Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveHebephilia

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Non admin and "involved" close per discussion at bottom. Matter is now at Arbcom under case title Sexology [1] (Undo this close if you feel it necessary, but I do not recommend it under current circumstances) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jokestress at Talk:Hebephilia

Jokestress/Andrea James has repeatedly acted inappropriately at the talk page of the Hebephilia article. Often, she's either attacking User:James Cantor/James Cantor or making demands. James Cantor is someone that she should generally have no contact with while on Wikipedia, by the way. Check their user pages, Wikipedia biography articles, and the Hebephilia talk page for why that is. In this section, not only did she demand that editors start doing what she wants done with the article, but also suggested that we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia by not revealing our true (real life) identities while editing this topic. When editors understandably did not take kindly to her comments, naming some offenses she has committed off Wikipedia, she decided to respond with more venom and tamper with others' talk page comments. Jokestress claims that she is validated in tampering with the talk page comments like this,[2][3][4][5][6][7] disregarding what WP:TALK states about tampering with others' comments, because they are what she considers to be WP:BLP violations. As seen in those diff-links, I reverted her three times; she reverted me three times as well. ~~We only have her word that they are WP:BLP violations.~~ And if they are WP:BLP violations, I do not believe that she is allowed to tamper with the comments in that way. There are other methods that can be taken.

I will be alerting her to this discussion on my talk page, where she has already commented about the perceived WP:BLP issue. And I'll alert the others (those involved) at their talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring of the comments is the most disturbing thing I see here. Why does she need to avoid James Cantor? Is there an interaction ban? Other then that I see two editors on the opposite end of the spectrum. WP:TROUT for refactoring the comments and a grow up to all partied involved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also WP:CIVIL issues to worry about, even though, these days, I have seen people (administrators and non-administrators) not take WP:CIVILITY seriously. She constantly creates a bad environment on the talk page (the Hebephilia talk page and other talk pages) because, with the exception of messing with others' comments, she is consistently doing what I noted above. She takes any chance she can to make a disparaging remark about Cantor, such as stating that he is a WP:Single purpose account (even though others disagree that he is and there's nothing necessarily bad about being a single-purpose account) or what Cantor has mentioned are WP:BLP violations. This is one of the things that makes the talk page environment toxic because, for example, Cantor is sometimes left having to defend himself in ways that sometimes result in bitter banter between the two or because others decide to defend him and/or tell her to stick to focusing on improving the article and not on Cantor. I don't know if these two have an official interaction ban, but like I stated to her on the Hebephilia talk page: "As some of us here know, you were a part of a well-publicized campaign against J. Michael Bailey, who Cantor has supported. And you hate Cantor almost as much. Now you are at an article repeatedly attacking a diagnosis proposal made by Ray Blanchard, Cantor et al.; when these individuals are involved, it's never simply about being neutral with you; it's rather about you having, as Legitimus has stated, an axe to grind against these people. You do this at almost all such articles involving views expressed by Bailey, Cantor or other researchers you don't like. You constantly hound Cantor around Wikipedia, and that is not at all about 'fair and accurate' matters. You act like Cantor is always pushing his POV and that you are never pushing yours, which is the opposite of what many others at this site have seen. For years on Wikipedia, you and Cantor have been repeatedly asked to stay away from each other, and to not edit articles that have to do with the other; it's not like you have been repeatedly asked this for nothing." Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "offences committed off wikipedia" are documented in this 60 page article. Probably a good place to get an idea starts with the words "In May 2006, knowing of my increasing curiosity in the matter". For me they are more than a little concerning. I would be quite concerned if Jokestress/James knew my real-life identity; comments like this, suggesting (though perhaps I'm being paranoid) that she is trying to ferret out my real-life identity, do not help the matter, nor do comments like this, where anonymous user names are used as an accusation of an undisclosed COI. Again, perhaps I'm being paranoid, but there seems to be genuine reason for concern that the noticeboard could benefit from knowing about.

The disputes between Jokestress and James Cantor do spill across a lot of pages and Cantor has voluntarily agreed not to edit many of them, but the two will often get pulled into unproductive baiting of each other which is disruptive to the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you exactly asking for in this situation? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For administrative action regarding her repeated WP:CIVIL violations and WP:TALK violations in general, and for her tampering with others' comments. Your initial statement above shows that you don't see any validity in her messing with others' comments like that simply because of her perception that they are WP:BLP violations. I'm not sure if an interaction ban between her and Cantor should be proposed at this noticeboard, but I see such proposals often here and there needs to be one between them. Flyer22 (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary i find that refactoring others comment is very much an issue, is it a tarring and feathering worthy offense not unless they have a history of ignoring warnings regarding it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "on the contrary": I didn't state or imply that you don't find refactoring others' comments very much an issue. In fact, I stated the opposite. And giving the user a warning about it, which I am obviously asking of someone with Wikipedia administrative powers to do if what she did is not permitted by WP:BLP, is not "tarring and feathering." And tampering with others' comments is not something that takes "hav[ing] a history of ignoring warnings regarding it" before being given a warning about it. If you are not an administrator, which it doesn't appear that you are, I'd rather an administrator weigh in on that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trout and close. Jokes tress gets a trout for the refactoring (it's not a BLP issue). FWIW Jokestress did not demand others identify their public personas, but suggested they might want too. Nothing wrong with that. Her other comments are mostly about how the minority scientific view is being given undue weight in the article. She might want to ask for more eyes from WP:MEDRS if that's a concern. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress needs a warning, not a trout, and not just about refactoring others' comments (which is made even clearer by my initial post in the Proposed Interaction Ban section below). I did not state that she demanded that anyone identify their real-life identities. And if the majority scientific view is that hebephilia is not a mental disorder, that is not given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in the article at all. It's given overwhelming weight, which is why a request has been made to cut some of that weight down.[8][9] As for bringing WP:MED, not WP:MEDRS (which is the guideline for reliable medical sources), into this, they have made it very clear that they generally are not interested in working on/weighing in on psychological/psychiatric topics. And Jokestress has made her lack of respect for WP:MED very clear, stating that she would rather not take things there because they (including me) see things through a medical POV. Jokestress is admittedly very anti-medicalization of any sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the refactoring, I don't see any wrongdoing, even from the section below you mentioned. It would help if you presented diffs, as tl;dr sections won't help your case. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see anything wrong other than the refractoring, then I have nothing more to state to you about this except the following: I have obviously provided diff-links on certain parts. And there's no need to provide diff-links when the links I do provide suffice. As for "too long; didn't read," that is only a problem for certain editors; most who frequent this noticeboard deal with lengthy discussions just fine (not that this discussion is actually that lengthy yet), and such lengthy discussions often do help cases.

Now again, I would rather administrators comment on this. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, somewhat off-topic sniping.

