Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Proposed decision

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Late?

Wasn't the proposed decision supposed to be posted yesterday? Sædon^talk 20:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Occasionally posting is delayed. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I was going to wait until the Sunday (UK time) and then politely ask for an update on when the proposed decision was expected to be posted if it hasn't been by then. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, Arbcom has been very busy lately, so I'm not too surprised to see a delay here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Hey everyone, unfortunately my internet has been spotty, which has made things a bit slower going on the decision side. I'm trying to get some arb eyeballs on the PD this weekend and hopefully have it up early next week. Thanks for bearing with us. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Only "occasionally"? Not in my observation! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm open to being proved wrong, but I do not recall a single proposed decision that was posted on time. Skinwalker (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually, Noleander (2011) was proposed on time. Statistically speaking, most are not proposed quite as late as people tend to think—but several days is certainly the norm, I'm afraid. (Remember that we're volunteers too!) AGK [•] 10:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Is it worth revisiting the 28-day timeframe then? Arbitration cases tend to be more complex these days than they used to (my guess would be that this is because the community has got better at dealing with the simple ones) and those statistics show that 28 days are almost never being met? Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
          • You make a reasonable point, and I especially agree that cases now seem to generally be more, not less, complicated than in the past. It probably would be worth amending the standard timetable, though obviously we would do so separately from these arbitration proceedings. AGK [•] 14:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This decision should be forthcoming in the near future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

On the Geologic time scale, or sooner? 128.186.171.12 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say within the next 48 hours or sooner. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

<redacted snarky comment><redacted raised eyebrow>. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Duration of remedies

Nothing is immediately glaring about the proposed decision, but I'll read it again when I'm more awake. I do notice though that of the proposed remedies only remedy 2 ("Jokestress topic-banned from human sexuality") mentions a duration (indefinite). Discretionary sanctions don't normally come with timelimits, but interaction bans and editing restrictions often do. I presume that given the lack of a time period they are all intended to be indefinite, but I'd encourage specifying this to avoid any future uncertainty or disagreement about interpretation. Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions are perpetual (indefinite), under the language of WP:AC/DS, so I'm not sure we need to clarify anything in the draft as it stands. AGK [•] 15:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

James Cantor restricted from talk pages?

I'm not certain this is strictly needed, although I can certainly appreciate why you have included it. I do think though that James Cantor should explicitly be allowed to contribute to the talk pages of sexology-related biographies. While he isn't always neutral himself, he does have knowledge of and access to relevant sources that he should be able to present for consideration by other editors. Likewise he should be allowed to express and discus on the the talk page any concerns he has about a biography.

Slightly separately, I presume the usual exemption allowing for fixing obvious vandalism applies?

Obviously, per remedy 1, none of this will apply to the Andrea James biography. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, and it's prolly better to be explicit about that. I'll add some language to make it clearer. As to obvious vandalism... while every editor and case is different, I've usually only seen that "obvious" loophole cause drama, even if it was unintentional, which was the reason I left that out. Other arbs may disagree. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that, shortly after David Fuchs' revision (proposed remedy 3), SilkTork raised a question about it. I don't have a clear opinion on exactly what the remedy ought to be, but I can point SilkTork to my evidence on the evidence page, which I think is directly related to that question. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I would personally suggest expansion to all sexology topics, as evidenced by his conduct on the article Gynandromorphophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, personally, I'd like a serious discussion on treatment of transgender issues on Wikipedia (because it's awful), but I understand that that may be out of remit. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As to your latter point: my hunch is that that would be better dealt with by Rfc, and the discretionary sanctions from this case might be of help too. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your evidence Tryptofish. The case was opened with concerns regarding Cantor's editing, and evidence produced during the case regarding some of those concerns, so people might be expecting him to be topic banned, or a finding delivered that shows the concerns were looked into, and his editing found to be unproblematic. My question is neutral. I am not calling for Cantor to be topic banned, but for a clarification on the case page indicating why he is not being topic banned. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SilkTork that there is no indication in the language of the decision that these ongoing conduct patterns have been looked into, and there is no citation of any of that evidence in the proposed decision. I am especially curious why there is no reference to the following:

