Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Sexology Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:50, 25 April 2013 editKs0stm (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators25,726 edits closing← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:07, 25 April 2013 edit undoArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits courtesy blanking content of case sub-page, for the Arbitration Committee 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Casenav|case name=Sexology|clerk1=Penwhale|clerk2=Ks0stm|draft arb=David Fuchs|draft arb2=|active=10|inactive=2|recused=1}} {{Casenav|case name=Sexology|clerk1=Penwhale|clerk2=Ks0stm|draft arb=David Fuchs|draft arb2=|active=10|inactive=2|recused=1}}


{{ombox |image=none |text= This page has been ]. The ]'s decision is still in effect, and can be viewed at ]. The contents of this page can be viewed in the .}}
{{notice|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.}}
{{NOINDEX}}

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 ] 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 ], an editor's contributions, or a ] 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 ].

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the ]. 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 ], which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at ]. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

__TOC__

== Evidence presented by James Cantor ==
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=971|diff=96|link=49|wLimit=1000|dLimit=100|lLimit=2147483647}}

===Evidence of Jokestress' off-wiki campaign influencing on-wiki events===
* ''NYTimes'' reporting on campaign of harassment by Jokestress against ].
* Jokestress’ Bailey-related target list.
* Peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis of campaign, by bioethicist/historian. Coverage received a Guggenheim Award.

===Evidence of Jokestress' chilling effect===
* Jokestress' protracted conflicts with openly trans- Wikipedian, ].
* Jokestress’ updated target list, naming ].
* 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 she could ''"vector and expose"'' them.
* Example of results of campaign against Hfarmer.

===Evidence of Jokestress’ POV-pushing long predating Cantor===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year!! Example
|-
| 2004 || ] POV <br>] POV-pushing<br>Autogynephilia POV <br>Autogynephilia POV-pushing
|-
| 2005 || ] POV <br>] POV-pushing
|-
| 2006 || ] POV <br>] POV-pushing; continued ]
|-
| 2007 ||
''NYTimes'' notes WP conflict on Bailey pages, already notable.
|-
| 2008 ||
Homosexual transsexual POV <br>Homosexual transsexual POV-pushing
|-
|}
(Cantor joined WP in May, 2008.)

===Evidence of Jokestress’ distruptions occurring 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...
* 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 Jokestress' 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, ] (2005).
* Disrupting DYN discussion w/ uninvolved editors pushing anti-Cantor POV (2010).
*Repeated counter-consensus additions of ] to ] (2008, 2010, 2012).

===Evidence of Jokestress’ suppression of disfavored topics===
Evidence of Jokestress’ POV against Autogynephilia.
*Evidence of suppressed coverage of Autogynephilia:
:{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Paraphilia !! Google.Scholar Hits !! WP page?
|-
| ] || 3 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 13 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 16 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 21 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 35 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 64 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 70 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 96 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 114 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 375 || {{yes}}
|-
| ''Autogynephilia'' || 394 || {{no}}
|-
| ] || 484 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 485 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 1,150 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 13,700 || {{yes}}
|-
| ] || 17,900 || {{yes}}
|-
|}
Evidence of Jokestress' anti-Cantor POV
* Every RS to trans neuroanatomy is cited, except Cantor.
* Each author of cited papers mentioned by name, except Cantor..

===Rebuttal to Jokestress’ allegations of excessive self-citation===
On , Jokestress lists the 26 diffs in which I cited work from my own team. Same list, counted by year is:
::{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year of diff !! Count
|-
| 2008 || 21
|-
| 2009 || 1
|-
| 2010 || 3
|-
| 2011 || 1
|-
| 2012 || 0
|-
| 2013 || 0
|-
|}

Examples of Cantor citing authors unrelated to self/CAMH (''2012 only'')
:
:

For evaluating whether Cantor over-represents or Jokestress suppresses cites, these are the scholar.google results for the relevant topics:
::{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Topic !! Google.Scholar Hits (2002-2013) !! Hits to CAMH/Dreger/Lawrence !! Search string
|-
| ] || 11,500 || 20% of the top 100 of those 11,500 articles (as sorted by relevance) ||
|-
| Gender dysphoria || 15,000 || 7% of top 100 ||
|-
| ] || 73,000 || 14% of top 100 ||
|-
| ] || 40,500 || 3% of top 100 ||
|-
| Autogynephilia || 393 || 36% of top 100 ||
|-
|}

===Rebuttal to Jokestress evidence (Background>Hebephilia>Cantor)===
Jokestress' claims are largely half-truths; thus, much of this is to add the missing halves (space permitting).

