Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by James Cantor

Current word length: 971; diff count: 96.

Evidence of Jokestress' off-wiki campaign influencing on-wiki events

• [1] NYTimes reporting on campaign of harassment by Jokestress against J. Michael Bailey.
• [2] Jokestress’ Bailey-related target list.
• [3] Peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis of campaign, by bioethicist/historian. Coverage received a Guggenheim Award.[4]

Evidence of Jokestress' chilling effect

• [5][6][7][8] Jokestress' protracted conflicts with openly trans- Wikipedian, User:Hfarmer.
• [9] Jokestress’ updated target list, naming User:Hfarmer.
• [10] 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.
• [11] Example of results of campaign against Hfarmer.

Evidence of Jokestress’ POV-pushing long predating Cantor

Year	Example
2004	Penile plethysmograph POV [12] Penile plethysmograph POV-pushing[13] Autogynephilia POV [14] Autogynephilia POV-pushing [15]
2005	J. Michael Bailey POV [16] J. Michael Bailey POV-pushing [17][18][19]
2006	Simon LeVay POV [20] Simon LeVay POV-pushing[21]; continued anti-consensus conflicts
2007	NYTimes notes WP conflict on Bailey pages, already notable.[22]
2008	Homosexual transsexual POV [23] Homosexual transsexual POV-pushing[24]

(Cantor joined WP in May, 2008.)

Evidence of Jokestress’ distruptions occurring without Cantor (2008+)

• [25] ANI Jokestress re homosexual transsexual etc.
• [26] ANI Archive438
• [27] ANI Crusade
• [28] ANI Andrea James
• [29] ANI The faith and constructiveness of an editors edits...
• [30] COIN Jokestress
• [31] COIN Homosexual transsexual
• [32] RSN Guidance on pseudodymous authors
• [33] Requests for mediation/Rejected/40#Homosexual transsexual
• [34] Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-25

Evidence of Jokestress' other POV-pushing

• [35] Adding links to her for-profit website (2004).
• [36][37] Removing links to business competitors' sites (2005, 2006).
• [38] Creating page about her business partner, Calpernia Addams (2005).
• [39] Disrupting DYN discussion w/ uninvolved editors pushing anti-Cantor POV (2010).
• [40][41][42]Repeated counter-consensus additions of homosexuality to List of paraphilias (2008, 2010, 2012).

Evidence of Jokestress’ suppression of disfavored topics

[43] Evidence of Jokestress’ POV against Autogynephilia.

• Evidence of suppressed coverage of Autogynephilia:

Paraphilia	Google.Scholar Hits	WP page?
Chremastistophilia	3	Yes
Salirophilia	13	Yes
Gynandromorphophilia	16	Yes
Abasiophilia	21	Yes
Autassassinophilia	35	Yes
Agalmatophilia	64	Yes
Toucherism	70	Yes
Biastophilia	96	Yes
Acrotomophilia	114	Yes
Apotemnophilia	375	Yes
Autogynephilia	394	No
Algolagnia	484	Yes
Hebephilia	485	Yes
Coprophilia	1,150	Yes
Transvestism	13,700	Yes
Pedophilia	17,900	Yes

[44] Evidence of Jokestress' anti-Cantor POV

• [45] Every RS to trans neuroanatomy is cited, except Cantor.[46]
• [47] Each author of cited papers mentioned by name, except Cantor.[48].

Rebuttal to Jokestress’ allegations of excessive self-citation

On her user subpage, Jokestress lists the 26 diffs in which I cited work from my own team. Same list, counted by year is:

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)

[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]

[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]

For evaluating whether Cantor over-represents or Jokestress suppresses cites, these are the scholar.google results for the relevant topics:

Topic	Google.Scholar Hits (2002-2013)	Hits to CAMH/Dreger/Lawrence	Search string
Pedophilia	11,500	20% of the top 100 of those 11,500 articles (as sorted by relevance)	[78]
Gender dysphoria	15,000	7% of top 100	[79]
Gender identity disorder	73,000	14% of top 100	[80]
Homosexuality	40,500	3% of top 100	[81]
Autogynephilia	393	36% of top 100	[82]

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 Moser:

• 129 2008 (Whether it remains relevant is up to others.)
• 130 Appropriately so.
• 131 Appropriately so.
• Cantor is blocked A half-truth. Jokestress neglects the unanimous opinion of the multiple other admins who called it inappropriate and moved to unblock.[83][84][85] She also neglects that it was she who instigated User:JzG's block.[86]
• 132 I believe I can stand by every word of my, quite respectful, response to JzG's warning.