• Cantor's role in driving an editor from the project during this ArbCom via outing. [1] How is his conduct different than the outing that got Hfarmer blocked?
• Cantor's counter-consensus POV fork created during this ArbCom [2] (part of his off-wiki advocacy) [3]
• Cantor's additions of his own neologisms [4] and extensive promotional self-citations, all related to his off-wiki activist minority views
• Cantor's bad-mouthing professional opponents on Talk pages, mirroring his off-wiki attacks on them
• Cantor's removal of opponent's RS publication [5]
• Cantor's misquoting source material to make his own activist minority definition appear legitimtate [6]
• Cantor's removal of accurate facts he doesn't like but knows to be true [7]
• Cantor's removal of hebephilia opponents Charles Patrick Ewing (book) and Richard Green (article) [8]
• Cantor's reification of self-cites: changes "proposed" / "believe" to "found" (bogus "BLP" claims)[9] [10]
• Cantor's changes to descriptors of opponents to seem less authoritative (not just on biographies) [11]
• Cantor's bogus pledge not to edit in article space on Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders (DSM), followed by extensive edits to the Sexology section covering DSM-5: [12] [13]
• Cantor's ongoing conduct at hebephilia contravening this pledge (see any edit since 2008).
• Cantor's open defiance [14] of an Admin who warned him not to edit hebephilia due to COI [15]

For the record, I'd like some sort of explicit declaration in the decision indicating that ArbCom finds all of this conduct to be unproblematic.

I am also surprised you plan to give Flyer22 a complete pass on this. If someone repeatedly reinserted libel about any other editor over their direct objections, they'd be instantly blocked.

I've pretty much said my piece, yet it feels as if all the evidence about Cantor presented by myself and others fell on deaf ears. For years, while I made tens of thousands of other edits across the project, I sat idly by and watched Cantor manipulate articles to represent his activist minority POV with the help of his friends. I have doubts any of these content problems will ever by rectified as long as this conduct is allowed to continue. Jokestress (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'll refer you to evidence by Tryptofish and My very best wishes[16][17], as well as analysis by WLU[18] I didn't write a FoF or corresponding remedy because it seems odd to me to assert a negative. There certainly have been past issues with Cantor's actions, however I do not see that being the case as of present that are not addressed by this PD. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress acts like I or any of the others (whether making the comments or reverting her) knew that it was "libel"; that has already been cleared up. She keeps disregarding that, just like she disregards many other things that have already been cleared up. But whatever. I'm done with this. Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: The conduct in question has continued throughout 2013, including during this AN/I and ArbCom. [19] [20] [21] If I am to be judged/sanctioned for conduct from 5-10 years ago, it seems there should be some sort of acknowledgment of Cantor's ongoing conduct in 2013, for the record. Jokestress (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain why you believe the diff with Cantor's comments on the workshop are problematic? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 05:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the exact same kind of WP:OUTING that got Hfarmer blocked and drove an editor from the project, which is why it is included in my evidence [22]. The double standards for Cantor across the board here are highly problematic. I am accused by you of making COI allegations "without evidence," yet Cantor's COI is self-evident and mentioned by uninvolved editors and admins for years. I'll email you details about Legitimus and WLU's COIs if I won't be accused of OUTing for emailing you. Jokestress (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The policy on multiple accounts prohibits using undisclosed accounts on arbitration proceedings and to evade scrutiny. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 05:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue her conduct is separate from his. My main point is that to me, it appears there is a glaring double standard here, and not just about my past vs. his current conduct:

• Why is there a section titled "Jokestress' off-wiki behavior" and not one called "Cantor's off-wiki behavior"? If I replace my name with Cantor's, it's still 100% accurate:

Cantor is a prominent party to an off-wiki controversy involving human sexuality, in which he has been sharply critical of certain individuals who disagree with his views, and has imported the controversy into the English Wikipedia to the detriment of the editing environment on sexuality-related articles.

He published an attack piece called "The Errors of Karen Franklin" and then repeatedly attacks her here, up to and including suppressing her work, tampering with her bio, and badmouthing her on talk pages. I can repost the diffs if you want.