*Regarding ]:
:* 2008 (Whether it remains relevant is up to others.)
:* Appropriately so.
:* Appropriately so.
:* A half-truth. Jokestress neglects the unanimous opinion of the multiple other admins who called it inappropriate and moved to unblock. She also neglects that it was she who instigated ]'s block.
:* I believe I can stand by every word of my, quite respectful, response to JzG's warning.

*Regarding ]:
:* Untrue. were a ''response'' to The docs in actually show that I fault Franklin for claiming '''*I*''' used a definition I didn't.
:* Such comments on talkpages for discussion are perfectly appropriate.
:* De-peacocking is perfectly appropriate.

*Regarding ]:
:* Calling it an “academic publication” doesn't turn a letter-to-the-editor into an RS.
:* 2008
:* 2008
:* An IP editor calling it whitewashing doesn’t make it true. The criticisms were clearly OR.
:* I removed the ''entirely unsourced and incorrect OR'' claim that "hebephilia is not a recognized diagnosis..."
:* I removed the ''entirely unsourced'' legal discussion.
:* I removed the ''entirely unsourced'' paragraph on cultural context of hebephilia.
:* Perfectly appropriate EL's (such as to a list of research articles on topic); see also asking other editors to review them.
:* De-peacocking.
:* A perfectly appropriate EL to an award-winning bioethicist on the topic.
:* I removed the ''sourced-to-a-blog claim'' about a closed committee's actions behind closed doors (which no one can actually know, nevermind enter into WP).
:*2013 conduct
::* A half-truth. I reverted Jokestress' entire, whoppingly one-sided edit, other editors agreeing, none opposing. (Same as diff )
::* Unclear what the problem is. (And, and are the same diff?)
::* De-peacocking.

I leave allegations about other editors (e.g., "tag-teaming") to the other editors. However, the only evidence suggesting anyone engaging in such behavior are ]'s claim of being blackmailed, but with the evidence (secret) being submitted by another editor (unnamed) to ArbCom on her behalf, and and ]'s being indef'ed today as a sockpuppet. Both were supporters of Jokestress.

===Rebuttal to Dicklyon evidence===
*Space constraints prevent discussion of a long-over dispute, but the diff presented is from 2008.

===Rebuttal to Bonze Blayk evidence===
There is little to add not already apparent from reading the diffs Blayk presents. Each is an appropriate edit/comment that simply did not match Blayk’s POV:
* Acknowledging WP culture is not stereotyping.
*The ] was best described by uninvolved ]: “Cantor, on any fair reading, largely demolished the arguments that the combination 'Androphilia and gynephilia' merited inclusion as a distinct topic in an encyclopedia.”
*Blayk misses the point: ONLY autogynephilia got merged out of being an independent page. Much less notable/sourced topics receive independent coverage.

===Evidence regarding Cantor's behavior===
I believe what matters most are my pattern over time and responsiveness to feedback.
*Began editing under own name two months into five years on WP.
*Made and unerringly stuck to pledges to stay off problematic pages, repeatedly inviting Jokestress to do same.
:
*Repeated disclosure of associations on relevant talkpages.
:
*Walked away from conflicts when Jokestress arrives.
*Once suggestion was made to submit subpages via RfC, began doing so voluntarily.
*Uninvolved editors repeatedly describe complaints as unjustified and ancient:
:

== Evidence presented by Jokestress ==
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=995|diff=89|link=43|wLimit=1000|dLimit=100|lLimit=2147483647}}

===Summary===
''']''' <small>( ] / ] )</small>: key activist in major ethical controversies in Sexology.
*His edits reflect off-wiki attempts to promote himself / allies or denigrate critics.

