This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WLU (talk | contribs) at 23:45, 30 January 2013 (→Statement by James Cantor: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Sexology

Initiated by — Mark Arsten (talk) at 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jokestress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• James Cantor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Flyer22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Herostratus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KimvdLinde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Legitimus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Jokestress
• James Cantor
• WLU
• Flyer22
• Herostratus
• KimvdLinde
• Legitimus

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Requests for arbitration: James Cantor at The Man Who Would Be Queen and related pages
• Talk:Hebephilia
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/HebephiliaIncident

Statement by Mark Arsten

This dispute largely revolves around our articles on paraphilias, particularly those that relate to transgenderism. James Cantor (talk · contribs) and Jokestress (talk · contribs) have been actively editing this area for some time, and they have often come into conflict with each other. Each has faced charges of POV pushing in our sexology articles. They each contend that the other is promoting biased information about scientists and unscientific information about sexology. They have been in conflict on many articles' talk pages and in Afds. Examples include here, here, here, and here. Both editors are open about their identities (James Cantor and Andrea James), and they have each been involved in high-profile off-wiki controversies in the field of sexology.

This case request was sparked by a dispute in our article on hebephilia. It led to an ANI thread, visible here. My involvement with this began when I closed an Afd in which they debated each other. I was concerned with the intensity of the interactions between them, and when I saw an ANI thread, I got involved and opined in favor of an interaction ban. During the course of the discussion, I became very concerned about Jokestress' use of Misplaced Pages to attack researchers she disagrees with. Recent examples are here and here. Several commentators who participated in the thread felt that Cantor was giving undue weight to his own work and the work of his colleges in several of our articles. He claims that this criticism is political in nature. While some felt that Jokestress was countering Cantor's bias, others saw her edits as POV pushing.

These claims are difficult to verify without understanding of an obscure subject area. There was fairly strong support at ANI for an interaction ban between Cantor and Jokestress, and most people who participated agreed that either James Cantor or Jokestress (or both) should be topic banned from paraphilias or sexology, but there was no consensus reached about the proposed bans. Subsequently, a number of the participants agreed that this could only be solved through arbitration--and I agree with them. At this point, I think it is safe to say that it is nearly impossible to improve articles on paraphilias due to the intensity of the dispute, so I ask the Arbitration committee to accept this request. I've included Flyer22, WLU, Herostratus, and KimvdLinde as parties because they were all involved in the dispute on the talk page of Hebephilia and in the ANI thread.

Edit: Added Legitimus (talk · contribs) per request on my talk page.

I admit I screwed up the name when I filed this. It does have a much broader scope than Hebephilia.

Statement by Sceptre

I'm adding myself as an involved party due to my involvement in the ANI thread, but I think this is the meaty case that ArbCom was designed for. As I've said on several times over the past week, there are many facets of this dispute, including questions about importing a (now-ten-year-long) dispute onto the encyclopedia, the promotion of fringe theories on-and-off-wiki, professional conduct on-and-off-wiki, when expert editing becomes COI-editing (and vice-versa, when outsider editing may compromise neutrality), and even encyclopedic treatment of a maligned minority, especially when said maligning comes from otherwise reliable sources. Of course, the committee's remit is limited, but I still think it's in everyone's interest for it to be taken up here rather than at AN/I where battle lines seem to be pre-drawn. Sceptre 03:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I echo Thryduulf to a point regarding naming, but I think "paraphilias" is a little too restricted to the dispute. There are issues with gender identity disorders (i.e. alternative taxonomy and typology of transgenderism) as well as sexual identity disorders (i.e. paraphilias) in the dispute. Sceptre 05:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by KimvdLinde

Due to my work, I have easy access to many scientific articles, while my professional background provides me with an above average understanding of the literature and research methods. I am not sure when I came first in contact with James Cantor, but after the first encounter, I stated checking contributions of him to Misplaced Pages and quickly learned that it would be best if all of his edits would be checked by a competent expert in the field, because it became my impression that many of those edits are biased. Those edits are not in the category of obviously wrong, but in a more general category of the form of clever wording that will pass by the average reader and thus the average Misplaced Pages editor for that matter. I will provide one example here. Penile plethysmograph is a tool used to determine what stimuli arouses people, and is used as a measure that is independent of self-reports. The key in this kind of studies is effects that can be observed at the individual level versus effects that can be observed at the group level. In May 2008, James Cantor, editing as Marion The Librarian, inserted this claim: It has been shown to distinguish pedophilic men from nonpedophilic men. To a lay person, this reads as that you can take an individual, measure his response to pedophilic porno, and with certainty determine whether this person is a pedophile or not. This is not consistent with the results presented in the sources, which shows that you can assign a majority can be assigned to the proper category. This is a statement about a group, but also implies that not all of the individuals could be assigned to the proper group. In fact, the sensitivity to distinguish between pedophiles and non-pedophiles was between 29% and 62% depending on the specific subgroup. So, in September 2010, about 2.5 years after the misrepresentation was inserted, I changed the wording to reflect that . A scholar like James knows this difference. The fact that he added it as if it was a guaranteed distinction, instead of a 'they observed a measurable difference between groups', is an obvious indication of biased editing. I assume it does not come as a surprise that two of the three articles that were cited to support the misrepresented claim came from his own institute.