So in essence you are block hunting? You don't care what the consensus of the community is? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that at all deduced from my comments above and below in this section? I'm not a newbie who is so naive to think that Jokestress would be blocked for any of this. I came to this noticeboard for administrative commentary and/or action. It is called Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, after all. That does not mean that I don't want to hear from non-administrators. It means that I especially want to hear from administrators. We can talk about this section being too long to read, but it wouldn't currently appear that way to any administrator if the non-administrators hadn't kept contributing to making the section longer than it needs to be. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't block hunting why the insistence that administrators only comment on this? help us understand how an administrator will be the key to fixing this if you aren't looking for a block and a interaction ban won't resolve it...If you notice there has been very little support for your version of events, yes there is some issues with the refactoring of the talkpage comments but other then that the consensus of established editors here thus far is that it doesn't raise the bar of disruption to the point where the person should be blocked or banned. It's also very telling that you are willing to ignore the considered viewpoints of others (who are nuetral) in resolution of said dispute either. I also would note you are only concerned with her viewpoint and not the viewpoint of Cantor or inappropriateness of comments. This points out that you may have a position/bias on what is right or wrong in her edits from a viewpoint of subject standard and not nec. interested in dispute resolution but want enforcement of a specific view by block, which is contrary to the entire base of Wikipedia which is consensus. Again i pose the question what are you looking for if not a block? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI Thumperward is an Admin..just saying. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again you are clouding up the talk page. I already explained myself above; I'm not about to repeat something you clearly don't understand. I'm not sure why you think that the only reason a person would seek help from administrators at an administrative noticeboard is to see an editor blocked or banned. Would you issuing a warning to Jokestress carry as much weight as a warning from an administrator or administrators? No. That's why we have these noticeboards. Administrators have the authority that you don't have, which is why editors come here. A lot of them have also been critical of non-administrators at this noticeboard and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard trying to do the job of administrators. And stating that there has "been very little support for [my] version of events," as if I've made anything up, is quite off. Administrators not having yet weighed in on this matter, other than Thumperward's criticism of the Proposed Interaction Ban section you started below because you started it too soon, with one non-administrator not seeing anything wrong with the issues that I and WLU have brought up, is not "very little support for [my] version of events." And, yes, support for the refractoring of comments being inappropriate is clear. As for not being concerned with Cantor, I have also made very clear that if Cantor has a WP:COI, Jokestress has as much of a WP:COI and that Wikipedia interaction between them is problematic. But it's not Cantor who WP:HOUNDs Jokestress all over Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above you said "I'm not sure if an interaction ban between her and Cantor should be proposed at this noticeboard, but I see such proposals often here and there needs to be one between them." but now that's not good enough, the clouding here is coming from you and what you're actually requesting...You say one thing but you are rejecting that same solution, so what are you wanting to happen? A topic ban can be decided by consensus (and that is the preferable way to decide things) but there is no support for that at this time. Maybe if you're more clear about what you think needs done we can have a wider discussion because for an admin to arbitrarily say you're topic banned is in extremely poor taste and over-reaching in my opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world? Yes, I stated that...with "I'm not sure" being keywords. And my statement definitely did not encourage you to go ahead and start a section about an interaction ban while discussion on these matters was just beginning (except for in your own mind). Thumperward is right about the matter of when interaction bans are usually proposed, which is something you should know if you visit this noticeboard frequently. As for the rest of what you just now stated, I made myself very clear as to what I am looking for on this matter. If you still don't grasp that, even though others, such as administrator Mark Arsten, do, then I don't know what else to state to you on this. People are also allowed to change their minds, or add on to what they think the solution could be. If I clouded this discussion at all, it was in response to your and another non-administrator clouding it. And, yes, I'm quite aware that administrators cannot arbitrarily state that anyone is interaction or topic banned. Again, I'm very obviously not a newbie. Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the last half of that sentence "but I see such proposals often here and there needs to be one between them" so in essence I think you're here in bad faith if you can't be clear with what you want. I don't think you like the suggestions of those of us that disagree and so you are selectively wanting to discount those because we aren't admin. The only difference here is that an admin can block and we can't. And you may not be a newbie but you definitely are acting like one here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten anything. Your assertions are off, and other comments show that. Equating my belief that there needs to be an interaction ban between Cantor and Jokestress with WP:Bad faith and making it out like it's just about what I want, even though I've made clear why there needs to be one and that there may need to be more than an interaction ban, and when others also believe that an interaction ban between these two is appropriate because it would be beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole, is absolutely ridiculous. Like I noted above, "[f]or years on Wikipedia, [Jokestress] and Cantor have been repeatedly asked to stay away from each other, and to not edit articles that have to do with the other; it's not like [they] have been repeatedly asked this for nothing." And I've already made clear the administrative matter, which you don't grasp for some odd reason. And I've made clear that it's you who has been acting like the newbie here, seemingly not being familiar with how core aspects of this site/noticeboard work. You talk about bad faith. But I see you having acted in bad faith because you didn't like my "15:10, 24 January 2013" comment, where I corrected you above. From that point on, you decided to divert attention away from the matter at hand and focus the attention on me, making this section "too long; didn't read" for some people in the process. Congratulations. Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you just speak or in this case type a version of English that doesn't mean what you typed. My mistake, perhaps you can be clear what action you really think it should take? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Interaction Ban

Proposed that due to incessant infighting due to COI on both sides which has lead to civility issues for both an interaction ban is enacted to both user Jokestress and Cantor for a period of six months. First break in ban is a day block and each time it is extended a week, month year, indef. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straw polls are a useful tool for judging consensus following a detailed discussion. Starting one three hours after coming across a situation on a random walk across ANI is less so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you meaning is? There's a suggestion that was proposed by a member above other then myself as a belief it would be a solution. I merely made a separate section for it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While an interaction ban would doubtless be a good thing, it doesn't address some of the other issues. Jokestress in her non-wiki life as Andrea James has done things that make people feel threatened (per my initial comment). Her edits to others' talk page comments are removals of statements by people pointing this out, and pointing out why they might have valid concerns about real-life consequences. I don't know if ANI is equipped to deal with something like this, which requires much patience and reading, and consideration of the overlapping roles and actions on-wiki and off. I don't know if arbitration could handle it. Jokestress has, in my opinion, a significant non-financial COI - but there is no clear-cut way to deal with it in a manner that will seem fair. I don't necessarily think "fairness" should be the over-riding ideal in this case, I think a topic ban based on human sexuality articles might be a way forward, but I doubt it would be endorsed by a critical mass of the community. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking that something more than just an interaction ban needs to be done on this matter. After all, an interaction ban wouldn't restrict her from commenting or editing at articles that concern Cantor's work or the work of other researchers she doesn't like. It's the paraphilia articles, more than sexuality articles in general, that she significantly focuses on. And this is because some of the researchers she doesn't like specialize in those topics (especially Cantor). Anything to do with such researchers and transgender topics is also a concern when it comes to Jokestress's Wikipedia editing. See this section (which has subsections) at the List of paraphilias article. See the current edit history of the Attraction to transgender people article and its talk page; if that were a high-traffic article, something very visible to most Wikipedia editors, she would have gotten a WP:3RR warning or would have been blocked for breaching it. And on a related note to that time frame, see how she inappropriately started the following WP:AfD debates that concern Cantor: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynemimetophilia...and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael C. Seto. Then look at her comments at Talk:Michael C. Seto. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However there were valid concerns about those AfDs that Jokestress was correct on, even if they weren't handled with the height of decorum. Cantor has been fairly obviously promoting his work and that of his co-workers, a COI if ever there was one. I don't know if Jokestress tries to restore balance but she has done so every time I've dealt with Cantor's work. It's time consuming and unending dealing with unwinding these knots of the fringe researchers promoting their views on Wikipedia as mainstream. Insomesia (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WLU and Flyer22 that a topic ban would better address the problem than an interaction ban. Even when I withdraw completely from a talkpage, Jokestress continues disrupting the otherwise unanimous editors. (For examples: [10], [11]).

I’ve kept on my userpage this pledge to end the persistent warring to no avail. I’ve repeated my invitation on the other pages to which she followed me (e.g., here, here), still to no avail.

