Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:53, 22 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

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the default limits. If you wish to exceed the default lengths, you must request the agreement of the arbitrators to do so on the /Evidence talk page before posting. Unapproved overlength evidence, or inappropriate material and/or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed entirely.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by James Cantor

Current word length: 834; diff count: 29.

Evidence of off-wiki campaign influencing on-wiki events

• NYTimes reporting on campaign of harassment by Jokestress against J. Michael Bailey.
• Jokestress’ Bailey-related target list.
• Peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis of campaign, by bioethicist/historian. Coverage received a Guggenheim Award.

Evidence of chilling effect

• Evidence of Jokestress' protracted conflicts with openly trans- Wikipedian, User:Hfarmer.
• Jokestress’ updated target list, naming User:Hfarmer.
• Jokestress’ most-wanted list (including Hfarmer), asking readers "If you have received an email, attachment or photo from someone using these names or IP addresses in 2004 or earlier, please forward it to me for analysis,” so that she could "vector and expose" them.
• Example of results of off-wiki campaign against Hfarmer.

Evidence that Jokestress’ POV-pushing predates Cantor

Cantor joins WP in May, 2008; never edited before then.

Evidence that Jokestress’ distruptions occur without Cantor (2008+)

• ANI Jokestress re homosexual transsexual etc.
• ANI Archive438
• ANI Crusade
• ANI Andrea James
• ANI The faith and constructiveness of an editors edits in one subject area
• COIN Jokestress
• COIN Homosexual transsexual
• RSN Guidance on pseudodymous authors
• Requests for mediation/Rejected/40#Homosexual transsexual
• Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-25

Evidence of other POV-pushing

• Adding links to her for-profit website (2004).
• Removing links to business competitors' sites (2005, 2006).
• Creating page about her business partner, Calpernia Addams (2005).
• Disrupting DYN discussion w/ uninvolved editors to push anti-Cantor POV (2010).
• Sustained/repeated counter-consensus additions of homosexuality to List of paraphilias (2008, 2010, 2012).

Evidence of Jokestress’ suppression of disfavored people/ideas

Evidence of Jokestress’ POV on Autogynephilia.

• Evidence of suppressed coverage of Autogynephilia on WP (from List of paraphilias):

Paraphilia	Google Hits	Google.Scholar Hits	WP page?
Chremastistophilia	8,840	3	Yes
Salirophilia	15,000	13	Yes
Mechanophilia	9,920	14	Yes
Autagonistophilia	16,400	14	Yes
Gynandromorphophilia	2,960	16	Yes
Olfactophilia	12,300	17	Yes
Abasiophilia	22,300	21	Yes
Narratophilia	25,100	34	Yes
Autassassinophilia	12,100	35	Yes
Chronophilia	16,300	50	Yes
Autovampirism	3,130	62	Yes
Agalmatophilia	50,600	64	Yes
Toucherism	2,690	70	Yes
Biastophilia	20,300	96	Yes
Acrotomophilia	45,100	114	Yes
Apotemnophilia	47,400	375	Yes
Autogynephilia	48,700	394	No
Algolagnia	218,000	484	Yes
Hebephilia	63,000	485	Yes
Coprophilia	331,000	1,150	Yes
Transvestism	425,000	13,700	Yes
Pedophilia	6 million	17,900	Yes

Evidence of Jokestress' POV on Cantor

• Every RS to trans neuroanatomy is cited, except Cantor.
• Each author of the cited papers is mentioned by name, except Cantor..

Evidence regarding Cantor's behavior

I believe what matters most are pattern over time and responsiveness to feedback.

• Cantor began editing openly under his own name two months into his five years on WP.
• Cantor made and unerringly stick to his pledges to stay away from problematic pages, repeatedly inviting Jokestress to join him.

• Cantor repeatedly discloses associations on relevant talk pages.