''']''' <small>( ] / others? )</small>: escalated this dispute after years of OWNership at "]."
*After {{fontcolor|black|#FFFF9B|other problematic recent conduct involving Sexology}}, Flyer22 and proxies got sockpuppetry block.

With '''], ]''', and ''']''', they OWN many Sexology articles (including , . ).

Cantor / alliance
*Hinder including other scholarship (legal, historical, philosophical) via BATTLEground / personal attacks.
*Seek referendum here on settled disputes and off-wiki activity, vs. their unresolved on-wiki conduct.
*Repeatedly libeled me (since oversighted), then reported me for removing it per ].

===Background===

Complex off-wiki controversies center around Cantor's employer ].

*CAMH creates / promotes obscure paraphilias.

*CAMH pathologizes transgender children, adults, and our partners via diseases they create / promote.
:*2003 protests against academic exploitation by CAMH apologists in Sexology "marked a new moment in transgender history." ().
:*CAMH apologist Alice Dreger then attempted to rewrite history, attacking trans leaders using a Sexology journal Cantor helps edit.
:*Later, medical / legal experts rejected CAMH-backed ] as "no longer considered ethical." ()

*{{fontcolor|black|#FFFF9B|An of CAMH apologists, especially Cantor, fought to include "hebephilia" in ].}} {{fontcolor|black|#FFFF9B|Medical / legal experts overwhelmingly rejected inclusion.}}

===On-wiki disputes===
Nearly all evidence about me describes ].

*Hfarmer identity dispute (2005-2009)
::Cantor and ally Hfarmer displayed OWNership and POV-pushed, like Cantor/Flyer22/WLU on Hebephilia. After much disruption, Hfarmer was ] then of yet another user. . See : historian Katrina Rose describes on-wiki outing/harassment by Hfarmer, not vice-versa as Cantor claims.
*CAMH dispute (2008-2009)
::Though contributions were productive / neutral overall, we had disputes / COI editing, long since resolved.
The {{fontcolor|black|#FFFF9B|unresolved Hebephilia incident}} exemplifies ongoing conduct throughout Sexology by Cantor allies.
====Hebephilia====
"" is "{{fontcolor|black|#FFFF9B|not a recognized diagnosis.}}" It's a "fictitious diagnosis" and "pseudoscientific construct." Cantor / CAMH attempts to ] hebephilia as a mental disorder were {{fontcolor|black|#FFFF9B|rejected by "near-unanimous" consensus of medical / legal experts}}.

The obscure term describes attraction to adolescents, a common sexual response. CAMH apologists' ] uses narrower ] definitions. It's rejected for ] widespread ] phenomena. Acting on attraction to adolescents is legal / acceptable in many cultures. Pathologizing / criminalizing "hebephilia" / related conduct is misused to ]. Colleagues Cantor and ] edits show support for the concept.

Cantor / allies maintain his minority POV, remove widely-published criticisms / legal perpectives from ]. They could ] but typically suppress criticisms. Misplaced Pages implies hebephilia's a valid diagnostic category, like many controversial CAMH conceptualizations, because of Cantor's insidious manipulation. This POV problem's worse at ] but impossible to address due to Flyer22's overzealous BATTLE to "combat pro-pedophilia and/or WP:FRINGE.'" (see highlighted ]).

;Cantor
*Tampering with hebephilia opponent ]'s biography
:* Removes reliable source attesting notability
:* Tags "non-notable"
:* Removes "sexologist," Moser's profession
:*Defies COI warnings
:*

*Attacks on hebephilia opponent ]
:* Off-wiki attacks on Franklin
:* Claims Franklin's financially motivated to support expert consensus
:* Tampers with Franklin's biography
::*Removed "prominent," revised throughout to make her seem less prominent
::*Downplays hebephilia criticism, removes Ethics Committee position (easily sourced )