Also, Jokestress’ incivility and personal attacks are repeatedly about me, even when they are not TO me, which an interaction ban would not address:

On pedophilia: [12] “David Finkelhor is about five to ten times more influential than Cantor's colleagues regarding the definitions of pedophilia and child sexual abuse. ”
On hebephilia: [13] “I can't take it any more…"Hebephilia" is a fictitious diagnosis, one of many created by an activist minority in the mental health field to pathologize sex and gender minorities...Unfortunately, one of the people in that activist minority, James Cantor, happens to be an editor here at Wikipedia.”
On List of paraphilias: [14] "James Cantor, the Wikipedia SPA who does most of the editing here...Frankly, a gay guy is probably not the the most objective POV "expert" to conclude that his sexuality is "euphilic" ".
On paraphilia: [15] “James Cantor appears nowhere in the top ten Google Scholar list when I do a search for "pedophilia". And that list is extremely biased toward the sociobiological/disease model of sex and gender minorities. ”
On Feminine essence theory of transsexuality: [16] "User:James Cantor is a single-purpose account editing Wikipedia for two reasons: to promote his own writings and those of his sexologist friends"
On Gynandromorphophilia: [17] “This is yet another attempt by this editor to medicalize a common form of attraction with an obscure term used by an activist minority in the mental health field, a little pocket of pathological science fixated on the concept of paraphilia…This is discussed much more commonly as a sociological phenomenon than a medical one, with the exception of a few holdouts clinging to 20th century ideologies.”
On Michael C. Seto: [18] “Article was created by…a single-purpose account here to promote the work and ideas of himself and his friends.”

Jokestress is, of course, a productive editor in a wide range of articles, but the edits she makes to sexology articles and their talkpages are invariably about me and other people she keeps off-wiki attack sites about. (For examples: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-usual-suspects.html .) Indeed, her off-wiki attacks against experts she dislikes have become so notable as to have been covered in the NYTimes. (See here.)

— James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved here per se, but I've closed some Afds that the involved parties have commented on and have read through some of the talk pages involved. I've been very concerned by the interactions between the two. I'd support an interaction ban at minimum, but I think Arbitration may be better suited to handle the complexity of this situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think arbitration would be declined at this point as interaction and topic bans have not been attempted, so I suggest that we (the community) at least give it a go. It might be just postponing it for a couple of months, but we can hope it might work. As other have suggested above, I don't think either a topic ban or an interaction ban would work on their own but I don't see why they can't be combined. Perhaps something like:

Jokestress is topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to sexology and paraphilias, broadly construed.
Jokestress and James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.

Do those more involved with this than me think this might work? I'm not certain that James Cantor needs the interaction ban as he seems better able to control himself, but one-sided bans are very often more problematical than problem solving. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with a topic ban, there hasn't been adequate formal dispute resolution for that extent yet but the interaction ban is in my opinion doable although it may be unnec as well if we can impress community consensus on Jokestress assuming we get one, a broadly construed interaction ban can be helpful if that doesn't work. I think in this case especially with the original posters reluctance of working with the community at that point we are enforcing one view by hammer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, accuse us of being reluctant to work with the community/of WP:Bad faith all because I stated that I also wanted to hear opinions from administrators at an administrative noticeboard. That's right, accuse us of being reluctant to work with the community/of WP:Bad faith all because you now have a score to settle with me. Ridiculous. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this was a prior request for arbitration: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=264958462#user:Dicklyon.2C_user:Jokestress.2C_and_user:James_Cantor_at_The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen_and_related_pages — James Cantor (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a highly relevant diff thank you for posting it. I would be more inclined to agree with a community enforced interaction and topic ban as it is noted by the Arbitrators that a previous one did work in the past and also note that several of those arbs said this is still within the reach of community discussion to resolve. I would also note and emphasize the part about community and discussion as being key to that, which is precisely what is happening here despite Flyers best efforts to subvert that process. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have also been mediations, but I cannot locate the archive.— James Cantor (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And flyer if by score I'm trying to settle you mean discuss the situation posted here you are quite right, I'm trying to help settle it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No efforts on my part to subvert community discussion, no matter how many times you make such an absurd claim. You would do well to learn to focus on the matter at hand, and not on me because of your newfound and unwarranted grudge. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What grudge is that precisely? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I wonder (sarcasm). Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, somewhat off-topic sniping.

So do I that's why I'm asking, what grudge do I have here? Maybe you could enlighten me, because as far as I know this is the only time we've interacted. I've asked very simple questions of you, you've answered one way then changed that answer saying that's not what I meant so here's your chance to do it over what do you think should happen because a warning as you also said above doesn't seem to be what you are aiming for? I only want clarification of what your aims are. I'd take an example from James Cantor he is showing relevant material and discussing the issue, which is the key to resolve it. If we (the community) don't understand whats being requested how can we help? Here's your chance to show your good faith, you can clear it up and I'll say thank you and leave it alone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket, there is a such thing as dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass. I've made my comments about this matter, and how I feel that you and I got to the point of sniping at each other, clear above. You also don't recount my statements as accurately as you should if you are going to recount them. As for Cantor showing relevant material and discussing the issue; I have done that, and Cantor acknowledged that by his agreement with what I stated on issues concerning his interactions with Jokestress. I have significantly, and clearly to others here, expressed my thoughts on these issues. And I would now like to take The Bushranger's advice about stepping back for a bit and letting others weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)At AN/I, "the matter at hand" is whatever comes up in the discussion. Everyone's conduct in a discussion is open to discussion - and, if necessary, sanction - and repeated insistence to 'focus on the [original] topic' only raises suspicion, rightly or wrongly, of trying to dodge or hide something. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance note: I've refactored the header to remove the links (with the original header added one line below) as links in headers are not of the good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, may I humbly suggest the above discussion slow down, just a little? There's lots and lots of discussion and already proposed interaction and topic bans and the person primarily under discussion, User:Jokestress, has not been online (judging by the contribution history) for the entire period of the discussion above which has already reached that point. Perhaps it might be wise to step back, drink a cuppa, and wait until the other side of the story is received? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deeply concerned. I just read the NYT article Cantor presented and was shocked to read the following about Jokestress/James Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided.. I assume this issue has been addressed on-wiki already? Would someone please share a synopsis of the consensus? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it hasn't been. My opinion is the obvious one: that the sexology pages have been let to become Jokestress' WP:battleground for her off-wiki campaign against those same people and their colleagues (including me).— James Cantor (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those things were also made clear in my and WLU's original posts above in this section. I linked to the Hebephilia talk page discussion where others expressed that such off-Wikipedia offenses by Jokestress are why they are not comfortable revealing their true identities to her, and WLU linked to a journal source about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, somewhat off-topic sniping.

Since you are now accusing me of distorting your comments lets look at the diffs.