Since that first discovery, I have kind of kept a eye on his editing, because I think in due time, it will be a hell of a story to tell about how a single editor could slip in so many edits that are massaging the truth. It becomes even more interesting to see how too many editors will accept too easy what he writes as true, and even help consolidating it. Depending on the outcome, this ArbCom case could easily be the next chapter in that saga, because dispute resolution at Misplaced Pages is unfortunately limited to behavioral issues, and the ArbCom unfortunately at times has to leave the content issues in place or becasue of its narrow scope even will allow those to continue to be added. -- Kim van der Linde 04:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. I think the title is not correct, this is a much wider issue and should be probably renamed. -- Kim van der Linde 04:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I've become involved with this only since it hit AN/I the other day. After reading the initial evidence there and in linked discussions my view was that this was not ripe for Arbcom (yet) and that we (the community) should at least try to solve it first. To that end I proposed a topic ban for Jokestress and a mutual interaction ban between her and James Cantor . This proposal gained widespread but not consensus support. I didn't and still don't think this would be a final solution, merely removing the most disruptive elements so that the finer problems could be dealt with.

By yesterday evening (I'm on GMT) my view had evolved somewhat, and I posted my dinosaur and dogs analogy of the situation,. Mark Asten is following the implicit recommendation of the most recent commenters in choosing the latter option I gave by effectively saying that yes, we the community could do something here (topic and interaction bans) but we don't think that this would fix the problem.

Personally, I think the community could solve this still but it would be a long, multi-stage process of progressively sorting out each layer before moving on to the next. The feeling I've been increasingly getting from AN/I is that the community doesn't have the patience to do this, nor the faith in it's ability to see it through without needing arbcom down the line anyway, so I would recommend accepting the case.

There would seem to me to be three strands that need looking at:

• COI issues regarding several editors but most notably Jokestress and James Cantor.
• Behaviour around the significant content dispute - arbcom needs to examine what the barriers are to the community solving it.
• Interaction between editors, including the Jokestress-James Cantor interactions and the allegations contained in the AN/I thread regarding Jokestress' chilling effects on other editors' willingness to participate, especially regarding alleged WP:OUTING issues. Thryduulf (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Kim makes a good point above about the case name - Hebephilia was just the last flash point before AN/I - "Paraphilias" would be closer to the actual scope. Thryduulf (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Skinwalker

This is an extension of a dispute that has been festering in the "real world" for many years. This dispute has at times included serious allegations of harassment by aggrieved parties. This article gives some background. Skinwalker (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MrADHD