*Tampering with ] to promote himself / his ideas
:* Removes Franklin academic publication
:* Creates article, misquoting Glueck, using Cantor's own operationalized definition
:* Further operationalizes / reifies definition, adds himself 6x
:* Removes criticism of his work
:* Removes "hebephilia is not a recognized diagnosis by the American Psychiatric Association"
:* Removes entire legal discussion
:* Removes cultural context questioning "hebephilia" validity
:* Adds links to his website
:* Changes Franklin's "List of relevant publications" to "list of editorials"
:* Adds link to CAMH apologist Alice Dreger's blog promoting hebephilia. Dreger wrote attack piece on me in Sexology journal Cantor helps edit.
:* Removes rejection of hebephilia info (bogus "BLP" claim)
:*2013 conduct
::* Removes hebephilia opponents ] () and ], founder '']'' ()
::* Reification of self-cites: changes "proposed" / "believe" to "found" (bogus "BLP" claims)
::* Changes descriptors of opponents to seem less authoritative

;OWN alliance POV-pushing / "consensus" creation
*Flyer22 ({{fontcolor|black|#FFFF9B|see ]}})
:* Removes legal section: "hebephilia should not be confused with legal matters"
:* OWN tagteam of Franklin: "James Cantor had removed mention of her from the lead before. I'll let him assess whether she should be removed again."
:* Promotes Cantor's operationalized definition; links to article she OWNs
:* Removes Franklin / legal section (partially restored later)
:* Removes pedophilia template: "It's about hebephilia not technically being pedophilia" (later restored)

*Legitimus
:* Removes Franklin / expert consensus POV that "hebephilia" is "driven by legal, not medical considerations."
:* Removes Franklin, downplays rejection, replaces Franklin with source that doesn't mention hebephilia

*WLU ({{fontcolor|black|#FFFF9B|see ]}})
:* Reification, adds "chronophilia"
:* Removes Franklin's ''Psychiatric Times'' article
:* Adds proponent Wakefield's ''Clinical Social Work Journal'' article
:* Adds proponent Blanchard
:* Removes "academic" from description of Franklin's work

;My 2013 involvement
:* WLU's edit above was last straw. I tagged Hebephilia NPOV / UNDUE (my first edit)
:* NPOV attempts (reverted)
:* Accurately cite Glueck's definition
:* Add more etymology, de-reify per WP:SAID (reverted)
:* Add reliably-sourced expert views; Cantor immediately removes them:
:* Add COI tags twice. WLU removes them

====Personal attacks====
=====Editing my biography=====
:'''Cantor''' (instigating off-wiki dispute here)
:* Adds his own off-wiki attacks on me, citing Dreger; see ]
:* Removes academic credentials
:* Removes primary occupations

:'''WLU''' (while discussing adding Cantor article at ])
:* Adds Dreger attack; refuses my request to balance with supplied reliable sources

:'''Bali ultimate''' (while ])
:* Retaliatory expansion of uncontextualized Dreger attack

:'''My very best wishes''' (during this ArbCom)
:* Removes contextualization

=====Warnings/trolling=====
:'''Herostratus''' (during a ])
:*Warning not to edit OWNed articles + Emailed warning: "Andrea, PLEASE read this for your own safety"
:*Barnstar to Legitimus attacking me

=====Defamation/libel=====
:'''Bali ultimate'''
:*(oversighted)

:'''MrADHD'''
:*{{fontcolor|black|#FFFF9B|States I "advance pro-paedophilia viewpoints"}}

:::I merely said on a talk page "one significant historical view is that pedophilia is an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality." That's ]' view not mine. This OWN alliance suppresses mentioning this major sexologist at ], citing FRINGE.

:'''Herostratus'''
:*{{fontcolor|black|#FFFF9B|States I "promote sex-with-children-normalization}}"
:*(oversighted)
::*Redacts statement

:'''Legitimus'''
:*(oversighted)
::*My redaction request (ignored)
::*Declaims ]:‎ "My statement was inaccurate, though made in under genuine belief it was true based on faulty info."
::*Doubles down on accusations "In the jurisdiction I live in, James would have faced prison time"

:'''Flyer22'''
:*(oversighted)
::*Redaction request (ignored)
::*Flyer reverts my ]-allowed redactions:
::*Reinserts Legitimus defamation, reports '''me'''
::*Acknowledges BLP violation

:'''WLU'''
:*(oversighted)
::*Reinserts Legitimus defamation following Flyer22's ANI report

=====Outing=====
:*
:*

===Responses===
*] (])