• Regarding Franklin:

• 133 Untrue. My 2012 comments were a response to Franklin’s 2011 attack/accusations. The docs in 134 actually show that I fault Franklin for claiming *I* used a definition I didn't.[87]
• 135 Such comments on talkpages for discussion are perfectly appropriate.
• 136 De-peacocking is perfectly appropriate.

• Regarding Hebephilia:

• 139 Calling it an “academic publication” doesn't turn a letter-to-the-editor into an RS.
• 140 2008
• 141142 2008
• 143 141 An IP editor calling it whitewashing doesn’t make it true. The criticisms were clearly OR.
• 145 I removed the entirely unsourced and incorrect OR claim that "hebephilia is not a recognized diagnosis..."
• 146147 I removed the entirely unsourced legal discussion.
• 148149 I removed the entirely unsourced paragraph on cultural context of hebephilia.
• 150151 Perfectly appropriate EL's (such as to a list of research articles on topic); see also my repeated talkpage disclosures asking other editors to review them.
• 152 De-peacocking.
• 153 A perfectly appropriate EL to an award-winning bioethicist on the topic.
• 154 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

• 155 A half-truth. I reverted Jokestress' entire, whoppingly one-sided edit, other editors agreeing,[88] none opposing. (Same as diff 172?)
• 156 Unclear what the problem is. (And, 156 and 157 are the same diff?)
• 158 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 User:KimvdLinde's claim of being blackmailed, but with the evidence (secret) being submitted by another editor (unnamed) to ArbCom on her behalf, and [89] and User:Insomesia's being indef'ed today as a sockpuppet.[90] 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:

• [91] Acknowledging WP culture is not stereotyping.
• The AfD for Androphilia and Gynephilia was best described by uninvolved User:FiachraByrne: “Cantor, on any fair reading, largely demolished the arguments that the combination 'Androphilia and gynephilia' merited inclusion as a distinct topic in an encyclopedia.”[92]
• 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.

[93][94][95][96]

• Repeated disclosure of associations on relevant talkpages.

[97][98][99][100][101][102][103]

• Walked away from conflicts when Jokestress arrives.
• Once suggestion was made to submit subpages via RfC,[104] began doing so voluntarily.[105]
• Uninvolved editors repeatedly describe complaints as unjustified and ancient:

[106][107][108][109] [110]

Evidence presented by Jokestress

Current word length: 995; diff count: 89.

Summary

James Cantor ( MarionTheLibrarian / WriteMakesRight ): key activist in major ethical controversies in Sexology.

• His edits reflect off-wiki attempts to promote himself / allies or denigrate critics.

Flyer22 ( Banking honesty / others? ): escalated this dispute after years of OWNership at "Hebephilia."

• After other problematic recent conduct involving Sexology, Flyer22 and proxies got sockpuppetry block. [111]

With WLU, Legitimus, and Herostratus, they OWN many Sexology articles (including Hebephilia, Ephebophilia. Pedophilia).

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 TPO.

Background

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

• CAMH creates / promotes obscure paraphilias. [112] [113] [114]

• CAMH pathologizes transgender children, adults, and our partners via diseases they create / promote. [115] [116] [117] [118]

• 2003 protests against academic exploitation by CAMH apologists in Sexology "marked a new moment in transgender history." [119] (fulltext).
• CAMH apologist Alice Dreger then attempted to rewrite history, attacking trans leaders using a Sexology journal Cantor helps edit. [120]
• Later, medical / legal experts rejected CAMH-backed reparative "therapy" on trans children as "no longer considered ethical." (p16)

• An activist minority of CAMH apologists, especially Cantor, fought to include "hebephilia" in DSM-5. [121] Medical / legal experts overwhelmingly rejected inclusion. [122]

On-wiki disputes

Nearly all evidence about me describes two resolved controversies.