• Why is there not a topic ban remedy up for vote regarding Cantor? That was proposed by several independent people from the earliest days of the dispute.
• Also, you didn't let me know if I can email you about WLU and Legitimus per your assertion on the proposal. I don't want to get punished for some kind of technicality if I am going to send you details about their COI. Jokestress (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

WLU does not have a COI on the topic area - that claim of yours is nonsense. I actually invited WLU to the topic area namely hebephilia due to me knowing WLU as being an editor capable of NPOV editing in controversial areas.User_talk:WLU/Archive_10#Hebephilia I do not know Legitimus to comment.--MrADHD | T@1k? 09:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

WLU and Cantor have been teaming up for years per my evidence, and I'll let the Arbs make the determination if they want the evidence emailed. What's clear to me is that your outrageous and false personal attack on me (that I advance "pro-pedophilia" views) would have gotten you blocked indefinitely if it were about nearly any other editor. Jokestress (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume that you are talking about my evidence, I actually took the time to read over lots of text and found a diff where you stated your opposition to paedophilic actions and I added this into my evidence.[23] You were then able to counter my claim in your evidence by explaining that you were just trying to promote NPOV by including a historical viewpoint of a sexologist. I also took the time to add to my evidence that you are an overall productive editor as I did not want to see you getting unnecessarily banned from wikipedia - I am not out to harm you.--MrADHD | T@1k? 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the clearly unhinged people participating in this discussion, the comments like yours are by far the most problematic. You ascribe views to me which I do not hold, then claim I am trying to "advance" them by merely suggesting we include all significant published historic and ethical points of view. Your intent is separate from the harmful net effect of your false statements. I am fine with being on record as getting silenced for protesting all this CAMH promotion sitewide. I'm not the first, and I won't be the last. A number of productive editors had to be driven from the project before race and intelligence came to the attention of enough people. Perhaps Wikipedia's coverage of sexuality will eventually be more balanced and complete, but it will take a critical mass of people willing to put up with outrageous accusations like yours and willing to negotiate inclusion of entire fields of inquiry which have been systemically suppressed. That's clearly not going to happen any time soon, if ever. This project is shifting from writing an encyclopedia to writing rules about writing an encyclopedia. The harm from that is not to me (it doesn't significantly affect me, though it disappoints me). The harm is to the project and its stated goal of providing the sum of human knowledge. As long as Wikipedia editor consensus can trump published expert consensus and can suppress significant published works via increasingly byzantine policies and increasingly draconian enforcement of those policies, I don't hold out much hope for an acceptable resolution. Jokestress (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am dumbfounded! - hardly my natural state?

But I suppose my customary glib posturing is merely an adornment to my doctrinaire adherence to politically correct thinking on all things trans, as a comedienne who just so happens to be — a transgendered person! Which of course cannot withstand the scrutiny of… er… serious consideration of… ah, hell! Am I perhaps being… disruptive? (shudders)

I feel great confidence that JoeJane Random Admin is going to have a profound grasp of the issues in the article space impinging on issues relating to trans* topics as they seek to enforce broadly-phrased behavioral sanctions in an impartial and judicious manner in the areas of… inquisition? - no, inquiry, relating to sex, gender, self-awareness of gender identity, sexual behaviors, linguistic controversies over proper gendering (or not!) of pronouns, gender roles, anthropological studies, "normal" and/or abnormal psychology, postmodern theory, LGBT employment protections, and all things trans-related (cf. Trigender), where surely this new oversight will be a boon to the average reader!

Assuming they do not mind significant swathes of information being dead wrong, since reverting vandalism in these areas means courting controversy and worse, vehement denunciations from drive-by editors intent on doing their thing regardless of the existing rules on WP:RS etc.? Ban them all you want: the IPs will not mind! And if one knows a bit about the subject… there are reasons why it is a warzone… not least, because whether they are aware of it or not, every person has a particular self-conception of their own gender identity and what comprises "properly gendered behavior" in others. And then there's the state of the science…

BARB: "To summarize Deborah Rudcille's findings in her admirable work, The Riddle Of Gender: "Nobody really understands this stuff; but intersexuality and transgendered identities are inescapably real phenomena."

ZOE ELLEN BRAIN: "Concur."

