stuff at a university, and if this policy can still be used to threaten her then it is a bad policy. MEDRS is another policy that is - hopefully - being abused here, though my recent disputes on its talk page regarding other issues have seemed to indicate more that some people deliberately intend it to suppress serious coverage of biological research outside the very narrow realm of fully mature applications to human medical treatment. I would nonetheless hold out for the position here that MEDRS applies only to statements about what medical opinion is regarding this disorder, and so well-sourced statements arguing the perspective that it or any of the other conditions she has written about are non-medical should not be subject to it. This should not be something difficult to understand - the controversy we're seeing between Jokestress' people and the CAMH people on medicalization versus non-medicalization is one that exists in the real world, and so Misplaced Pages needs to cover both sides. Wnt (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What has been going on is what I stated above. Many people have been in support of the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy from the beginning due to the reasons I listed above about that. And WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are very clear about presenting both sides; there is no misuse of any of those things regarding what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For various reasons I'm very, very reluctant to get involved with the topic of paedophilia, not least because any attempt to suggest that the current medicalised view of paedophilia expressed in the mainstream press is anything other than 100% correct frequently leads to accusations that one must be a paedophile, regardless of all other factors. It seems to me that at least part of what Jokestress has been attempting to do here is add historical content that shows that in the past the landscape of views was different. Just because a theory may be fringe today doesn't mean it always has been regarded ass such, and there is no reason to exclude it from discussion in the article given the appropriate context that clearly establishes it as not the present day. The way the CHILDPROTECT policy is applied and bandied about in discussions makes NPOV exceedingly hard to achieve, particularly as there is a general attitude that any theory that is not explicitly "paedophilia is a mental disorder" is automatically a fringe theory to be excluded. I don't necessarily agree with Jokestress' views, and her actions elsewhere do not necessarily help her cause, but there is a need for actual neutral evaluation of alternative theories re paedpophilia that does not happen currently. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Excluding or including Havelock Ellis's view isn't the issue. What I stated here, here and above is. I never objected to including Havelock Ellis's view; the Pedophilia article does include historical views that define pedophilia in a way that it is not defined by most experts or any experts in this field these days, after all. The exclusion of Havelock Ellis's view can simply be chalked up to "No one ever got around to adding it." But it is not like every minor view regarding pedophilia should be in the Pedophilia article. Again, WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are very clear on that. What I have stated is that Havelock Ellis's view is fringe; I objected, and still object, to giving such a view and the other type of views Jokestress has been trying to include in the Pedophilia article for years, most of which are not about pedophilia, WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. The Pedophilia article is not the Adult sexual interest in children article, an article that Jokestress failed to sustain and has been trying to turn the Pedophilia article into (as even she has stated that she has), nor should it be. Flyer22 (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Further, we don't go by how the mainstream press defines pedophilia. Not only because such sources are generally not what we are supposed to use for this topic, but also because they usually (incorrectly) define any adult sexual attraction to someone under the age of 18 as pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Cantor thinks what?

Despite that several people have made several claims about what I think, nobody has asked for or correctly guessed my actual opinion.

It is most certainly true that there exist medicalization/non-medicalization and pathologizing/depathologizing debates. It is incorrect, however, that I represent or support or benefit from either side of any of them. (Indeed, there haven’t been any diffs, comments, or publications of mine indicating that I do. Such claims have invariably been of the form of ‘Cantor thinks X’, followed by a quote about somebody else.)

I hesitate to provide my genuine opinions, as the main discussions pertain to conduct, not content. Nonetheless, for the record:

1. I do not believe that pathology or normality exist. Such distinctions can be useful in some contexts, but they are human creations, not natural classifications. Decisions about pathology/normality etc. are part science and part value judgment. As a scientist, I am always willing to suggest to the folks in charge of the value judgments (from the APA to the WHO to national governments) how to adjust their decisions to best account for the science. (Indeed, providing such suggestions is an expectation of me and other university faculty. It is an error to conclude from my providing the science what my values might be.)
2. I disliked several of the proposals that were made for the DSM5. In fact, I have an article now in-press in direct opposition to what was proposed for “hypersexual disorder” (which I do not believe exists).
3. I am not a fan of the DSM in general. (I believe that, in many ways, the DSM-III and DSM-III-R were superior to their successors; I believe that the ICD-10 is superior in many ways to all the DSM’s; and I believe that diagnosis often places an artificial dichotomy on what are continuous features of humanity.) It is an error to treat me/CAMH/APA/DSM has just one great big Big Brother of uniform will.
4. My research (and research funding) are unaffected by what the DSM includes and excludes. For example, I’ve also done research on what makes gay folks gay, despite that homosexuality was removed from the DSM.
5. Despite repeated references to Szasz, Foucault and other postmodernists, I cannot recall myself or anyone else removing or objecting to such perspectives. (Nor have there been any diffs of such alleged removals or objections.)

Working to avoid TLDR: Insinuations of a philosophical war, with me somehow representing one side, is a false dichotomy. Although there certainly exist extremist (or naïve) hold-outs, both medicine and philosophy have essentially moved beyond that debate. Indeed, even many of the original cultural/literary analysts have now evolved into “post-postmodernists” (avoiding many of the bizarre prior claims, such as gravity being a mere social construction).

I am perfectly happy to discuss any of my thoughts or words, but there’s nothing to be gained by arguing against what don’t think and never said. Indeed, that the best evidence Jokestress has offered for what I believe are statements from other people about what they think is itself a pretty good indication that I do not.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

But you pretended to be a female librarian called Marion to edit COI topic areas and POV push when you arrived on wikipedia. Presumably you chose librarian to throw people off as to why you had access to sources and again the female name to again throw people off your identity. This behaviour implies that you are something more than a disinterested honest Joe scientist and implies an agenda whether it is to do with work or emotion only you know. Although there may be some truth in what you have said above I am not convinced by your above post.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Did Cantor really claim to be a female librarian called Marion? I had assumed he took the username from the song 'Marian the Librarian' from the musical The Music Man. — 92.2.72.72 (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

OMFG. It's a Misplaced Pages username. A pseudonym. Am I "pretending" to be a mast cell? Besides which, Marion is not necessarily a female name, as Marion Barry, Marion Barber, Suge Knight, or John Wayne could tell you if you dared ask them. MastCell  20:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have struck the comment, sorry, - I was not aware that Marion The Librarian was a song and I did not know that it could also be a male name. And yes you are pretending to be a MastCell, I think to scare off any would be invaders or something.--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those harping on Cantor's anonymous use of MarionTheLibraian are really blowing this out of proportion. Can anyone honestly say they knew about RS,COI,BLP,etc when they first stated editing? Is anyone seriously challenged his good faith?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The last edit made by MarionTheLibrarian was on July 15th, 2008. That's 4 years, 8 months ago, roughly. Unless there is a discussion of current sockpuppeting behaviour, those old edits seem to be rather irrelevant and it might help move the arbitration forward if people stopped bringing them up. They are publicly disclosed on both James Cantor and MarionTheLibrarian's page, so the issue seems settled. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe those edits are relevant, because the patterns of behavior are the same: there, James Cantor, as MarionTheLibrarian, engaged in a crusade, deleting perspectives on issues related to transsexuality which conflicted with his POV, citing WP:RS in his deletions while deleting valid WP:SPS provided in External Links sections, and persistently seeking to yoke articles within the frame of "medical science", thus restricting them to WP:MEDRS sources. See my comment in Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology on 8 August 2010: "Links to RSN about Wyndzen -- COI, Wyndzen v. WP:RS, my POV". I don't believe User:James Cantor edits in bad faith; I do believe that his point of view is so narrow sometimes that it not only leads to bias in his edits - which is probably impossible to avoid in these controversial areas? - but the incessant conflicts he's been engaged in often cause him to be cursorily dismissive of editors who disagree with him. (LOL: contrary to what James likes to argue, I am radically not "politically correct"… this is me on guitar with the Angry Samoans? "Baby I'm one too." The very notion is… absurd. .-)

PS: "I believe that diagnosis often places an artificial dichotomy on what are continuous features of humanity." - User:James Cantor - Amen to that! - Sincerely, bonze blayk (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)