== Evidence presented by Dicklyon ==
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=262|diff=2|link=1|wLimit=500|dLimit=50|lLimit=2147483647}}


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

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

* by his MarionTheLibrarian persona, attacking ], first attracted my attention. Note that in it he refers to Lynn as "James", when he copied ''Some scholars have likened James to "the ] rather than the ] sort" of activist '' from the similar attack he had just made on Andrea James . 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. ] (]) 21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

== Evidence presented by MrADHD ==
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=500|diff=6|link=8|wLimit=500|dLimit=50|lLimit=2147483647}}

James Cantor and Jokestress make a large number of productive edits and both overall are productive editors so this should be kept in mind I feel when considering what if any action needs to be taken.

===Jokestress, trolling and fringe advocacy===
In , she boasts that academics are 'very easy to troll' because they tend to be 'very thin skinned and self important' and mentions ways to troll those deemed to be 'academic trolls'. 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. However, the video does not mention wikipedia so it could be referring to off-wiki conduct but still is evidence nonetheless of the 'chilling effect' described by some editors.

While Jokestress clearly opposes paedophilic actions as being harmful or potentially harmful, she nonetheless advocates including fringe viewpoints on paedophilia such as paedophilia being an 'extreme version of normal male masculinity'.,, Another example, Jokestress feels that paedophilia among other paraphilias 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 a 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 ].--]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 19:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

===James Cantor and his professional opponents===
James Cantor seems to have a COI regarding ] that has led to him having disputes with psychologists who disagree with him that hebephilia is a mental disorder. 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 them for sexual reasons, as they are a very vulnerable group due to their immaturity, however, currently there is no consensus that hebephilia is a mental illness and the American Psychiatric Association rejected hebephilia as a proposed new add-on to the psychiatric disorder paedophilia., Arguments against hebephilia being a mental illness include that pubescents are capable of reproducing and our ancestors didn't have time to wait around in the harsh outdoor environment, and then of course the other side of the argument I've already described (power-imbalance and potential for harm/abuse in such relationships). A very controversial and difficult area to edit!

James Cantor edited in descriptive terms on his professional opponents on the hebephilia article which reduced the credibility of their views such as labeling them in article text as 'kink advocate' and 'defense psychologist'. I am not sure if this violates ] but at the least it is not encylopedic and is not good taste.

James Cantor acknowledges that he has a COI on certain topics and appears to be sincere in trying to avoid COI editing.]--]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 19:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

in my case statement which with . The MarionTheLibrarian account wasn't a 'deception account'. I apologise.--]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

== Evidence presented by My very best wishes ==
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=431|diff=7|link=6|wLimit=500|dLimit=50|lLimit=2147483647}}

===Locus of dispute===
Why the dispute? Jokestress considers certain scientific publications as discrimination against sexual minorities. She tells in her political manifesto : ''My response to “sexology” is similar to how a person of color might respond to “raceology”'' and mentioned Nazi doctors in connection with Canadian doctors. However word ] has no decidedly negative connotation. Recognizing something as pathology is important to provide medical care to people who need it. Interpreting medical care as discrimination by "]" is wrong .

===Jokestress maintains an attack website===

She created these blacklists of people , . These lists exist right now and include at least two wikipedians with whom Jokestress has/had a dispute. These lists are not a criticism of scientific theories, but designed to intimidate people and harm their employment (the allegations of "academic misconduct"). Jokestress tells she created <u>a worldwide organization</u> to handle Bailey, Cantor and other scientists : ''We mobilized all around the world as never before... This isn’t just evolution, it’s revolution.''

How can anyone edit ] if they consider it "raceology" rather than medicine or science, and how can anyone work in a collaborative project if they create blacklists of fellow collaborators?

===Editing by Dr. Cantor does not seem really problematic===
Most edits by Cantor seem legitimate, especially more recent ones. Yes, ] is a controversial subject, but it clearly satisfies our criteria for inclusion and therefore an improvement of content and ''not'' ] ("When advancing outside interests..."). Advancing wikipedia is fine. Being a key contributor in a number of ''legitimate'' articles is a good thing. ''However'', presenting this as a proof of WP:OWN and WP:COI shows ] by another side (Jocktress tells: ''I define WP:OWN behavior below as having more than twice as many edits as the second-highest contributor'' . But it would be fine even if he was the only contributor) Same is ] with diffs like . Quoting himself is fine if this improves content. was not a problem; someone quickly de-proded the article. Importantly, Dr. Cantor does not edit war.