In this one you say you're not sure an interaction ban should be proposed here but you think there should be one [[19]] in the next you say Joketress needs a warning [[20]] and with the last one you state needs more then an interaction ban. So which is which? [[21]] I'm going to bed so you can feel free to take some time to think about what you were really trying to say and like I say if you can clarify what you meant, even if I disagree I will very happily apologize. even if you think a block is justified and that's what you want, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are valid reasons that I stated that you don't "recount my statements as accurately as you should if you are going to recount them." Examples are you making it seem like I suggested to you to prematurely start an interaction ban discussion, and you stating that I changed my answer by saying something to the effect of "that's not what I meant." No, I told you already that the words "I'm not sure" were key words and that "[p]eople are also allowed to change their minds, or add on to what they think the solution could be." I suggested an interaction ban; I then stated that "I was also thinking that something more than just an interaction ban needs to be done on this matter." I didn't discard my suggestion; I added on to it. It's not one or the other. I believe that all of my suggestions would be appropriate actions. At the beginning of that same paragraph that you love to cite, I told you that I was looking "[f]or administrative action regarding her repeated WP:CIVIL violations and WP:TALK violations in general, and for her tampering with others' comments." I then suggested an interaction ban. This is called "adding on to thoughts," not discarding any. Now you really need to drop your trivial focus on me; and it's clear that it's trivial, as even another poster (below) besides me has called it sniping. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your explanation above and rationale that one person calling it sniping makes it trivial or that the comment was aimed at one person. I do agree it's irrelevant at this point because valid discussion has now started on this thread, which is what should have happened at the first point of discussion. Please realize that when you open a thread here that anyone is able to comment and help develop the consensus, it only becomes an administrative issue when you are specifically requesting a block(which is the point I was trying to make, very poorly), as that's the only difference in a situation like this and that there is not prohibition to anyone commenting or weighing in, whether you agree or not and you did appear IMHO to be trying to quash anything that was not agreeing with your spoken desire for admin action. I am going to drop this now because I have stated that I do agree with a topic ban and an interaction ban both broadly construed to stop the issues. I am a man of my word and while I do not agree with your rationale I apologize for my assumption of bad faith in this case. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated, others feel that valid discussion started with my and WLU's initial posts; I don't see what's invalid about them in the least. While I understand that you were initially trying to help, it moved from that point soon afterward. I mean no offense by this, but you don't have to tell me what this discussion board is for and what is allowed here, as I'm very well aware of those aspects. I disagree that bringing an issue to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "only becomes an administrative issue when you are specifically requesting a block"; that has never been the sole reason why there is a board (one of the boards) for editors to bring problems specifically to administrators. There is nothing wrong with coming to this board specifically seeking administrative opinion and/or action, whether non-administrators weigh in or not. That's what it is for. And I already expressed how administrators can help in this situation in ways that non-administrators cannot, while never requesting a block. You jumped to the block assumption. But like I stated, it makes no sense that I, a very experienced Wikipedia editor, would be seeking a block. I accept your apology, and I also apologize for acting harshly toward you. Now, yes, let's just agree to disagree and move on from this part of the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree that Only in death's "sniping" comment was directed at us both; I did call the matter "sniping at each other" in my "19:17, 24 January 2013" comment above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the above sniping (feel free to hat it anyone) To Cantor & Rosetta - Jokestres's off-wiki actions regarding Bailey are not really anything Wikipedia can do something about. Old news for a start, and at best they can be taken into account that she has a COI when it comes to editing the topic area (as does Cantor). Do you (James) interact with Jokestress anywhere else on wikipedia other than the Sexology topic area? Because if not, then a topic ban for both of you would be the simplest way forward for everyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An IP suddenly popped up to complain about Jokestress at the talk page of the J. Michael Bailey article. It's suspicious that the IP showed up on this day, with all the above already going on. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cantor may have a COI. However Jokestress appears to have a vendetta against some BLP subjects. A topic ban for her and and an interaction ban between her and Cantor. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban for User:Jokestress from all articles and talk pages relating to sexology and paraphilias, broadly construed, and mutual interaction ban between User:James Cantor and Jokestress as proposed by User:Thryduulf above.

Among many points above not fully grasping the issues at hand the contention offered by User:Only in death that as WP cannot "do" anything about off-wiki behaviour, that such behaviour is now old news, and that the relevant issues pertain only to the interaction between Cantor and Jokestress, fails to address the potentially chilling effects of an editor with a documented history of behavior off-wiki that many would regard as intimidatory enjoining other editors to reveal their real-life identities (as detailed on the hebephilia talk page). In this instance, off-wiki behaviour, rather than being irrelevant, clearly informs the reception of such comments by the editors at whom they were directed.

For clarification, I've previously edited the Hebephilia and Talk:Hebephilia pages but departed more or less coincidentally with (but not consequent to) Jokestress's arrival at those pages. I've also had some earlier interaction with Jokestress but cannot, through the available tools, actually pinpoint where and when on-wiki [22]. That source is obviously missing something as, arising I think out of some discussion on related sexology pages and alterations to Andrea James's biography, I had agreed to add previously removed content to Andrea James's biography (a promise I didn't fulfill) and entered into limited email contact with Andrea James/Jokestress about the same. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed topic ban for Jokestress and interaction ban between Cantor and Jokestress are very good ideas. I think they would solve the issue nicely without need for Arbitration. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically FiachraByrne, wikipedia cannot do anything off or on wiki to prevent that 'chilling effect'. Given the tactics Jokestress has been willing to use in her activism, topic-banning her wouldnt prevent those actions from happening again. It just means she wont be able to do anything at the article in question. It doesnt prevent her or anyone else from reading the talk page/edit history and deciding to take action elsewhere. I wouldnt touch any of those articles just knowing someone who feels strongly enough to take the actions linked above is watching them. Even if they cant contribute. A topic ban may at least prevent the (I am not convinced on this) attempts to solicit real-life identities. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thryduulf's suggestion. And a minor point of note - James Cantor is sometimes referred to by editors (inclding myself) as "James", making it difficult to parse some comments that refer to Jokestress as "James". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per all the comments showing (among other problematic things regarding Jokestress) the toxic environment that is created when Jokestress comments on researchers she does not like and/or edits articles concerning one or more of those researchers, and per what often happens when Cantor and Jokestress interact on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal for this issue