• 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 blocked for "Incivility, harassment," then "on- and off-wiki outing / possible harassment" of yet another user. [123]. See Cantor citation 11: 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 unresolved Hebephilia incident exemplifies ongoing conduct throughout Sexology by Cantor allies.

Hebephilia

"Hebephilia" is "not a recognized diagnosis." [124] It's a "fictitious diagnosis" [125] and "pseudoscientific construct." [126] Cantor / CAMH attempts to reify hebephilia as a mental disorder were rejected by "near-unanimous" consensus of medical / legal experts. [127] [128]

The obscure term describes attraction to adolescents, a common sexual response. CAMH apologists' disease model uses narrower operationalized definitions. It's rejected for pathologizing widespread evolutionarily adaptive phenomena. Acting on attraction to adolescents is legal / acceptable in many cultures. Pathologizing / criminalizing "hebephilia" / related conduct is misused to incarcerate people indefinitely. [129] Colleagues Cantor and Legitimus' edits show support for the concept.

Cantor / allies maintain his minority POV, remove widely-published criticisms / legal perpectives from hebephilia. They could easily include citations but typically suppress criticisms. Wikipedia implies hebephilia's a valid diagnostic category, like many controversial CAMH conceptualizations, because of Cantor's insidious manipulation. This POV problem's worse at Pedophilia but impossible to address due to Flyer22's overzealous BATTLE to "combat pro-pedophilia and/or WP:FRINGE.'" [130] (see highlighted defamation).

Cantor

• Tampering with hebephilia opponent Charles Moser's biography

• [131] Removes reliable source attesting notability
• [132] Tags "non-notable"
• [133] Removes "sexologist," Moser's profession
• Defies COI warnings [134]
• Blocked for disruption

• Attacks on hebephilia opponent Karen Franklin

• [135] [136] Off-wiki attacks on Franklin
• [137] Claims Franklin's financially motivated to support expert consensus
• [138] Tampers with Franklin's biography

• Removed "prominent," revised throughout to make her seem less prominent
• Downplays hebephilia criticism, removes Ethics Committee position (easily sourced [139] [140])

• Tampering with Hebephilia to promote himself / his ideas

• [141] Removes Franklin academic publication
• [142] Creates article, misquoting Glueck, using Cantor's own operationalized definition
• [143] [144] Further operationalizes / reifies definition, adds himself 6x
• [145] [146] Removes criticism of his work
• [147] Removes "hebephilia is not a recognized diagnosis by the American Psychiatric Association"
• [148] [149] Removes entire legal discussion
• [150] [151] Removes cultural context questioning "hebephilia" validity
• [152] [153] Adds links to his website
• [154] Changes Franklin's "List of relevant publications" to "list of editorials"
• [155] Adds link to CAMH apologist Alice Dreger's blog promoting hebephilia. Dreger wrote attack piece on me in Sexology journal Cantor helps edit.
• [156] Removes rejection of hebephilia info (bogus "BLP" claim)
• 2013 conduct

• [157] Removes hebephilia opponents Charles Patrick Ewing (book) and Richard Green, founder Archives of Sexual Behavior (article)
• [158] [159] Reification of self-cites: changes "proposed" / "believe" to "found" (bogus "BLP" claims)
• [160] Changes descriptors of opponents to seem less authoritative

OWN alliance POV-pushing / "consensus" creation

• Flyer22 (see OWN editing patterns)

• [161] Removes legal section: "hebephilia should not be confused with legal matters"
• [162] 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."
• [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] Promotes Cantor's operationalized definition; links to article she OWNs
• [168] Removes Franklin / legal section (partially restored later)
• [169] [170] Removes pedophilia template: "It's about hebephilia not technically being pedophilia" (later restored)