I have only had very recent exposure to this dispute and these individuals so I probably won't participate in an active case but none the less I will give my perception of this case and some background. I read in late December 2012 an article on Psychology Today site about the proposed novel diagnosis of hebephilia being rejected by the American Psychiatric Association - a group of psychologists, James Cantor I believe included were among those involved in trying to get it addition to the DSM-5 diagnostic codes. I read the hebephilia article and realised our article did not have any mention of hebephilia failing to gain a foothold in the DSM-V so I added some content which James Cantor quickly removed. 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.Talk:Hebephilia/Archive_1#Ok_we_have_a_problem_here 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' so and so and defense psychologist so and so. I appreciate this article has the potential for strong views but this is not acceptable editing. I then became aware of hostile interactions from user Jokestress, primarily focused on James Cantor - I learnt later on (during a heated ANI thread about this drama) that there has been a long running dispute where a colleague of James Cantor apparently used pictures of trans-sexual children and made them objects of sexual ridicule during a controversial sexology conference - Jokestress then took I believe pictures of the researcher's children in retaliation and put terrible sexual comments about them 'to prove a point'. Of course this is totally unacceptable off-wiki conduct and two severe wrongs don't make a right. From this drama it appears User:James Cantor created a stealth account called User:MarionTheLibrarian where he would edit articles relating to his controversial sexologist friend who misused pictures of trans-sexual children and artcles relating to Jokestress (real name Andrea James) and transexualism as well as other COI topics. At some point Jokestress realised that MarionTheLibrarian was in fact James Cantor (a well known sexologist) 'undercover' and then from what I can tell a full scale conflict broke out here on wikipedia (a conflict that had been raging off-wiki for some time). James Cantor tends to conduct this dispute using stealth civil battle tactics whereas Jokestress tends to use uncivil overt battle tactics - attacking everyone who is perceived to be allied to James Cantor. James Cantor seems to civily use half-truths in his battle with Jokestress - for example correctly pointing out the wholy unacceptable misuse of pictures of his colleagues children by Jokestress, but then failing to say to wikipedia editors that his colleague also started this by initially misusing pictures of children (making children objects of inappropriate sexual ridicule). From a civility point of view and the lashing out at numerous people (e.g. the respected NPOV editor WLU), Jokestress seems to be causing the most problems at this moment in time but given the complex background I don't think it is possible for the community to figure out who did what when and where and how and this is where ArbCom needs to come in and resolve this. Really the conduct of both of these people is shocking but there is so much complex background ArbCom needs to look at things in context as this dispute has raged for a decade or so I believe. These two individuals are also high profile people, each having their own wikipedia pages which makes this all the more stunning. I apologise for any inaccuracies in my statement above as I am an outsider looking in.--MrADHD | T@1k? 12:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE: Arbitrators may want to note that apparently Jokestress will not be available until the 5th of February to add her thoughts.--MrADHD | T@1k? 12:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to James Cantor

• The ANI thread was entitled "User:Jokestress_at_Talk:Hebephilia" so it is not surprising remedies focused on Jokestress rather than James Cantor as the conversation focused on Jokestress as I explained in this post. The concluding consensus of admins was to send it to ArbCom.

• Okay, did some digging before replying to James Cantor and it seems you were reported to the COI noticeboard as 'MarionTheLibrarian', Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_25#MarionTheLibrarian and on the COI noticeboard 'MarionTheLibrarian' was exposed as a single purpose account by Jokestress as being connected to and advancing minority viewpoints of a small group of sexology researchers at Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). Almost immediately after MarionTheLibrarian was outted as being connected to this group of sexology researchers you had little choice but to out yourself or else your colleagues would have gotten wrongly accused of being 'MarionTheLibrarian' and caused drama at your place of work. I feel that you are civilly battling the arbitrators with half truths and possibly falsehoods which if I am right is manipulative and I feel this civil battlefield behaviour is what I talked about in my main post above and is what leads to disputes and the sexology articles descending into a WP:BATTLEFIELD. We all can make mistakes but you must see why your behaviour is wrong and change it as it is causing significant upset in the WP community. Same goes for Jokestress.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• This small exchange is actually exactly what I was talking about regarding civil battling. I give some facts, James Cantor responds civilly with deception. I then am forced to respond to the deception with more facts and I get sucked into drama and a WP:BATTLE. His supporters will say things like 'expert retention' and his behaviour then goes unchecked and unchallenged. MarionTheLibrarian was an obvious deception account. How long and how deeply James Cantor will we or the community civilly dispute this for?--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Final thoughts: While my above posts highlight areas of concern regarding James Cantor and Jokestress, it is important to point out that both of these editors are skilled wikipedians and can and do make significant contributions to our articles which are of benefit to our readers - just the bad stuff (POV, BATTLE, etc) gets in the way. I just thought that I would add this as it is unfair of me to portray them in an entirely negative light. They probably mean well even when they are battling.--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Legitimus