Alas, not being an average reader - nor average anything, besides my height (5'7") and perhaps my shoe size (9 - women's, what else?) - I shall of course keep far far distant from topics so carefully guarded from impertinent discourse!

In parting: I would like to give thanks to User:Beyond My Ken, for [this edit] and his intriguing editing guidelines, User:My very best wishes for his helpful guidelines, and most especially to User:WhatamIdoing for this kind thanks - for establishing to her satisfaction through a WP:RS cite that trans women who state "I am a woman trapped in a man's body!" are not intending it literally! Who knew? Ray Blanchard knew! (winks)

Most sincerely - bonze blayk (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I could not find any strong evidence of serious wrongdoing by Dr. Cantor (one can look through my Evidence and my comments in Workshop section). This is for two reasons. First, I think the most relevant policy here is not WP:COI, but rather WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP, and main question is whether a reasonable attempt was made by Dr. Cantor to describe the topic from a neutral point of view (this is difficult to say without being an expert in the subject area). Even though I am not an expert, it seems pretty obvious to me that providing well-sourced content, even on relatively obscure but clearly notable subjects (like Hebephilia) is an improvement of wikipedia content and therefore just fine. This is the reason I think Dr. Cantor should continue editing in this subject area. Secondly, it is perfectly allowable for an expert to refer to his own publications as long as this improves content (per WP:IAR), and a reasonable effort to follow NPOV was made. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Also relevant is WP:SELFCITE.— James Cantor (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV and UNDUE are certainly big parts of this case, but Cantor has a clear and massive conflict of interest, as noted by many editors over the years. The reason uninvolved editors noted there was and is a problem at Hebephilia [24] is because of years of systematic overemphasizing of Cantor's activist minority view. This has happened not only at Hebephilia, but also throughout the project on sexology topics. Cantor's conduct has not improved our coverage of these topics. They have merely promoted his minority POV to the detriment of the expert consensus. Jokestress (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Every expert will skew wikipedia content in a certain direction if they contribute a lot. This usually looks like creating many pages on highly specialized subjects this expert knows about. Besides, there are different schools of thought in many scientific areas, and it would be only natural if someone follows their school of thought because they believe this is more supported by scientific evidence. I think this is not really a problem. The actual matter of concern (I think) is editing of BLP articles about people with whom Dr. Cantor has real life disputes. Placing any info of negative nature or removing info of positive nature about a living person, even if reliably sourced, by someone who is obviously involved has indeed a serious taste of COI, although not necessarily a policy violation. Therefore, the current suggestion by drafting arbitrator is not unreasonable, although I would not argue one way or another. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a COI, and if any arb wants to confirm that fact via e-mail, I am happy to do so. Whatever COI Jokestress claims I have is either wrong, spurious, or the product of a long chain of questionable reasoning. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I do not think that you, Dr. Cantor or even Jokestress necessarily have a conflict of interest. If someone improves content and makes a reasonable effort to follow NPOV, there is no COI ("When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia"). Advancing wikipedia is fine. Also please see this my comment. On the other hand, yes, editing BLPs of your scientific opponents is certainly not a good idea, although not necessarily a policy violation.My very best wishes (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking about Dr. Cantor, simply editing in the area of his expertise is not COI, while POV-pushing on behalf of his employer would be indeed a serious COI. However, I do not see a convincing evidence of the latter, although he obviously has certain personal POV. My very best wishes (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily relevant to this case, but I am thinking why so many researchers (including myself) are having difficulties with editing in Wikipedia... In part, this is because editing in Wikipedia is very different from the scientific reviewing we used to do. Every good scientific reviewer wants to write something that would be most helpful for reader. Therefore, he never writes from the Neutral point of view. As a good expert, he knows that a lot of published views are patently wrong. Moreover, he knows what exactly is most important in his area of knowledge and emphasizes the most important findings, even if they were published only in a couple of papers. Wikipedia is very different. Here, one suppose to act as a vacuum cleaner by collecting and describing all published views in an article, even if he knows that some of them are wrong or misleading. Doing so is against scientific ethics. My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'My very best wishes' statement that Cantor hasn't done anything wrong, I think he is blindsided, because that's not what Cantor has been doing. Most of hist editing follows the 'party line' of his more senior CAMH colleagues, and can be clearly considered promotion of his own views and that of his closely affiliated working group (e.g. this strangely looks like the top-two list of CAMH-proposed paraphilias.) Since in sexology is rather easy for an academic psychologist/researcher to get oneself published holding whatever opinion and then cite himself on Wikipedia for that "fact", it is a rather lopsided to allow one researcher to reshape this area of Wikipedia in his own worldview when most other researchers (who might disagree with him on a good number of topics) don't edit here. For example his long term 'maintenance' of the list of paraphilias clearly follows in that line of action. Most his wikiminions aren't discerning enough to tell what they are being fed, e.g. this (Cantor et al.) textbook definition [25] has some obvious strings attached. I think the proposed topic ban for Cantor is not broad enough, and should include talk pages. Now I know that some people here, including an arbitrator (recused in this case) think that long-term COI-driven POV pushing on talk pages, like on that of BP is innocuous, but I beg to differ. By the way, Jokestress is prone to exercising a similar influence on talk pages, e.g. here, but her topic ban is already broad enough and seems to include talk pages by default. (This was another manipulative message from a less-than-reputable anon, as arbitrator AGK and mega-content provider Giano would say.) 5.12.69.171 (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