• Legitimus

• [171] Removes Franklin / expert consensus POV that "hebephilia" is "driven by legal, not medical considerations."
• [172] Removes Franklin, downplays rejection, replaces Franklin with source that doesn't mention hebephilia

• WLU (see long-term Cantor affiliation)

• [173] Reification, adds "chronophilia"
• [174] Removes Franklin's Psychiatric Times article
• [175] Adds proponent Wakefield's Clinical Social Work Journal article
• [176] Adds proponent Blanchard
• [177] Removes "academic" from description of Franklin's work

My 2013 involvement

• [178] WLU's edit above was last straw. I tagged Hebephilia NPOV / UNDUE (my first edit)
• [179] [180] NPOV attempts (reverted)
• [181] Accurately cite Glueck's definition
• [182] Add more etymology, de-reify per WP:SAID (reverted)
• [183] Add reliably-sourced expert views; Cantor immediately removes them: [184]
• [185] [186] Add COI tags twice. WLU removes them [187] [188]

Personal attacks

Editing my biography

Cantor (instigating off-wiki dispute here)

• [189] [190] [191] Adds his own off-wiki attacks on me, citing Dreger; see Dicklyon evidence
• [192] [193] Removes academic credentials
• [194] Removes primary occupations

WLU (while discussing adding Cantor article at Paraphilia)

• [195] Adds Dreger attack; refuses my request to balance with supplied reliable sources [196]

Bali ultimate (while NPOV/N discussing WLU's conduct above)

• [197] [198] Retaliatory expansion of uncontextualized Dreger attack

My very best wishes (during this ArbCom)

• [199] Removes contextualization

Warnings/trolling

Herostratus (during a related AfD)

• Warning not to edit OWNed articles [200] + Emailed warning: "Andrea, PLEASE read this for your own safety"
• Barnstar to Legitimus attacking me [201]

Defamation/libel

Bali ultimate

• (oversighted) [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207]

MrADHD

• States I "advance pro-paedophilia viewpoints" [208]

I merely said on a talk page "one significant historical view is that pedophilia is an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality." [209] That's Havelock Ellis' view [210] not mine. This OWN alliance suppresses mentioning this major sexologist at Pedophilia, citing FRINGE. [211]

Herostratus

• States I "promote sex-with-children-normalization" [212]
• (oversighted) [213] [214]

• Redacts statement [215]

Legitimus

• (oversighted) [216]

• My redaction request (ignored) [217]
• Declaims actual malice:‎ "My statement was inaccurate, though made in under genuine belief it was true based on faulty info." [218]
• Doubles down on accusations [219] "In the jurisdiction I live in, James would have faced prison time" [220]

Flyer22

• (oversighted)

• Redaction request (ignored) [221]
• Flyer reverts my WP:TPO-allowed redactions: [222] [223] [224]
• Reinserts Legitimus defamation, reports me [225]
• Acknowledges BLP violation [226]

WLU

• (oversighted) [227]

• Reinserts Legitimus defamation following Flyer22's ANI report

Outing

• Hfarmer
• Cantor

Responses

• Editing patterns (ArbCom request)

Evidence presented by Dicklyon

Current word length: 262; diff count: 2.

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by MrADHD

Current word length: 500; diff count: 6.

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 this video by Andrea James, she boasts that academics are 'very easy to troll' because they tend to be 'very thin skinned and self important' and 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,[228] she nonetheless advocates including fringe viewpoints on paedophilia such as paedophilia being an 'extreme version of normal male masculinity'.[229],[230],[231] Another example, Jokestress feels that paedophilia among other paraphilias should not be 'medicalised'.[232] 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.[233],[234] I think that it is fair to say that some of Jokestresses viewpoints are WP:FRINGE.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

James Cantor and his professional opponents

James Cantor seems to have a COI regarding hebephilia 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.[235],[236] 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,[237] 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'.[238] I am not sure if this violates WP:BLP 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.User:James_Cantor#A_pledge--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I made comments regarding James Cantor in my case statement which with further information proved to be wrong. The MarionTheLibrarian account wasn't a 'deception account'. I apologise.--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by My very best wishes

Current word length: 431; diff count: 7.