Maintenance note: I slightly renamed the section (having added "for this issue" on to the title) to keep us from being taken to a section far above that has the same title; this would happen when we saved edits in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Please see my further comment below before commenting in this discussion. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From an activist perspective, I would be very sympathetic to James, were it not for the "pictures of Bailey's children" part. I have my deep, deep personal concerns about some of the professionals at CAMH (and Bailey, though he works at Northwestern University) and their support of alternative theories into transgender typology which I agree with James (and, indeed, the NGLTF) are unscientific and objectifying. This is a very nasty real-life dispute that has flowed onto the wiki. That said, NPOV dictates that we must leave such activism at the door. First, James' reverts are legitimate per BLP and NPA and are oversightable. Legitimus basically accused her of a serious crime that I can see no evidence of her ever committing; even, in the case of Bailey during the The Man Who Would Be Queen controversy, the NYT and even Dreger agree with her on the facts that the pictures of Bailey's children were freely available on his website. Such an accusation would normally be grounds for a ban in itself; I propose blocking Legitimus until he retracts his accusation. First, I agree with an interaction ban, but I would also expand that to Legitimus, and topic ban all three of them from articles on sexology indefinitely. It's very clear that all three have major COIs relating to their real-life work which is causing them to push their own points of view and attack each other. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen with Jokestress's repeated removals of the text, Herostratus also wrote that she is the photographer of the pictures of Bailey's children that she used. It wasn't only Legitimus. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic banning Cantor or both Cantor and James, as proposer. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC) (Edited: 19:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC); see below[reply]
Oppose for Jokestress, sorry she may have issues but she is highly competent when not provoked and I'm afraid we're only getting a part of the fully story. I would like to see her commit to toning down the problem behaviors and explaining a bit more what is going on. From what I've seen there has been some highly visible fringe campaigning going on for years and she is doing a part of the walled-garden weed-whacking. Insomesia (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban for Jokestress. I had no intention of ever posting in this discussion, but by making your statements about me, I have no choice. I have gone back and edited my own talk page comment to remove the untrue portion, and I encourage all other users who made similar statements to also edit there own remarks. I was neither accusing nor lying however. I genuinely thought that was what had happened because sources I read never said where the photos came from. I need to clarify two things though. First, I did not "accuse her of a serious crime." In real life (as opposed to lifetime movies) photographing people out in public in situations where there is no expectation of privacy is not illegal. Otherwise the staff of TMZ would all be behind bars. Second, how the photographs are obtained makes little different as to the heinousness of the behavior. In the jurisdiction I live in, James would have faced prison time all the same due to how our cyber-stalking laws work here. While I freely admit my statement was in error, my disgust at the behavior and anger at being so flippantly and incorrectly accused of libel with the threat of a ban prevents me from outright apologizing at this time. If this can be sorted out peacefully, I may change my mind. I have chosen to voluntarily recuse myself from the hebephilia article entirely and have removed it from my watchlist regardless. I think Jokestress should do the same or else be topic banned. Had she and I met in another topic that was less contentious, we might have gotten along.Legitimus (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimus, c'omn, we need you at that article. Leaving it is exactly what she wants, which is why she tried intimidating you. Don't let her win. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She genuinely makes me nervous about retaliation. She said on my talk page she tried to e-mail me twice, though I never received anything. Could be a technical issue, but I'm concerned what they might have contained or if it was some kind of ploy to get my e-mail address. I'm similarly not fond of being brow-beaten on a psych topic by a Hollywood writer with no mental health creds. I don't want to be involved if she's going to still be editing these articles. Bullies exist only so long as the system lets them get away with it.Legitimus (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're strong enough to handle it. But I understand being tired of it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The problem is not jokestress, the problem is that the article (like others) are a battleground becasue of two parties with strong POV's, and at least one party (Cantor) with a clear COI. Because of this, several articles are in poor state because of the POV involved. If users who push back to this get topic banned, POV-pushers like flyer and cantor get their way. I have repeatedly edited edits of Cantor because they are not reflecting what the sources state, but his personal conclusions. If anything, Cantor needs a topic ban for repeated POV pushing based on his COI. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really want to start with me right now? I don't have any POV to push on the Hebephilia article, or any Wikipedia article, except keep POVs like yours and Jokestress's out of it/them. You have as much of a POV at that article as anyone, coming out of "retirement" just to push that POV. Whereas Jokestress is very much for hebephilia not being characterized as a mental disorder, you are very much for hebephilia being characterized as a mental disorder. You have made it no secret that you pretty much see it as pedophilia. This is why you made this mention of the overlap in the lead, although I ended up tweaking it. So don't come here making false claims of POV and stirring up needless drama. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article made it sound like it was a accepted fact that it was a separate paraphilia from pedophilia. It is not, and if you want to push the idea that it is my POV when I actually provided some recent citations for the claim, instead of a single decades old citation that did not cover what we know NOW, you just showed what the problem is. You are one of the worst POV pushers I know. And for the record, you have obviously NO clue how I see things. But in the end, it does not matter. What matters is that Blanchard and Canter have tried to get it in the DSM-V in various forms, and they were rebuffed soundly. That included a redefinition of pedophilia away from current definitions, and the article was reflecting that, and not the accepted definitions. That is what is wrong with the artiel. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is separate from pedophilia, according to most reliable sources on the topic, and the article did not call it a paraphilia. I, however, have argued that it's only somewhat separate from pedophilia. But that it overlaps with pedophilia, an overlap that I have repeatedly acknowledged (to Cantor, you, and to others), and is also why I did not revert your "overlap" edit, does not make it pedophilia. That is your problem; you want everyone to equate hebephilia with pedophilia, which you have made no secret of (here at Wikipedia and on your personal blogs, which would sometimes coincide with your editing, and is why you are one of the worst POV-pushers I know of). Because of that, I very much doubt that you did not want it listed by name as pedophilia in the DSM-5 (which makes your bias against Cantor all the more odd), unless it's the fact that it would still be distinguished from pedophilia under Blanchard's proposal that caused you not to want it listed in the DSM-5. At the time of the aforementioned edit you made, the article was (and currently still is) reflecting that a lot people (including researchers) do not consider hebephilia to be a mental disorder or a paraphilia, meaning that it is different than pedophilia (and the article being formatted like that is largely because of Jokestress's involvement with the article). That hebephilia is different is the currently accepted definition among most experts in this field. So, yes, I (and others) obviously have a clue how you see things. And just like Jokestress, you take any chance to make a disparaging comment about a Wikipedia editor that you don't like. But this thread is not about the animosity between you and I. And so... Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wise that you do not speculate on what my opinion is about things, as you obviously have no clue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I have no clue (sarcasm). But it is wise to keep the animosity between us out of this thread, as well as off Wikipedia as a whole. Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and using sarcasm is not going to change that you indeed have no clue about what my opinion is about certain aspects. If you respond to things I write, i will respond back if I feel like it. if you do nto wantb to be called out of making things up, don't make things up. It is really simple. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed do have a clue about what your opinion is about certain aspects. Stating that I don't won't change that. It's that simple, really. As noted, your stance (past and/or current) on certain aspects is on Wikipedia, so the "made up" argument is silly. And as for you responding to things I write in response to you, that goes vice versa. Yes, I know that you love getting the last word; that's old news. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can keep proclaiming that you have a clue about what my motivations are till eternity, the fact is that I know what my motivations and opinions are and you have them wrong. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you are obviously allowed to keep claiming/asserting that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed allowed to claim that I know my own motivations. Or is there is rule against "knowing your own motivation" nowadays on wikipedia? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, someone wants the last word badly. I'll be childish like you and not let you have it. This thread will have to be shut down first. That, or warnings to us both will need to be issued by an administrator (or administrators, as in not from you). Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the incivility, but you're both acting like a pair of 5 year olds fighting over the swingset at kindergarten. How about you both shut the hell up since you're doing yourselves no favors, other than appearing to be a pair of dicks? Fish ^Barking? 21:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed for your incivility, BarkingFish. I obviously agree. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban for Jokestress, per all the comments showing (among other problematic things regarding Jokestress) the toxic environment that is created when Jokestress comments on researchers she does not like and/or edits articles concerning one or more of those researchers, and per what often happens when Cantor and Jokestress interact on Wikipedia. I disagree that Cantor or Legitimus should be indefinitely banned from sexology topics. They have excellent knowledge on sexual topics, especially regarding pedophilia. Having a COI does not mean that these editors cannot and should not contribute to these articles, as long as they edit respectfully concerning those COIs. But I've never known Legitimus to have a COI, and especially not on the level of Cantor or Jokestress. He has never tried to push his personal POV on a sexual article or any article. He rarely edits, mainly showing up to revert vandalism, other unconstructive edits, or to comment on the talk page of articles (such as providing needed information). When he edits an article, his edits are always fair and balanced. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban for Jokestress, as per Thryduulf (with little green rosetta, FiachraByrne, WLU, Flyer22, Hell in a Bucket, and Mark Arsten...Or does this new section indicate a whole new ball of wax?) I am also willing to support/participate in a mutual interaction ban.— James Cantor (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a topic ban for all involved without going into extreme detail as to the particulars. I think James Cantor has shown exemplary poise in this Ani and also note that Jokestress is a very valuable contributor (multi-lingual) in many areas in spite of her inclusionist nature (I am a deletionist). It's unfortunate anytime a topic/interaction ban must be made however I think it should be six months with a hope that they can all come back to their senses and edit constructively. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By all involved let me clarify, I mean Herostratus, Legitmus, Cantor, Jokestress and Flyer22. We have such a partisan issue here that I don't think that short of Arb which is looking more and more like a good idea we are silencing one side by interaciton/topic ban. This is a mess. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom or defer until Oversight review. I see a little kangaroo court has popped up before I am able to comment fully. Legitimus and Herostratus suddenly seem to understand they have crossed a serious line, and their attempts with Flyer22, WLU, and James Cantor to poison the well here and get a quick decision before I can respond is typical of their previous attempts to sanction me here via this kind of trolling. How about we close this without action, take this to Arbcom, or wait on a trial till I am able to comment? It's way too complex to be a simple up or down vote on one editor. Jokestress (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You had plenty of time to comment, such as when I first brought this matter here. You decided to lay low while all this was going on. I'm unaware of Herostratus, Legitimus, WLU or myself trying to bring sanctions against you before. Suggesting that you stop WP:HOUNDING Cantor, on the other hand? Yes. And as comments from outside editors show above, the concerns expressed regarding your actions on and off Wikipedia are not a matter of trolling. As for taking this to WP:ArbCom, I'd be fine with it being taken to them, especially since it doesn't seem that this thread will be successful in resolving the issues. But there is the matter of what Thryduulf stated above: "Hmm, I think arbitration would be declined at this point as interaction and topic bans have not been attempted, so I suggest that we (the community) at least give it a go. It might be just postponing it for a couple of months, but we can hope it might work. As other have suggested above, I don't think either a topic ban or an interaction ban would work on their own but I don't see why they can't be combined." Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And deferring to Oversight review only addresses the WP:BLP concerns you've expressed regarding Legitimus and Herostratus stating that you are the photographer of the pictures of Bailey's children that you used. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban for Jokestress per Flyer22 and per this. Oppose topic ban for Cantor and Legitimus per Flyer22.--В и к и T 18:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: While I was aware Cantor worked at CAMH (which already rang alarm bells in my head) when I proposed the topic ban, I was not aware of this line in his Wikipedia biography:

He is skeptical of shemales—men who undergo procedures to look female and who live as women, but who do not seek sex reassignment surgery—who say they want to remain in a shemale state. Cantor has been quoted as saying that "[the 'shemales'] often change their stories as they come to terms with everything."

After reading that line, I immediately retched. If an editor had said that on-project, I think they'd be looking down the barrel end of a long ban. Reading into his activities more, he seems to be have been active within a concerted effort of his colleagues at CAMH to introduce their own pet theories into DSM-V (most notably, autogynephilia, a theory which Cantor seems to support due to his positive review of The Man Who Would Be Queen). If he's willing to push such a personal unscientific agenda in the medical industry, I think it's not inappropriate to discuss whether he would do the same on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, Cantor has a long history of POV pushing here at wikipedia, and Flyer often seems to act as his meat puppet. Because of this, a whole series of articles is effectively owned by them, and it ios sheer impossible to get quality edits into those articles based on actual sources, or as with hebephilia, sections get so incredibly bloated that they are anything but encyclopedic. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So much for keeping the animosity between us off Wikipedia. There is no proof whatsoever that I act as Cantor's meatpuppet. Not to mention, that I don't agree with what a lot of Cantor believes (and I do mean his research). And like I stated above, the Hebephilia article being what you call "bloated" with the DSM debate is largely because of Jokestress's involvement with the article. It's not like Cantor would want all the criticism in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the section is bloated because Cantor is pushing a specific POV with regard to this topic. This inhibits sensible encyclopedic writing. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect? LOL. The talk page and its currently only archive show otherwise (that rhymes). Most of the DSM material currently in the article is criticism of the hebephilia diagnosis. And who requested that such material be in the article? Jokestress. Jeez, you'll lie about/distort anything. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIARLIAR. Tread carefully. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, The Bushranger. I wasn't going to reply to you on that, but, seeing that WP:LIARLIAR is an essay page about deletion of content/articles, the only relevant thing I see there regarding this discussion is where it considers calling someone a liar to be a personal attack. But, on Wikipedia, we often state that others' claims are not true, as demonstrated in this discussion; I don't find that much different than using the words lie or liar, except that using those words are less pleasant. I much prefer the Wikipedia:Honesty page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose topic ban for jokestress. I would support a civility remedy however, as jokestress does have an aggressive and combative approach to other editors which is damaging to the editing environment. I cannot support a topic ban on jokestress alone as there are other editors on that page with strong POV's who engage in disruptive POV pushing and singling out jokestress would be unfair on her. I tried to edit the article as I felt that it was very biased (although the article has since changed substantially) but I kept getting reverted and met with strong POV's on the talk page. In the end I backed away from the article and left it for others with better stamina to bring the article to neutrality. Jokestress is certainly not the only problem editor on there and thus should not be singled out on her own. Anyway, the way forward I feel is an admonishment and a possible civility remedy placed on jokestress. If this fails to resolve the issue, then ArbCom or a topic ban might be in order; topic bans are not first resort remedies, usually.--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC) **Support topic ban for Jokestress on articles related to sexual matters including paraphilias. Also would support an interaction ban between Jokestress and James Cantor and a civility remedy for Jokestress. Initially I was opposed to a topic ban on this user (due to ignorance of the very long background) but upon reading comments more closely and doing some background digging, I see there is more to this editor than I first thought and I have grave concerns regarding the conduct and behaviour of Jokestress. I am particularly concerned about the long history of harassing type behaviour including the abuse of pictures of opponents children - editors have expressed a fear of this editor destroying them if they find out their real world identity. Their aggressive style is also desruptive. I don't see how one can expect other editors to work alongside an editor like Jokestress given the harassing behaviour she has engaged in, especially given that this editor has not reformed their ways in the past 10 years.--MrADHD | T@1k? 09:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose topic bans or any remedies on anyone. Support sending this to ArbCom. After reading this response by Jokestress to my concerns, I am changing my vote for the 3rd and final time. I oppose any community action on any editor including jokestress. I (and I am sure others as well) am getting mislead left right and centre with half truths and lots of mudslinging. What is at the heart of this is a complicated POV battleground and to get to the bottom of it requires ArbCom I feel. Kneejerk reactions by the community risks punishing people who have the most mud sticking to them but not necessarily guilty of much. I honestly don't know for sure who is the 'main problem' on these articles - so lets just send this mess to ArbCom. :-) --MrADHD | T@1k? 16:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although my above preference and belief that this is best handled ArbCom remains, if the community decides this should not be sent to ArbCom and community sanctioned topic bans should be passed I think both James Cantor and Joestress should be topic banned rather than one or the other for reasons I have articulated else where on this thread.--MrADHD | T@1k? 03:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support interaction ban for Cantor/Jokestress, topic ban for Jokestress While the actions by Jokestress are 5 years old, they are so reprehensible that it should be obvious to all that her judgment is clouded with respect to the whole "phillia" thing. And it appears these off wiki battles are still occurring onsite. Enough. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support interaction ban on Jokestress and Cantor - topic ban on all paraphilias for Jokestress - Clearly this is going nowhere, suggest both Cantor and Jokestress stay the hell out of each other's way, and Jokestress stay out of the topic as a whole - their presence and edits are clearly causing strife, but let us not forget that Cantor's COI pushing doesn't exactly help matters. Fish ^Barking? 21:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've said so above, but since new voting sections keep getting added, I'll make it more clear for the closing admin: Support an interaction ban between Jokestress and Cantor and a topic ban on paraphilias for Jokestress Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In addition to my proposal above, which I still think is worth trying, I beginning to think that something needs to happen with Kim van der Linde and possibly Flyer22. Certainly the former is not acting at all like an admin should, and I'm thinking that some sort of restriction is in order to get them to civilly discuss content rather than attack other contributors. I wouldn't object to an interaction ban between the two parties either, but I'm not sure both it and the restriction on Kim van der Linde are necessary. I don't really see Flyer22's contributions to the interactions between them being significantly more than rising to bait (which they really need to stop doing), but as above I'm not a fan of one-sided interaction bans, and in this case I'm not convinced that Flyer22 wouldn't game and bait a one-sided ban on Kim.
If we can remove the hindering users then I strongly believe that high quality neutral articles in this area. James Cantor does have a very big COI, but that in itself is not a problem as he appears to abide by the WP:COI guidelines well. Jokestress has an equally large COI but doesn't seem to be able to play nicely with others in this topic area or respect the COI guidelines nearly as well; this is a real shame as her actions do much to discredit her views even though they seem broadly aligned with the mainstream in many respects (as I understand both her views and the mainstream).
Finally, a think a firm reminder to all parties about civility and COI policies and guidelines needs to issued along with the understanding that further breaches [i]will[/i] (not maybe, will) lead to sanctions including blocks. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KimvdLinde is hardly on Wikipedia these days. She's "semi-retired." So there doesn't really need to be an interaction ban between us. On or off Wikipedia, I can work with people that I dislike; she has repeatedly displayed that she cannot, often attacking me out of nowhere (just like she's done here). I don't game and bait people, by the way. Most who are familiar with my editing can attest to that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen of Flyer's contributions, they seem to be within policies and guidelines and in my opinion Flyer is a competent and productive editor. I have not seen any evidence of baiting or gaming behaviour. I am not familiar with Kim at all, so I can't comment.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an involved party (sort of), I did allow myself to be goaded by Jokestress into quoting Joseph Welch and so forth (justifiably, but I still shouldn't allow myself to be goaded), and I did make an error: Jokestress (that is, Andrea James) did not take a covert photo of her opponent's elementary-school-age daughter and publish it on her website with the eyes blacked out and a caption asking whether this elementary-school-age daughter was "a cock-starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on the idea of it?". I shouldn't have said that because it wasn't true (I had misunderstood) and I apologize. What I meant to say way that Jokestress copied a photo from the web of her opponent's elementary-school-age daughter and published it on her website with the eyes blacked out and a caption asking whether this elementary-school-age daughter was "a cock-starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on the idea of it?". Obviously that is so much better and of course that changes everything.