Cantor probably should not edit BLP articles of his opponents. However, "removing credentials" is legitimate. This is an unsourced claim in BLP. Please provide your RS. End of story. An "off-wiki attacks on me, citing Dreger" ? No, this is a ''sourced'' edit explaining why exactly Andrea James is a notable, although controversial activist (comparison with famous Al Sharpton). Bring ''more'' sources to improve NPOV and ''discuss''. Cantor "removes criticism of his work" ? No, he removes strange phrase, "The samples used were non representative; criminal and clinical in nature". Many diffs are four years old.

@Jockestress. I disagree about , but agree that editing by Dr. Cantor and other participants must be examined per evidence above.

== Evidence presented by WLU ==
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=493|diff=26|link=4|wLimit=1000|dLimit=100|lLimit=2147483647}}

Jokestress improves many topics. But her experience as a transsexual and off-wiki disputes with Bailey, Cantor and others seem to cause problems. Articles should be dealt with through reliable sources. Arbitration is about behaviour, and two aspects Jokestress' are problems:
#A failure to assume good faith that sees conspiracies rather than disagreements
#The ] Andrea James' real-life activities have on wikipedia when she expresses interest in an editor's real-life identity

====Good faith====
In ] discussion Jokestress claimed my of a scholarly article in which "James" appears more than 100 times was "negative content". My change to ] consisted of "''...and in 2008 an article appeared in the '']'' discussing the controversy in detail''". Jokestress noted that Cantor had added it in the past and asked that I disclose my "''personal and/or professional connection to sex and sexuality issues''". I have no such connections and know Cantor as a co-editor with whom I have had no meatspace interactions (I have advised him on the importance of civility, sources and process but I am not his lapdog; note my to one of his articles into ]). Jokestress believed my edit was a deliberate slight and requested/demanded I prove my "intent" . I believe edits should be based on sources, not intent.

Jokestress then started a at NPOVN (whole section is ]) 'politely demanding' I make edits to ]. (Note Maunus' , , and comments). Jokestress then claimed I was editing ] due to a recent "editing dispute" . this was an inaccurate summary of ] thread at ] where my sole comment to Jokestress was . Jokestress then I was attempting to "punish" her as part of "''an on-wiki content dispute''", adding Dreger's article as part of that dispute. As I state , and , I don't believe my edits were problematic. Despite this, I continue to be accused of .

Seeing plots and claiming that agreeing with Cantor indicates bias is also obvious on the ]. This appears to be an extreme failure to ] - seeing conspiracies rather than people who disagree. I believe this shows Jokestress has a conflict of interest that is not financial and strong enough that a topic ban may be warranted. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

====Chilling====
A ] on my talk page alleged a connection to ] (). Jokestress digging through my editing history to determine my identity has a ] given what I've read of Andrea James' real world actions. I've voiced this concern .

Other editors have similar concerns about a chilling effect (, , , , and ). These questions generally shouldn't be asked , because sources are what matter . Probes for identity also appeared on (no diffs as the edits were oversighted, search for "identify ourselves for purposes of transparency"). ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

== Evidence presented by Tryptofish ==
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=115|diff=30|link=0|wLimit=500|dLimit=50|lLimit=2147483647}}

===James Cantor at ]: initial edits POV, but then very willing to listen to reasonable arguments===
In 2011, I responded to James Cantor's request ] at ] for help at ] from editors familiar with neuroscience.

In the discussion, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , (also ), I felt that he had indeed made edits pushing a pro-Blanchard POV (going beyond ]). Other editors were, understandably, sensitive to source material that might appear to be unsympathetic to transgendered persons, but their reactions to his edits had been ], resulting in gridlock. When I came in as an uninvolved editor, I found James Cantor to be very cooperative and open to consensus. I want to point out this distinction: POV edits to start with, but then very reasonable and respectful of consensus when presented with non-adversarial arguments.