Locus of dispute

Why the dispute? Jokestress considers certain scientific publications as discrimination against sexual minorities. She tells in her political manifesto [239]: 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 pathology 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 "raceologists" is wrong [240].

Jokestress maintains an attack website

She created these blacklists of people [241], [242]. 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 a worldwide organization to handle Bailey, Cantor and other scientists [243]: We mobilized all around the world as never before... This isn’t just evolution, it’s revolution.

How can anyone edit sexology 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, hebephilia is a controversial subject, but it clearly satisfies our criteria for inclusion and therefore an improvement of content and not WP:COI ("When advancing outside interests..."). Advancing wikipedia is fine. Being a key contributor in a number of legitimate articles [244] is a good thing. However, presenting this as a proof of WP:OWN and WP:COI shows WP:BATTLE by another side (Jocktress tells: I define WP:OWN behavior below as having more than twice as many edits as the second-highest contributor [245]. But it would be fine even if he was the only contributor) Same is here with diffs like this. Quoting himself is fine if this improves content. This 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" [246] is legitimate. This is an unsourced claim in BLP. Please provide your RS. End of story. An "off-wiki attacks on me, citing Dreger" [247]? 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" [248]? 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 my edit, but agree that editing by Dr. Cantor and other participants must be examined per evidence above.

Evidence presented by WLU

Current word length: 493; diff count: 26.

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:

1. A failure to assume good faith that sees conspiracies rather than disagreements
2. The chilling effect Andrea James' real-life activities have on wikipedia when she expresses interest in an editor's real-life identity

Good faith

In this discussion Jokestress claimed my addition of a scholarly article [249] in which "James" appears more than 100 times was "negative content". My change to Andrea James consisted of "...and in 2008 an article appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior 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 declining to integrate one of his articles into homosexuality). Jokestress believed my edit was a deliberate slight and requested/demanded I prove my "intent" [250]. I believe edits should be based on sources, not intent.

Jokestress then started a section at NPOVN (whole section is here) 'politely demanding' I make edits to Andrea James. (Note Maunus' [251], [252], [253] and Blueboar's comments). Jokestress then claimed I was editing Andrea James due to a recent "editing dispute" [254]. I replied this was an inaccurate summary of this thread at talk:paraphilia where my sole comment to Jokestress was here. Jokestress then claimed 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 here, here and here, I don't believe my edits were problematic. Despite this, I continue to be accused of "axe grinding".

Seeing plots and claiming that agreeing with Cantor indicates bias is also obvious on the archived ANI hebephilia thread. This appears to be an extreme failure to assume good faith - 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. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Chilling

A second thread on my talk page alleged a connection to Wilfrid Laurier University (no edits). Jokestress digging through my editing history to determine my identity has a chilling effect given what I've read of Andrea James' real world actions. I've voiced this concern before.

Other editors have similar concerns about a chilling effect (FiachraByrne, Only in death, Skinwalker, Herostratus, little green rosetta and Thryduulf). These questions generally shouldn't be asked [255], because sources are what matter [256]. Probes for identity also appeared on talk:hebephilia (no diffs as the edits were oversighted, search for "identify ourselves for purposes of transparency"). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tryptofish

Current word length: 115; diff count: 30.

James Cantor at Transgender: initial edits POV, but then very willing to listen to reasonable arguments

In 2011, I responded to James Cantor's request here at WT:WikiProject Neuroscience for help at Transgender from editors familiar with neuroscience.

In the discussion, [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], and [285], (also [286]), I felt that he had indeed made edits pushing a pro-Blanchard POV (going beyond WP:BRD). 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 WP:BATTLEGROUND, 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

Current word length: 964; diff count: 35.