I would say all of these other users summed it up nicely and between all of them you probably get the picture. As for my take on things, I admit I do tend to side with James Cantor most of the time. I have no off-wiki association with him or any of his colleagues, nor do I necessarily agree with all his group's published works. But when the chips are down, he is both a qualified professional and one of very few scientists involved in this dispute to have done actual primary research. A great deal of the professional works being stacked against his group's work are little more than editorializing. Some of these individuals, such as Franklin, appear to have personal stakes in discrediting this research, given her history of defending criminals for money. As for me, I don't care one way or the other if hebephilia is a mental disorder, so long as it's acknowledged that there are people out there who specifically target this population for victimization. As for Jokestress, yes she seems very bright and writes very nicely, but she is not a professional in any kind of mental health discipline and has far less defensible biases. We previously interacted on the pedophilia article, and her remarks in these sections gave me a very uneasy feeling. Read them for yourself and make your own judgment; for what it's worth, I've heard most of them before. But sometimes it's not so much the biases as it's how she goes about expressing them. The shear ferocity and incivility I've witnessed makes me want to keep my interaction with her to a minimum, even if it means staying away from articles she set's her crosshairs on. During the discussion about hebephilia, she accused myself and others of hiding behind anonymous usernames and made several actions that appeared to be attempts to "out" us. This included trying to send me e-mails, or at least claiming she did which I don't doubt was some kind of ploy to bait me into replying, thus revealing my personal e-mail address to her. Her large volume of experience with wikipedia also means she knows how to use the system to her advantage, like any skilled lawyer knows how to use the courts. That kind of behavior right there freaks me out, and makes me not want to ever post anywhere she's part of the thread. I can confidently say Cantor has never insulted me nor has ever made me fearful that he would take action against me if I disagreed with him.Legitimus (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by James Cantor

I very much endorse Mark Arsten’s summary.

In 2003, Andrea James began a campaign of harassment against J. Michael Bailey, anyone she thought associated with him, and anyone who ever spoke positively about him, including multiple other activists and figures in the trans community. Her off-wiki attacks became so notable as to be reported by the NYTimes . Since 2003, she has created off-wiki attack sites against them, joined WP, and began using WP to manipulate its content to reflect her POV. (Indeed, the NYTimes mentions the WP conflict, already that notable, a year before I ever made any WP edit). Although I had the greatest access to RSs by which to reveal the POV pushing, Jokestress' bullying of any editor not agreeing with her particular brand of politics has made it impossible for anyone (even other openly trans wikipedians who do not share Jokestress' view) to edit Sexology pages, including pages I have never edited at all.

Following extended conversation at AN/I, interested and uninvolved editors recommended (in addition to an interaction ban) a topic ban for Jokestress (16), Cantor (2), or both (2). (I appreciate discussion is not voting, but at least one other editor found this list a helpful guideline.) As discussion continued, however, some felt that no meaningful ruling could be made/enforced by a single admin, and the present request was filed by one of the uninvolved editors.

• NOTE: Regarding time, several folks have told me that ArbCom cases can be lengthy. I will be away Feb 21-Mar 3. (As well as for some other scattered absences in March and in April. I am happy to list them, if that is appropriate.)

— James Cantor (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is not the time/place to contest claims made by other parties, but MrADHD's accusation is incorrect, as fact-checking shows: I started on WP in May 2008, using a regular (anonymous) account for two months, then began editing under my own name in July 2008, immediately linked the accounts), and never made any "stealth" edit in the >4 years since. As I say, this is not the time/place for such a discussion, and I am happy to revert this if appropriate, but I did not think the reversal of the timeline should be left untagged either.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

MrADHD can certainly say what he presented were facts, but what he presented was actually a set of assertions with no diffs or evidence. I presented the diffs/evidence showing he was incorrect. He responded with new/different assertions. Although the appropriate thing for me will again be to present the diffs/evidence showing he is again incorrect, but, as I already noted, my purpose here was merely to flag the claims until we can discuss them properly. So, unless specifically requested, I will hold the diffs/evidence until then.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by WLU

I think that both James Cantor and Jokestress are problematic on sex and gender-related pages. However, James Cantor is a recognized expert who has acknowledged his COI regarding sources and agreed not to edit (I have acted as an intermediary on some articles, reviewing sources and incorporating as appropriate, turning down when not). Jokestress is an experienced editor who also has a COI (being a male-to-female transsexual and having a history of activism that is both aggressive and unpalatable; Mr. ADHD linked a NYT article above, I would urge the arbitrators to read this far more detailed and lengthy article). However, she edits and tags articles quite freely with no apparent appreciation for how her POV and dislike of CAMH staff may bias her contributions. In addition, some of her actions on-wiki such as this one and this one show a troubling concern with real-life identities - troubling because of her real-life activism and the effects it had on J. Michael Bailey. Anyone aware of that history may find such efforts to determine, or allude to real-life identifies having a chilling effect - a concern I and Herostratus agree on. Jokestress also seems to not assume good faith of other editors, or at least not me; note the discussion here where an inarguably minor edit pointing to an inarguably reliable source resulted in a lengthy BLPN and accusations I made these minor and unproblematic changes out of spite. But perhaps I'm tilting at windmills.