== Evidence presented by Flyer22 ==
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=964|diff=35|link=17|wLimit=1000|dLimit=100|lLimit=2147483647}}

===Jokestress pushes fringe views or other minority views to the detriment of scientific consensus===
*As is shown , , and , Jokestress has disrespected ], ] and ] consistently by insisting that the Pedophilia article give as much weight to minority views about pedophilia, as well as to aspects that are not pedophilia – what, as the second diff-link shows, she calls "non-adult pedophilia, adult non-pedophilia, and non-adult non-pedophilia." Despite the article in question being titled '''Pedophilia''', Jokestress wants the article to be about ], the topic of an article that she failed to sustain and has been trying to turn the Pedophilia article into ever since. Or about all adult-sexual interest in prepubescent children (pedophilic and nonpedophilic). The third diff-link also shows that, despite what WP:FRINGE says, she doesn't consider the view that pedophilia is "an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality" to be fringe.
*Jokestress often tells half-truths. See:. Stating that I or others are suppressing ] because of WP:FRINGE is another half-truth; there has yet to be any direct suppressing of Havelock Ellis.
*At ], Jokestress added "]" to the table list, despite most of the scientific community no longer considering it to be one or a mental disorder. Adding this to the table list (instead of in a subsection discussing it), even with a note that it used to be considered a mental disorder/paraphilia, is stigmatizing (as others agreed). Jokestress added it more out of spite, relating to James Cantor, and supported titling the article '''List of current paraphilias''' to help "show that this is a list based on definitional quicksand and social custom."
*At ] editors have consistently kept ]s (such as ] and ]) and mere ] (such as ] and ]) from being listed on the template as ]s because these categories are not recognized as sexual orientations by any authoritative source (meaning a scientific organization) or have not gained scientific support as sexual orientations (like ] has). Jokestress disagreed with the exclusions and wanted pansexuality and polysexuality added as sexual orientations. But most sources, including , simply view ''pansexuality'' and ''polysexuality'' as alternative terms for '']''; they are used by some people who consider the term ''bisexuality'' to be limiting. Sexual orientation and sexual identity/] are not necessarily the same thing. '']'', ''pansexual'', ''polyfidelitous'', ''polysexual'', ''byke'' or ''biphilic'' are sexual identities, not sexual orientations. We agreed to have pansexuality and polysexuality on the template as "non-binary categories," but this was not enough for Jokestress. Enter the ]. Jokestress also proposed that we get rid of the Sexual orientation template altogether, and instead have a template for all sexualities/sexual identities, including paraphilias. As can be seen with that second diff-link, I was the only one to support her alternative template...despite still believing that the Sexual orientation template should exist.
===Jokestress's ]ING/]/]/] behavior ===
Imagine minding your own business at an article/page and then having an editor suddenly show up and make disparaging remarks about you. It's very difficult to work with an editor who does this: . Especially one who causes of fear, or any fear for that matter. Jokestress disregards the intimidating she engages in and the fear she causes.
===Jokestress censoring her Misplaced Pages article===
Jokestress being significantly involved in what goes in or out of her Misplaced Pages article, ], censoring what she feels should be censored, is problematic.
===Jokestress's accusations about me===
*Jokestress trying to put me through another sockpuppet case here is one attempt to shift primary focus on me. In both of my sockpuppet cases, there was substantial evidence that I had not sockpuppeted. , for example, clearly made by my brother, which led to , is just one example. In the second sockpuppet case (my third block), the substantial evidence that I had not sockpuppeted led to the ] who blocked me, ], to unblock me and declare with 100% certainty that I had not sockpuppeted and that my brother, who she thoroughly interrogated via ], exists. Further, my brother largely didn't edit sexual or psychological topics, with the exception of his short-lived time as Banking honesty, as even the IP "sockfarm" Jokestress attributes to me -– the same IP "sockfarm" shared by an editor unrelated to me (]) -- shows. My brother now has , own computer, is on good behavior, and Alison has been helping me keep things in that regard in check. The only thing, as Alison knows, that I now concern myself with regarding my brother at this site is that he has turned off his proxy tunnel before visiting Misplaced Pages and after he has used my computer so that a proxy is not run through the Flyer22 account when I use my computer.