• Cantor habitually walks away from conflicts when Jokestress arrives.
• Once the suggestion was made to him to submit subpages to RfC, he began doing so voluntarily (i.e., here).
• When reviewed, uninvolved editors repeatedly describe evidence/complaints against Cantor as unjustified and ancient:

Evidence of proportionality

For assessment of proportionality of coverage by topic, these are the attributions to CAMH and other targeted folks for the relevant topics:

Topic	Google.Scholar Hits (2002-2013)	Hits to CAMH/Dreger/Lawrence Articles	Search string
Pedophilia	11,500	20% of top 100 most cited articles
Gender dysphoria	15,000	7% of top 100 most cited articles
Gender identity disorder	73,000	14% of top 100 most cited articles
Homosexuality	40,500	3% of top 100 most cited articles
Autogynephilia	393	36% of top 100 most cited articles

For assessment of proportionality of coverage by person, these are the google search results for CAMH and other targeted folks:

Expert	Google Hits
Howard E. Barbaree	1.15 million
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health	1.1 million
J. Michael Bailey	523,000
Clarke Institute of Psychiatry	215,000
James M. Cantor	179,000
Kenneth J. Zucker	113,000
Alice D. Dreger	81,700
Meredith L. Chivers	67,000
Michael C. Seto	60,700
Anthony F. Bogaert	45,600
Ray Blanchard	38,400
Anne A. Lawrence	35,000

Evidence presented by Jokestress

Current word length: 954; diff count: 14.

Summary

James Cantor aka MarionTheLibrarian aka WriteMakesRight is a key figure in major ethical controversies in sexology. His Misplaced Pages edits reflect off-wiki attempts to promote himself/allies or denigrate critics. Cantor's alliance here owns relevant sexology articles, often hindering inclusion of competing conceptualizations and making personal attacks.

Background: key off-wiki sexology controversies

A: Gay genetic screening/abortion (1990s)

1. Northwestern University sexologist J. Michael Bailey publishes on biology and sexual orientation affecting gay men, ultimately concluding that using genetic screening to abort gay fetuses is "morally acceptable." His contemporary Simon LeVay "cheerfully looks forward to the day when the 'new eugenics' born of the human genome project will enable women to abort fetuses likely to be carrying any traits they don't much care for, including homosexuality."

B: Academic exploitation of trans people (2003-2008)

1. 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.
2. Staunch defender Cantor claims "laughter was actually an affectionate recognition of the truth," writes glowing review, and claims anyone who disagrees is lying.
3. Cantor disrupts trans symposium and is forced by his employer CAMH to apologize.
4. Bailey promotes obscure sexological concepts developed at CAMH about "shemales." Citing CAMH sexologists and penile plethysmography, Bailey claims they can categorize trans children and adults into one of two sexualized types: "homosexual" or "autogynephilic." He claims the former "might be especially well-suited to prostitution" (185) and the latter are "erotically obsessed with the image of themselves as women." (146) Like Cantor, he says anyone who disagrees is lying.
5. Bailey also claims not using CAMH's anti-trans "therapy" on elementary school children (similar to anti-gay reparative therapy) "might well come at the cost of more transsexual adults." (33)
6. Trans women described in the book contact prominent trans figures, saying they were exploited without consent.
7. I summarize the controversy in academic journal Gender Medicine. (full text)
8. I also create several satires of Bailey’s exploitation of our children, including one using his adult son (age 19) and daughter (age 17) who were doing press for the book dedicated to them. I caption their photos with a quote from Bailey's book and a crude paraphrase of his sexualized categories of us. Many are enraged by my satire, but not by Bailey's similar exploitation of our children, proving my point.
9. NU launches a full-scale Bailey investigation. Bailey resigns as department chair; NU refuses to disclose findings.
10. Trans victory against Bailey/CAMH academic exploitation considered one of the great events in 158 years of LGBT History. (full text)
11. A tiny minority of trans people support CAMH's taxonomy. Most self-identify as "homosexual transsexual" but have never obtained that diagnosis and likely never will. One such supporter, User:Hfarmer, tenaciously misused Misplaced Pages to assert this self-identity for years, similar to those who self-identified as having a competing fringe diagnosis called "Harry Benjamin Syndrome." Both factions raised many complaints against me here; my interactions were upheld by consensus.
12. Cantor and allies attempt to rehabilitate Bailey/CAMH reputations by:

• Unsuccessfully attempting to stop my invited speech at Northwestern
• Defaming their critics in an academic journal they control.
• Unsuccessfully suppressing trans viewpoints at an academic conference.
• Getting sympathetic 2007 coverage from pro-Bailey journalist Benedict Carey at NYTimes (see 2005).
• Manipulating Misplaced Pages.

C: Bisexual men are "lying" (2003-2011)

1. Carey publishes pro-Bailey/CAMH piece (later debunked) claiming bisexual men are liars. Our community's protests prompt Carey's 2007 pro-Bailey hit piece about academic exploitation of trans people, targeting key Carey critics. After I demand an interview from his editors, Carey asks one question (about my satire) and allows a 14-word response.
2. "Cantor feels that bisexuals are not being honest with themselves again, and are relying on narcissistic abstract fantasies to make up for their truncated sexual identities."

D: Hebephilia (2008-present)

1. Protests after APA names Cantor's CAMH colleagues to revise psychiatric "bible" DSM-5. They propose adding obscure paraphilias they promote.
2. Legal and medical experts condemn hebephilia, a concept Cantor champions.
3. Psychologist Karen Franklin summarizes why expert medical and legal consensus rejects "hebephilia," calls Cantor part of "an activist minority."
4. Expert consensus rejects all three novel disorders proposed for DSM-5.
5. Cantor once again attacks critics by many means, including manipulating Misplaced Pages.

E. Fucksaw incident (2011)

1. NU officials ban Bailey's Human Sexuality course from being taught again after Bailey arranged a live on-campus fucksaw demonstration on a woman. NU's new Sexuality Studies course moves from Behavior Sciences to Gender Studies/History with different professor.

On-wiki disputes

Content disputes around the 2003 and older controversies were resolved long ago. Those articles remain stable. Lacking space, I'll focus on Cantor's COI self-promotion within Sexology topics, the 2013 hebephilia incident, his sympathetic proxies, and their personal attacks.

POV "consensus"

Personal attacks

Refuting Cantor "evidence"

• Autogynephilia "suppression"

I voted to keep the separate article and expressed dismay about the umbrella article content . I frequently expanded our coverage on autogynephilia in a fair and accurate manner and have made no substantive edits since 2008 by agreement. Cantor continues to promote autogynephilia via edits in 2013 despite his oft-cited bogus "pledge" :

• Autogynephilic narratives
• Narratives of autogynephilic transsexuality
• Narratives of autogynephilic transsexualism
• Autogynephilic narrative
• Men trapped in men's bodies

Editing outside Sexology

Cantor

Single-purpose account with few edits unrelated to Sexology/self-promotion. Of outside edits, two notable behaviors:

• Challenging the notability of prominent trans people and organizations (none of which I've ever edited):

• Susan Stryker
• Stephen Whittle
• Angela Clayton
• The Gender Trust

• Trying to delete articles simply because I created them (wikihounding)

Jokestress

My 49,000+ edits cover the full range of Misplaced Pages topics and are rarely disputed. Of 2,100+ articles I created, at least 50 (~2%) are Sexology articles. Perhaps 10 of those (~0.5%) have been substantively challenged and resolved via talk pages. I've even authored many articles on Canadian sex researchers that stand unchallenged:

• Vernon Quinsey
• Max Taylor (psychologist)
• Peggy Kleinplatz
• Aaron Devor
• Irving M. Binik
• Lori Brotto

I've even authored articles on Canadian CAMH sex researchers that have stood unchallenged:

• Betty Steiner
• Ronald Langevin

Challenges only arise during James Cantor's COI editing/self-promotion.