scope of topic-based remedies

I notice that you propose to topic-ban Jokestress from "the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles" (remedy 2), while both versions of remedy 4 would authorise discretionary sanctions for "all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia)". I'm no expert in the topic, but the latter seems like a narrower scope than the first.

Is it intentional to set different scopes for the remedies? If so, what is the thinking behind it as it's not obvious to me? If it isn't deliberate, why the different wordings, and wouldn't it be simpler and more likely to avoid wikilawyering to use one formulation for both remedies? Thryduulf (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. If one of the drafters doesn't reply here I'll make sure they've seen this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• It seems both deliberate and appropriate to me that the drafters proposed two sanctions with dissimilar scopes. While remedies for individual editors can be made broad in scope with minimal collateral damage, we are careful not to authorise unwieldy general sanctions (like discretionary sanctions) for more pages than we need to. Therefore, the topic ban covers all sexuality articles, but the discretionary sanctions cover only the most problematic articles at issue in this case. I would probably oppose authorising discretionary sanctions for all human sexuality articles, just as I would oppose topic bans only for "transgender issues and paraphilia classification"; the original draft seems to me to have struck the appropriate balance. AGK [•] 14:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

My thinking matches Anthony's. Discretionary sanctions can prove problematic when uninvolved users unwittingly wander into battlefields, etc. Where possible, I think it's better to try and deal with restrictions on a person-by-person basis, hence the restrictions for Cantor and Jokestress being broader. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, it makes sense now. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "Jokestress banned" proposal

An outright ban on Jokestress currently stands at 1-1. Jokestress and I sure don't like each other very much, but that doesn't change the fact that Jokestress is 151 all-time on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count. And that includes bots. This is not someone that a functional and successful organization would just throw away it was at all avoidable, I don't think. I think a scalpel is needed here not a hammer. Herostratus (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Herostratus, since I posted this on your talk page, I've been meaning to ask how your opinion of Jokestress changed from not wanting her on Wikipedia at all to what it currently is. Flyer22 (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I said she should be banned from the internet in fact. I was mad, which is a weakness of mine, and like many things said in the heat of emotion shouldn't be written in stone. The fact is that Jokestress has created 2000+ articles on a variety of subjects, and she does that well, and I haven't heard any evidence that she's anything but efficient and collegial in most subject areas. (I haven't really looked into this, but ArbCom could take a couple-few hours to look at random samples.) She's a transexual. Naturally she's extremely bound up in the subject and related subjects and she gets a little over the top. Writing articles about meteors and so forth may be a relaxing hobby for her, and we get the articles, so win-win. I'm not saying that ArbCom shouldn't ban her if they think it's called for. I'm just saying I would think hard about that, and I don't see a reason offhand for doing that. Herostratus (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I broadly agree with you, Herostratus. AGK [•] 14:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Jokestress's reaction to Cantor's work may be more justified than we're letting on. Let's not forget that Cantor is connected, if not personally than professionally, to certain individuals with reputations for pseudoscientific pathologies of transgenderism, and evidence has been brought up that, both on-wiki and off-wiki, that Cantor may be also part of this clique (Gynandromorphophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and his "shemales" comment, respectively). From my perception, there has been some manipulation of our attitudes towards psuedoscience to allow propogation of these theories without requisite critique; imagine if we uncritically talked about the race and intelligence theories in The Bell Curve the way we talk about some of the Blanchard theories! I'm actually disappointed that ArbCom hasn't looked into Cantor's behaviour as much as Jokestress', especially as Cantor's behaviour is also troubling. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Parallel construction