Jokestress pushes fringe views or other minority views to the detriment of scientific consensus

• As is shown here, here, here and here, Jokestress has disrespected WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE 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 all adult sexual interest in children, 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:[287][288][289][290]. Stating that I or others are suppressing Havelock Ellis because of WP:FRINGE is another half-truth; there has yet to be any direct suppressing of Havelock Ellis.[291][292]
• At List of paraphilias, Jokestress added "homosexuality" 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,[293] and supported titling the article List of current paraphilias to help "show that this is a list based on definitional quicksand and social custom."[294]
• At Template talk:Sexual orientation editors have consistently kept paraphilias (such as pedophilia and zoophilia) and mere sexual identities (such as pansexuality and polysexuality) from being listed on the template as sexual orientations[295][296] because these categories are not recognized as sexual orientations by any authoritative source (meaning a scientific organization)[297][298] or have not gained scientific support as sexual orientations (like asexuality has). Jokestress disagreed with the exclusions and wanted pansexuality and polysexuality added as sexual orientations.[299] But most sources, including this one, simply view pansexuality and polysexuality as alternative terms for bisexuality; they are used by some people who consider the term bisexuality to be limiting.[300] Sexual orientation and sexual identity/sexual orientation identity are not necessarily the same thing. Queer, pansexual, polyfidelitous, polysexual, byke or biphilic are sexual identities, not sexual orientations.[301] We agreed to have pansexuality and polysexuality on the template as "non-binary categories," but this was not enough for Jokestress. Enter the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.[302] 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.[303] [304] 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 WP:TROLLING/WP:BAITING/WP:UNCIVIL/WP:BATTLEGROUND 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: [305][306][307][308][309][310][311][312][313]. Especially one who causes this type of fear, or any fear for that matter. Jokestress disregards the intimidating she engages in and the fear she causes.[314]

Jokestress censoring her Wikipedia article

Jokestress being significantly involved in what goes in or out of her Wikipedia article, Andrea James, censoring what she feels should be censored,[315] 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. This edit, for example, clearly made by my brother, which led to my second block and this discussion, is just one example. In the second sockpuppet case (my third block), the substantial evidence that I had not sockpuppeted led to the WP:CheckUser who blocked me, Alison, to unblock me and declare with 100% certainty that I had not sockpuppeted and that my brother, who she thoroughly interrogated via Skype, exists.[316] 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 (MikeFromCanmore) -- shows. My brother now has his own account, 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 Wikipedia 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; this link shows that to be false and rather me trying to show fairness.

• As can be seen at User:Jokestress/Sexology/Conduct_patterns, Jokestress defines WP:OWN differently than how WP:OWN 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.[317][318][319][320]

• 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 Wikipedia articles.[321][322][323][324] [325] Often, when an article is called "mine," I make a comment like this:[326].

• Other claims addressed.

Evidence presented by Bonze blayk

Current word length: 512; diff count: 11.

A Difficult Question

"It’s almost impossible now to stand in the middle." - Dr. Anne Lawrence, quoted in Alice Dreger 2008.

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 WP:NPOV is a huge challenge.

James Cantor transgresses WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL

James Cantor has promoted stereotypes about editors, e.g., here.

He often offers snubs rather than genuine responses to comments in a manner that derails dialog; e.g., with me, here, here, and here, following my comment, and here, triggering this interaction, and here, 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 Autogynephilia has been suppressed; it was merged into this.

Re: "Chilling Effect"

Katrina Rose's blog post here points out that User:Hfarmer claims that Ms. Rose edited Wikipedia 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 self-promotion.

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 User:Jokestress, but she is not an unbiased source; see my comment on Zoe Brain's blog.

Alice Dreger on Alice Dreger:

On her blog: "I’m an historian, writer, patient advocate, and mother."

The Dex Diaries:

"… after almost two decades of overt activism on my part …" "… the Hastings Center has just published an essay 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 tone."

Her "activism" has been criticized by fellow bioethicists in "A case study in unethical transgressive bioethics"

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 ASB in its entirety, and overall concur with Dr. Conway's summary.

Rebuttal to Cantor's Rebuttal

"*[327] Acknowledging WP culture is not stereotyping." - James Cantor (here) - "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 James Cantor or Jokestress 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 WP:COI and some WP:POV 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.