Evidence presented by Dicklyon

Current word length: 263; diff count: 2.

James Cantor is a single-purpose academic-sexologist-POV pusher

Cantor started life at Misplaced Pages by attacking Andrea James and my friend Lynn Conway for their outspoken activism against J. Michael Bailey. He continues to push the POV of his academic sexologist friends.

• This edit by his MarionTheLibrarian persona, attacking Lynn Conway, first attracted my attention. Note that in it he refers to Lynn as "James", when he copied Some scholars have likened James to "the Al Sharpton rather than the M.L. King sort" of activist from the similar attack he had just made on Andrea James here. Note also that the referred quote from "some scholars" is referring to a web blog of another on his side, quoting James Cantor as the source! So, he gets his attack online, then copies it into WP and cites it. Thus started a long argument, in which he at one point inadvertently outed himself to me via email; after I let him know about that, he decided to switch to an account using his real name (I didn't out him). As he points out, his beef with Andrea James and Lynn Conway goes back to several years before he brought his vitriol to WP. Supporting his buds in academia would be OK if he was more balanced about representing their POV, but he continues to work hard to disallow balancing it with the POV from outside the academic circles that he and his friends control.

I have withdrawn from involving myself in this topic area, as it seems too toxic. I believe Cantor is one of the main reasons for that atmosphere. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by MrADHD

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Evidence that Jokestress trolls certain academics

In this video by Andrea James, she boasts that academics are 'very easy to troll' because they tend to be 'very thin skinned and self important' and mention ways to troll those deemed to be 'academic trolls'. Trolling the troll type philosophy I guess. The first couple of minutes of this video are where the trolling is discussed. This may provide some evidence to support claims of trolling or feeling intimidated by Andrea James.

Jokestress while I do not believe she meant to advance pro-paedophilia viewpoints has nevertheless done just that in these diffs. This seems to be evidence of some fringe viewpoints that she holds whereby she feels that sexual attractions and identities should not be 'medicalised'. This is despite the fact that there is universal or near universal scientific consensus that paedophilia (a sexual preference for prepubescent children) is grossly abnormal disorder of the mind as exemplified in the academic literature and diagnostic psychiatric codes. I think that it is fair to say that some of Jokestresses viewpoints are WP:FRINGE.

Jokestress much like James Cantor can and does make productive edits and this should be remembered when proposing any remedies or sanctions I feel.--MrADHD | T@1k? 14:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

James Cantor is prone to POV push

James Cantor seems to have used wikipedia to promote hebephilia as a mental illness/mental disorder. This is a COI violation as his place of work receives money to research hebephilia and promote it as a proposed new mental health diagnosis. Hebephilia describes a sexual preference for young adolescents. There is universal consensus that young adolescents need to be protected by the law against adults who may seek to exploit or abuse young adolescents for sexual gratification reasons, however, currently there is no consensus that hebephilia is a mental illness and the American Psychiatric Association rejected hebephilia as a proposed new mental illness add-on to paedophilia. There is however, a near universal scientific consensus that paedophilia is a mental disorder. Very controversial subject matter! I am even nervous talking about it here but it needs mentioning.

Example of POV pushing: I added in content about hebephilia not being accepted in the DSM V and James Cantor quickly removed it. Whether his revert was justified is debatable but I was struck by how he claimed BLP issues when there were none seemingly to get around COI editing restrictions. I tried to resolve the issue on the talk page with James Cantor with limited success. James Cantor then edited in descriptive terms on his professional opponents which reduced the credibility of their views such as labeling them in article text as 'kink advocate' and 'defense psychologist'.

It appears User:James Cantor created a deception account called User:MarionTheLibrarian where he would edit articles relating to Jokestress (real name Andrea James) as well as other COI topics so it appears that the on-wiki harassing between Jokestress and James Cantor was started by James Cantor.

James Cantor does make productive edits so this should be kept in mind I feel when consider what if any action needs to be taken,--MrADHD | T@1k? 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.