Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence/Jokestress/Editing outside Sexology - 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 | Evidence | Jokestress

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jokestress (talk | contribs) at 04:35, 7 March 2013 (Jokestress: links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:35, 7 March 2013 by Jokestress (talk | contribs) (Jokestress: links)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

David Fuchs' asked about our editing outside sexology.

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, including

Perhaps 10 of those (~0.5%) have been substantively challenged (all by Cantor) and resolved via talk pages, including

Though I believe my edits on the whole were fair and neutral, I acknowledge a COI on those edits in 2005-2009. None of these have been substantively edited by either of us since 2009 by mutual agreement.

I've authored many articles on Canadian sex researchers that stand unchallenged:

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

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

Cantor

Few edits unrelated to Sexology/self-promotion. Of outside edits, two notable behaviors:

  • Challenging the notability of prominent transgender people and organizations (none of which I've ever edited):
  • Trying to delete articles simply because I created them

Other editors

User:WLU and User:Legitimus are excellent editors outside of sexology. Like me, they have never been blocked.

User:Flyer22 and User:Herostratus are generally good editors, though their conduct has led to conflicts and blocks. They get too emotionally invested in some topics, most notably sexology.