I hope that the lack of recent activity here means there is a more in-depth backchannel conversation going on. When this drama started at AN/I, there were people who saw this as open-and-shut, and others who grasped the complexity of the problem. I always felt ArbCom was the only venue where the breadth of the problem could be addressed, though I guessed a few people would still see this as clear-cut for various reasons.

I'd like to reiterate my request that the findings of fact contain a parallel construction about James Cantor, replacing my name with his:

James Cantor's off-wiki behavior

James Cantor is a prominent party to an off-wiki controversy involving human sexuality, in which he has been sharply critical of certain individuals who disagree with his views, and has imported the controversy into the English Wikipedia to the detriment of the editing environment on sexuality-related articles.

As discussed above, Cantor's off-wiki advocacy for pedohebephilia, hebephilia, and obscure/fictitious paraphilias in general certainly fits this description. David, if you do not intend to add a parallel finding to your proposal, I'd like to know the reasons.

As a reminder, my 14 March statement summarizes the current 2013 dispute and why I feel there is a double standard being applied here. I'd like to add that "hebephilia" is merely a symptom of a much larger conduct problem. James Cantor is a single-purpose account hiding behind "expert retention" to engage in sitewide promotion of himself and his friends. He's very good at grooming allies, the best I've seen, in fact. The last time I saw an alliance this formidable was at race and intelligence in 2005. They controlled that content for nearly two years, but this problem across sexuality has been going on since at least 2008. Jokestress (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

To respond to your first sentence, most arbitrators are still researching and considering this dispute. Votes from the rest of my colleagues should come in soon enough. AGK [•] 10:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No FoF on record supporting the remedies

Just noting, now that implementation notes have appeared, that there are no FoF supporting any remedies except, vaguely, the IB between Jokestress and James Cantor in this arb case. Considering the remedies are indefinite, that's just asking for trouble in clarifications or AE 3-5 years down the line. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Jokestress has made unsubstantiated accusations (FoF 2) and imported an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia (FoF 3) and is therefore topic banned (rem. 2.1). Despite their protests to the contrary on the pd page, their choice of fofs and remedies do show they took a side. They have identified Jokestress as the problem, Cantor is not (note the lack of finding that he imported the dispute, just an acknowledgement that he is in it (FoF 1)). 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an accurate summary. Sanctions for "unsubstantiated" COI complaints, or outright ban for "outing" if you provide evidence. You choose.