However, inasmuch as I do have standing, if any, as an involved person to comment, I would also Support interaction topic ban on all paraphilias for Jokestress I suppose. Actually I guess I would support a topic ban on all topics and an interaction ban with everyone if that were possible. Heck if it were possible I'd support her being banned from the internet and here's a couple reasons why:

, she constantly and persistently goads me (and others) as some kind of unworthy mook because I "hide" my real identity (which is perfectly within policy and tradition and general pratice here). This is very annoying and depressing since I have reasonable cause to believe that if she did get hold of my real identity she'd use to to try to ruin my life and quite possibly succeed. I'm afraid of this person and that's no fun, and no way to run an encyclopedia, I don't think. If we were running a drug cartel then "instilling fear" might be a good core value, I suppose; for writing an encyclopedia, not so much.
, we really don't need the kind of editors who write articles like Adult sexual interest in children with text like "...survey of human adult–child sexual behavior worldwide indicated it has occurred throughout history with varying degrees of acceptability and was much more prevalent in the past...."; "Intuitively it is obvious that the sexual abuse of children inflicts deep psychological harm. But there are also reasons to distrust this intuition. First of all, it could reflect an irrational taboo about the sexuality of children. The idea that children should be sexually innocent is not universal; in fact, it is relatively modern...", as she did. No other editor can get away with this sort of stuff. Hats off to her that she can, I guess, but how helpful is this to our mission? "Hi! My name is Andrea James. I am a writer and activist..." but do we really want this kind of activist? Not in my opinion we don't. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information Herostratus - I was not fully aware of the background. That is quite shocking and I agree that editors cannot be expected to work alongside someone like that especially given that this editor continues some of the problematic behaviours and has not apologised from what I can tell and is continuing harassing type behaviours. I have changed my vote above to support a topic ban on this user Jokestress as well as supporting other remedies against this user.--MrADHD | T@1k? 09:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? I didn't say that. Richard Posner, one of America's most famous living attorneys, said that in his widely-read book Sex and Reason. This is all part of Herostratus' long-running bogus attempts to paint me as "pro-pedophilia," an outrageous accusation which should probably also be oversighted at each instance. I frequently work on topics of a controversial nature here because I find it interesting, but my article edits are always within policy. In the case of human sexuality, there are a few people who are so hairtrigger about the whole thing like Herostratus, that it's impossible just to mention the full range of scholarly opinion on a topic without being accused of this or that by Herostraus et al. I edit under my real name and work for a number of high-profile family-oriented companies off-wiki. Do you think I would do anything here like be pro-pedophilia (whatever that means)? This has turned into a giant IDONTLIKEIT referendum and has nothing to do with any recent activity. It's a rehashing of old grudges. I have done nothing in violation of policy and I am being punished because five editors want hebephilia to represent James Cantor's view, and because I do not want actionable libel about me to remain on the site. It's a no-win situation, where I somehow get punished for others' bad behavior in distorting an article. Herostratus libels me and his pals escalate the abuse then bring it up here, yet I get proposed sanctions? Now I think we should definitely all head to ArbCom. Herostratus bad-faith actions at hebephilia and just above call for some serious remedies. I can't believe he can libel me with impunity and I get painted as the villain. Jokestress (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about Cantor and 1 or two other editors on that page as well regarding their ability to write neutrally on that subject matter. In fact it was I who recruited WLU (an editor with a skill at editing neutrally in controversial articles) to the page to try and bring some sense and balance in the POV battleground. The main concern however, is not your POV or other people's POV but it is harassing type behaviour. What do you have to say about taking pictures of someone's children from a website and placing them on another website alongside sexually abusive commentary? That is not normal behaviour unless people are making stuff up?? I don't see you disagreeing with this allegation.--MrADHD | T@1k? 11:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is complicated, but here's what happened. In 2003, an exploitative professor named J. Michael Bailey wrote a lurid book about transsexual women. To sell it, he was doing a book tour around the US using images of transgender children as young as six without their knowledge or consent, mocking them in a lecture that provoked laughter from attendees and sexualizing them by saying he could tell their sexualities were one of two "types." Example: Psychology lecture lacks sensitivity to sexual orientation. Bailey also claimed these children could be "cured" with reparative therapy. His 19 year-old son and 17-year-old daughter were also helping to promote the book that year because it was dedicated to them, doing press, etc. To illustrate how outrageous his exploitation of trans children was, I took a quote from his book and put it next to an image of Bailey's 19-year-old son, and I asked which of two sexualized types his daughter was, using her image. As you might imagine, people went crazy, illustrating my point. And of course, no one cared that Bailey was making lurid mockery of our children, because they are trans and mocking and medicalizing trans children is completely acceptable. Once again, proving my point. Bailey was investigated by his university for a number of infractions involving informed consent and academic misconduct, and they sealed the findings right after he stepped down as department chair. You may recall Bailey is the guy who had his human sexuality class taken away after he arranged for a live fucksaw demonstration on a woman for students on campus. Example: Northwestern’s Fucksaw Sex Class Gets Axed. Ten years later, people have completely forgotten about Bailey's exploitation of trans children, exploitation of bi men (he said you are gay, straight or lying), and exploitative fucksaw class. But they remember that I am a bad person. Bailey and James Cantor have been closely connected since the earliest days of his exploitation of trans people. As noted above, Cantor has stated on record that he doubts "shemales" are telling the truth if they don't want to have genital surgery. He has also argued that "shemale" is a scientific term. Bailey works closely with a number of James Cantor's colleagues at CAMH.

Has any of this affected my edits at hebephilia? I don't think so. I just know that James Cantor and his friends at CAMH and here at Wikipedia have a long history of problematic activity toward sex and gender minorities. Because I am intimately familiar with how they operate and keep a close eye on everything they do offsite, I have tried to keep Cantor's excesses here in check, with limited success. My limited success is because of gross misrepresentations of what has really happened. I have been very above-board and have always edited under my real name, because I think that's important on these topics. These guys are just trying to shock people into thinking I am a bad editor/person. I think anyone can look at my 46,000 edits across all aspects of the project and see that I tend to be pretty even, particularly in the last 5 years or so. I often get commended for my work on controversial topics. This one has proven exceedingly difficult to edit because of how emotional everyone gets about the subject matter. I stay completely calm as wild-eyed editors libel me left and right and make numerous false accusations, but I get a kangaroo court after they bring up their own bad behavior here. Kind of amazing. Jokestress (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you were being pointy off wiki. No rule against that. FWLIW when I see anyone claim reparative thearapy works, I tend to discount most of their other beliefs. The problem here is that the off wiki activities of multiple parties have spilled over here, and it is disruptive. I am particulary concerned about the "outing" fears some editors have expressed. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an open mind and waiting till I gave (part of) my side of this.