An interaction ban and a modified topic ban would seem to address this (Jokestress being restricted from editing sex and gender articles, James Cantor restricted to editing only talk pages of the same articles) but that's a decision for the arbitrators. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse As I could probably have a conflict of interest regarding one of the involved parties.— ΛΧΣ 15:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sexology: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/0/0/4>-Sexology-2013-01-30T07:09:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting more statements. Courcelles 07:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)"> ">
• I don't think it's especially surprising that the community is having trouble solving the dispute on their own: having two parties in conflict come to Misplaced Pages to rehash a dispute over the substance behind articles connected to their conflict is something the project has very little defense against (I can remember a few other salient examples of an off-wiki dispute being replayed here that caused widespread disruption for years before they could be controlled).

  I'll wait until the two primary parties give their statement before voting on this case formally, but I'm probably going to accept this case now, before it degenerates into a wider melee. — Coren  13:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Waiting for more statements, before making my decision, but, at first glance, there appear to be issues which ArbCom should examine and, for that reason, I am inclined to say we should accept the case. Also, if we end up accepting it, I believe it should be held in abeyance, to allow all parties to fully participate. Salvio 13:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• As above, waiting to hear more statements; and I'd like to look a bit more into what the community have done so far, and the difficulties the community have encountered in finding a solution. SilkTork 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Accept - however hold opening the case until the return of Jokestress. Risker (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Accept and hold pending the return of all parties, if that's necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

BigBabyChips NPOV and Juggalos

Initiated by AnnerTown (talk) at 01:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• AnnerTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• BigBabyChips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User talk:BigBabyChips

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• User talk:BigBabyChips

Statement by AnnerTown

I wrote an article called "Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos", which offended BigBabyChips, an apparent Juggalo. I looked it over and agreed that some of the sources were biased, so it was deleted and completely rewritten, with much care taken to ensure that only reliable sources were put into the article. Despite this, he repeatedly removes the content that he doesn't agree with, reliable source or not. I've tried compromising with him, but he keeps removing content he doesn't like and changing things like "gang sets" to "alleged gang sets" when the presence of said gang sets have been reported by numerous reliable sources including the FBI, the National Gang Intelligence Center, and news reports all across the country.

I've bent over backwards to accommodate his demands and ensure that Juggalo music fans are not lumped in with Juggalo gang members, but it's to the point where he is completely unwilling to compromise; there is simply no way he is going to allow reliable sources into the article that disagree with his point of view. He has even accused me of malicious editing against Juggalos despite my doing everything possible to ensure the neutrality of the article. I'm at my wit's end with this.

As his username is derived from an Insane Clown Posse movie, he works almost exclusively on Psychopathic Records-related articles, and he removes any reliable sources that put Juggalos (gang-related or not) in a negative light, I think that it's safe to say that a NPOV violation is occurring.

Also note that he has not once replied to any of attempts to contact him on his talk page, he just keeps making unconstructive edits. I wholeheartedly encourage the arbitration committee to look over the sources cited in the Juggalos (gang) article as well as the relevant section of the Juggalo article.

Very true, and I apologize for that and fully admit that I made bad faith assumptions about BigBabyChips and the Juggalo subculture in general. I've tried to right this by rewriting the article with purely neutral sources, but he removes these regardless. For example, he'll remove references to the Aryan Brotherhood but not to the Bloods or Crips despite being in the exact same source mentioned in exactly the same way, seemingly because he believes that some Juggalo gang sets being aligned with the Aryan Brotherhood automatically makes Juggalos racist (never mind that AB also has ties to the Mexican Mafia and even some black gangs). I just don't like him removing something that's in a reliable source purely because he doesn't agree with it.

I do understand that I'll need to be investigated, too, and if there's anything I can do to help that, please let me know. Either way, I'd once again encourage the arbitrators to take a look at the sources in question, because I think that that will prove my case more than anything.

Statement by BigBabyChips

This is all very interesting from a behavioral response. I haven't nominated Juggalos (gang) for deletion, though I've expressed concern about stating that there is such a thing as a "Juggalo gang". Insane Clown Posse filed lawsuit against the FBI because they asked for the government organization's evidence for classifying "Juggalos" as a gang, and the FBI refused to provide it. I also pointed out that because popular culture often appears to glorify gang/criminal lifestyle (via gangsta rap), many young people who want to appear tough may claim to be "gangstas" and commit disorganized crime. I remember seeing a movie where mafia members mocked rappers for claiming to be gangsters, that falls in line with this subject. But regardless of debate over what constitutes a "gangster", I don't see any evidence of an organized "Juggalo crime syndicate".