*Jokestress makes it seem that I am simply out to get her; shows that to be false and rather me trying to show fairness.

*As can be seen at ], Jokestress defines WP:OWN differently than how ] actually defines it. To state that I or other editors own sexual and/or psychological topics because we extensively edit these topics, more than the typical editor, is very troubling. Jokestress accuses me of being the leader of "the click" she considers me to be a part of or Cantor's servant ("lap dog" like WLU mentioned above) and conspiring with Cantor to present hebephilia as a mental disorder. In actuality, I have disagreed in general, and with Cantor, that hebephilia is considered a mental disorder/paraphilia by most experts in this field.

*Jokestress's claims of my owning articles, being difficult to work with, etc. are false accusations, as shown by barnstars or other gifts editors have awarded me with, or by compliments in general, for my lone work and/or team work on Misplaced Pages articles. Often, when an article is called "mine," I make a comment like this:.

*.

== Evidence presented by Bonze blayk ==
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=512|diff=11|link=9|wLimit=500|dLimit=50|lLimit=2147483647}}


===A Difficult Question===
"It’s almost impossible now to stand in the middle." - Dr. Anne Lawrence, quoted in Alice Dreger .

I have a fair amount of experience editing in the trans* article space, and unfortunately Dr. Lawrence's comment tends to ring true. Conflicts in the broader world spill into editing here, and maintaining ] is a huge challenge.

===] transgresses ] and ]===

] has promoted stereotypes about editors, e.g., .

He often offers snubs rather than genuine responses to comments in a manner that derails dialog; e.g., with me,
,
, and
, following , and
, triggering interaction, and
, which I found so amusing I added it to my profile?

… because we do agree on a number of things, but I dislike the typecasting and casual derision in which he indulges.

I believe his style of interaction could improve, showing more tolerance for disagreement, rather than pigeonholing those who disagree; also, he is mistaken in asserting ] has been suppressed; it was into ].

===Re: "Chilling Effect"===

Katrina Rose's blog post points out that ] claims that Ms. Rose edited Misplaced Pages using an IP address, that Hfarmer has a dubious reputation, and implies that if she repeats these she will be risking charges of libel; Ms. Rose is a lawyer, and is declaring her interest in protecting her own reputation. Hfarmer was always open about her identity once she dropped her aliases, and her claim there that she is "not a public person", and thus exempt from public comment, are risible in light of her efforts at .

===Dr. Alice Dreger is an "activist" herself ===
Alice Dreger identifies as an "activist". Her article on the "Bailey Controversy" has been cited as general evidence of the awfulness of ], but she is not an unbiased source; see on Zoe Brain's blog.

Alice Dreger on Alice Dreger:

On her blog:

:

"… after almost two decades of overt activism on my part …"
"… the Hastings Center has just published by one of their own staff members basically telling us we made dex and Dix Poppas’s clitoral stimulation studies too personal, what with all the naming and outrage and—well, our <i>tone</i>."

Her "activism" has been criticized by fellow bioethicists in ""

I believe her article on the Bailey controversy was written in the same spirit of partisanship, only with targets that were more vulnerable to these tactics; I have read that issue of the ] in its entirety, and overall concur with Dr. Conway's .

===Rebuttal to Cantor's Rebuttal===
"* Acknowledging WP culture is not stereotyping." - ] () - "Most of the contributors are enthusiasts rather than scholars on the topic, and the enthusiasts greatly dislike any research that departs from their political views." - Not a stereotype?

Sadly, this typifies James Cantor's attitude towards criticism.

===My opinion===
I do not believe topic bans on either ] or ] are truly desirable. These are controversial topics where it's difficult to recruit editors who can accurately assess sources, and all competent editors are likely to come to the articles with ] and some ] issues.

==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.

Latest revision as of 15:07, 25 April 2013

Shortcut Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Penwhale (Talk) & Ks0stm (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: David Fuchs (Talk)

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. The Arbitration Committee's decision is still in effect, and can be viewed at the main case page. The contents of this page can be viewed in the page history.