ArbCom is turning a blind eye to the "hebephilia" controversy imported by Cantor and ascribing it to me, even though I have never published on the topic and was uninvolved during the first five years of Cantor's on-wiki manipulation of coverage of that controversy. Meanwhile, that article still reflects and over-represents Cantor's activist minority POV, suggesting this is a legitimate diagnostic category, even though it is rejected as a mental disorder by medical and legal consensus. It's a clear double standard in the FoF, but they seem to be turning a blind eye to that, too. Cantor imported that controversy, but to date no one has acknowledged this fact, and it appears it will not be included in the findings. Kind of astonishing to me, but I guess that's how it's going to be. Oh well! Here's hoping for discretionary sanctions, at least. Jokestress (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, they are nicely assisting into the perfect case study on the role of Wikipedia on the promotion of fringe theories. It is surprising easy. You publish a short communication in the journal of which you are on the editorial board. You even get it peer reviewed because you know who will recommend acceptance of what you wrote! Once published, you have someone go to Wikipedia and game the system (it is a secondary source because it is a review), and when the responses come in (because that is the way the DSM-V discussion works), you proclaim that it is a un-reviewed opinion piece that does not meet WP:RS. Etc. Examples enough..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.171.48 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Careful, IP heretic, you are harassing Wikipedia, a sanctionable offense! But yeah, it's amazing how many of the same editors who would have a conniption about a corporation or political party or entertainer manipulating content in which they have a self-evident COI have no problems with an academic doing the same thing, because academics are apparently incapable of content manipulation in their eyes and must be retained by any means necessary. Maybe CAMH can create yet another paraphilia about people who fetishize experts... case reports abound on WP, and DSM 6 is just around the corner! Jokestress (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not really going to help at this stage. You may have valid points, but Wikipedia is the wrong place to argue about this sort of thing. There is nothing stopping you (or academics active in the field who disagree with how this case went or how the articles look) to publish (somewhere suitable) a critique of the current state of the articles and what they should look like. They can even discuss the matter here on Wikipedia, but need to do so while working with other editors, not battling with them. All we (ArbCom) are saying here is that to bring some calm and relative order to matters on Wikipedia as they currently stand, an interaction and topic ban are needed. This is relatively mild in terms of what can be voted as sanctions in arbitration cases. If the topic returns to us in the future, the sanctions will likely be harsher at that point. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you will achieve calm. I hope it is worth the price. And why would anybody bother to write a critique and get it published, so that Wikipedia of all places could be updated such that it reflects the consensus that is already achieved, but not included because it does not fit with the rule fetishism of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.220.253 (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Carcharoth, barring a last-minute miracle among your ranks, nothing I've argued or requested at any stage in this three-month trial seems to have had much bearing on the outcome. I hope you'll brook a little levity now that I have been convicted and sentenced. I promise to obey once execution of my sentence is carried out! Jokestress (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

My impression in the hebephilia controversy is that the opposing side (Allen Frances, Richard Green etc.) have published their opinion in venues which are citable as RS, and even are so in the wiki article. The main difference is that they don't proselytize their opposition on Wikipedia. Currently the most cited reference in that article is what you could call a review (or opinion) article by Prentky and Barbaree, who say they have no conflict of interest in the matter; this paper is not exactly the most favorable toward Cantor's position. ArbCom-decision-wise, it's interesting to draw some parallels with other cases where experts were involved and sanctioned, namely the Monty Hall problem, the MIT compsci professor case promoting the actor model, and even the climate change case. These all involved some mixture of advocacy and expertise and BLP issues as well; of the latter Monty Hall probably had the least and climate change the most. But I'll let the reader engage in that line of thinking, as the saying goes. 5.12.84.172 (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

This proposed decision is somewhat unique in that it lacks a specific FoF for that. Perhaps this is the new ArbCom style, or perhaps it was too difficult to draft one in this case? As far as I can tell, there were at least two loci, namely hebephilia, but also autogynephilia and the book most [in]famously popularizing it—The Man Who Would Be Queen. And of course it gobbled the biographies of those in the above two issues, although J. Michael Bailey's page has seen a third controversy of its own (the live sex demo), on which Cantor and Jokestress also butted heads on the talk page, albeit not as extensively as on the other issues. 5.12.84.172 (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The locus of dispute is CAMH and its apologists, mainly Cantor, who is a self-promoting SPA of the first order. I demonstrated that my work in sexology has been unproblematic except where it intersects with Cantor/CAMH (paraphilias, etc.). As I said, I am not the first to raise this objection about CAMH promotion sitewide, nor will I be the last. Hebephilia is merely the worst example of what he has done in nearly every edit he's made. Several ArbCom people have stated this conduct isn't problematic in their opinion, so I don't know what else I could say at this point. I still hold out a dwindling hope that the scales will fall from their eyes. Jokestress (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I also sent a message to arbcom-l, raising my concerns that Cantor seems to be escaping sanction. While I can't make statements on hebephilia, I notice that his "pledge" holds even less weight; as well as creating Gynandromorpophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), he also created Autoandrophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is the male inverse of the autogynephilia theory that a) he claims he won't edit, and b) he and his cabal of quacks have been trying to push for years. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)