The FBI report claims Juggalos as being "disorganized criminal activity", without providing evidence that there is a "disorganized criminal organization", if such a thing is possible. Another strange part of the report is where Juggalos are noted for being individualistic, which is not connected to criminal activity, and is almost as strange as Barack Obama making a special criticism of Paul Ryan for being an Ayn Rand reader, which doesn't relate to Ryan's policies.

I haven't attacked AnnerTown or anyone else for any edits, so I'm not sure what accusing me of being a gang member is supposed to accomplish. My concerns were about issues relating to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. To bring up another point, Ice-T refers to his Twitter followers as members of the "Final Level Twitter Gang" - does this qualify Ice-T fans as a gang? Wiz Khalifa similarly refers to his fans as the "Taylor Gang". Are Khalifa fans, thusly, gang members? It would be reasonable to assume that calling yourself a gang member does not automatically make you a gang member.

Also, I'm not sure why AnnerTown made a specific point to open up an arbitration case on a user, not an issue, as if to imply that I am somehow the problem, and not the issue of classifying Juggalos as a gang. Doesn't sound much like good faith to me. Hmmm.... BigBabyChips (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Really really short statement by unaffiliated Drmies

I feel I'm coming down with the Boogaloo flu. Someone finds their way to ArbCom for this? Please don't take it and close it speedily. The only "conflict resolution" attempted was a recent thread on ANI which didn't end in any sanctions or whatever, just a bit of shouting on BigBabyChips's part (who, even in this very case, suffers from a terrible hearing deficiency). I forgot who filed it. But this is not worthy of your honors' time and attention, and if you do take it you'll have to read BigBabyChips's interminable musings on the human condition and his far-fetched similies. Send the plaintiff to DR or something like it. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved GregJackP

The only reason I'm here is I forgot to un-watchlist this page after the Prat case, and I read Drmies statement. Mine's even shorter. This is a joke, decline it, admonish both to work together, and send them on their way. GregJackP Boomer! 04:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

I've had some involvement with this issue, and have already pointed out that the Juggelos (gang) article is over-reliant on questionable sources. I've just noticed a gross violation of WP:BLP policy in the article too: it is citing a Seattle Weekly blog, in 3 different places, as a reference for the 'gang' being involved in serious criminal activities. As the blog makes clear however, the individuals named are suspects, and have not yet been convicted. I have of course deleted this gross misuse of the source, and may well take up this issue further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit - I've since discovered another similar gross WP:BLP violation - sourcing ABC for a statement that an individual was "was found dead, the vicitim of more than 70 beatings with a baseball bat. The incident was committed by a Juggalo gang". The source again makes clear that individuals named had been "arrested in connection with the attack", rather than convicted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Please keep all statements in your original section - no need for a new section each time you make an edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

BigBabyChips NPOV and Juggalos: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting further statements. While this may on the surface appear to be a content dispute, I cannot help noticing the fact that AnnerTown has had started off by making very negative assumptions of bad faith about BigBabyChips, including an admission that AnnerTown believed BigBabyChips was a gang member when BBC was disputing AnnerTown's earlier versions of the article. The same diff indicates that AnnerTown is aware that at least earlier versions of the article are not NPOV. I believe this can probably be addressed at the community level, but AnnerTown needs to be aware that dispute resolution (especially at the Arbitration Committee level) means that the actions of all parties will be examined. Risker (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline. Reliable sources noticeboard and other forms of dispute resolution may be appropriate. Risker (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• This doesn't appear to have gone through any form of dispute resolution, or am I missing something? If not, this is extremely premature, and one or both parties should attempt to resolve this at a lower level first. Hersfold non-admin 17:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Hersfold makes a good question; what else has been tried to resolve this before coming here? Anything not already documented above? Courcelles 18:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline while there are some serious problems here, oher venues would be better to resolve them than an arbitration case. Courcelles 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. Arbitration of this dispute would be premature. AGK 19:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline as an arbitration case at this stage. A formal arbitration case, which would take weeks, is not the best way to resolve this dispute. However, uninvolved administrators are asked to watchlist these pages for NPOV and BLP violations. Given the real-world disputes concerning this topic, it's understandable that the disputes will spill over onto Misplaced Pages, but that makes it all the more important that editors abide by the relevant site policies and guidelines. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline as arbitration is premature, but encourage attempts to be made at lower levels of Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process to try and resolve this. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline as premature. T. Canens (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. NW (Talk) 05:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. Salvio 13:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)