First and foremost, I have never outed any Wikipedian or threatened to out any Wikipedian. I do believe that it would be better for everyone editing extremely controversial topics to identify themselves in the interest of Wikipedia's transparency, especially those who have undisclosed COIs, but I can not and did not "demand" it of anyone. I believe something as controversial as a disputed diagnosis like "hebephilia" would be best served if those editing declared their COIs and better yet identified themselves. I also find it hard to edit with the constant personal attacks if I bring this up. Legitimus is a "mental health provider" of some sort who agrees strongly with Cantor for some undisclosed reason regarding hebephilia (they are a tiny minority in their field). I asked about that. Then comes the libel. I concede that some of my replies reflect my frustration, and that I should tone it down. When people start libeling me, then Flyer22 reverts the libel three times despite my telling her I am being libeled, I find it rather unpleasant to say the least.
The NY Times guy who wrote the one-sided distortion was on a vendetta after I got him in trouble with media watchdog groups like FAIR etc in 2005 for an uncritical profile of Bailey called Gay, Straight or Lying? Bisexuality revisited. Example criticism: [23] Bailey claimed his now-disproved "science" proved that bisexual men are liars, and Ben Carey lapped it up. Two years later, Carey composed a hit piece on me and two other notable trans women (one of whom I have never met) who Bailey claims were a cabal orchestrating a vast conspiracy trying to "ruin" him. "Gay, Straight or Lying" was also the marketing term Bailey used to sell his exploitative book on transsexual women. Example: [24]. The book has long been out of print and the published took the unprecedented step of distancing themselves from the views of the book. James Cantor has been one of the book's staunchest defenders since its publication.
Reparative therapy of trans children: as with hebephilia, James Cantor has been heavily involved in POV-pushing at the article covering reparative therapy of trans children. His friends at CAMH run the world's largest "clinic" for this "therapeutic intervention," as Cantor calls it. Clinicians have called Cantor's CAMH colleagues Ken Zucker and Susan Bradley's clinic "something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals" and have noted that the goal is preventing transsexualism: "Reparative therapy is believed to reduce the chances of adult GID (i.e., transsexualism) which Zucker and Bradley characterize as undesirable." Author Phyllis Burke wrote, "The diagnosis of GID in children, as supported by Zucker and Bradley, is simply child abuse." (from the GIDC article).
In my many, many years at Wikipedia, I have never seen more persistently egregious COI activity than James Cantor's. He epitomizes a single-purpose account. Almost without exception, he is here to promote his allies and denigrate people like me. The diffs for this are his entire edit history under all three names. I believe Cantor's Wikipedia editing can be viewed as a particularly insidious form of paid editing on behalf of CAMH. He hides behind "expert retention," even though he is really "an activist minority in the mental health field" according to his peers. Having said that, I once again believe that we have had a good recent history of working together. I have also been making good progress at hebephilia with WLU. The disruption of that work is because of Flyer22, even more so than the libel by Herostratus and Legitimus. This AN/I should never have been opened by Flyer22, but since it is, I have proposed suggested remedies below up to and including formal interactions bans for all. Barring that, let's head to ArbCom. Jokestress (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been pointed out below, Jokestress's claim that she and Cantor have "had a good recent history of working together" and that "[t]he disruption of that work [and disruption of her work with WLU] is because of [me]" is utterly false. And as has already been made clear, most people here do believe that this ANI report, which, again, is obviously not just about refractoring comments, should have been filed because it has brought significant attention to serious issues. Jokestress obviously often cannot refrain from speaking of me negatively, but that is what it is. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding what Legitimus believes, I point people to the Stagnant discussion of the Hebephilia talk page where he stated: "I also do need to mention that I have no opinion on whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder. This is another reason why I have stayed out of the debate. Though I don't think it's fair to favor certain professional's opinions who have never actually conducted any primary research in this subject area and appear to have financial and/or political stakes in opposing this. I am more interested in adding information about the term (and/or very concept) in an investigative capacity. The principle (whether called 'hebephilia' or something else) undeniably exists among criminal profilers and other members of law enforcement for use as a way to classify sexually-based offenders, though the actual motive that drives a criminal towards this population varies. For now I'd rather wait for the other parts to get sorted out." Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jokestress, thank you for giving your side of the story. I still think that what you did was wrong as two wrongs do not make a right but no one is perfect. Your explaination of events does add context however which was lacking when other editors in good or bad faith were slinging mud. Your explaination cements in my mind that this is a complex battleground and requires an ArbCom intervention. I have changed my vote supporting sanctions against you back to opposing sanctions on you or anyone else and I instead feel that referring this to ArbCom is the best way forward and have 'voted' for this above. There is lots of half-truths and mudslinging going on in this topic area, I suspect.--MrADHD | T@1k? 16:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrADHD, I don't believe that Herostratus was trying to misrepresent anything Jokestress stated; rather, I believe that he was demonstrating what type of text was in the article she created; he did use the words "with text like," and they are in quotation marks, after all. For anyone wanting to read what was stated in that AfD, here is the link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult sexual interest in children. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have Herostratus in mind when I was talking about mudslinging but someone else. I have no opinion on Herostratus as I do not know them and I am not familiar with their editing. I am not sure who did what and when and feel this whole dispute as stated needs the attention of ArbCom to figure everything out.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not stating that you were, MrADHD. Jokestress is the one who stated that she did not say that and that Herostratus was misrepresenting her words. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to combat the obvious assertion that I want the Hebephilia article to represent James Cantor's view: Like I stated at the Hebephilia talk page, I recently have repeatedly stated that most researchers do not consider hebephilia a mental disorder or a paraphilia. But Cantor has criticized my use of the word "researchers" and believes that most of what he considers to be the actual researchers do view hebephilia as a psychiatric issue that should be diagnosable. Do I believe that Cantor's view should be in the Hebephilia article? Yes, of course. But, for me, building the Hebephilia article is not about only or mostly "trying" to represent James Cantor's view. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page, Jokestress has asked me to reconsider my proposal for a topic ban for her and interaction ban between her and James Cantor in the light of her responses here. Having re-read through everything, I still stand by it. Although her stated aim is for neutrality, I am not convinced that her presence is actually condusive to achieving this. I'm less certain now that some restriction on James Cantor isn't needed, but if it is then I think it would need to cover only article space, as his talk page interaction is not causing the problems that Jokestress' is. In terms of moving forward with content, I think that it might be a good idea to reach out to get more input from the community with a well-structured RfC, particularly if the removal of Jokestress from the talk pages doesn't on its own lead to the finding of consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban for Jokestress. I've been involved in this, although I'm not one of the main protagonists. IMO, Jokestress's position is philosophically wrong-headed, but that's not the point. Both Jokestress and James Cantor have a COI. The difference between them is that Jokestress has an unrealistic aspiration that the article should reflect her POV in it's entirety, whereas JC engages with other editors and accepts that he can't always have everything his own way. That makes one of them, on balance, a negative and the other useful. The issue is really WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've had a think about JC's role with regards to the article. It is not the case, as has been suggested above, that other involved editors are his meatpuppets. That should be obvious from reading the talkpage. He does command respect as an expert on the topic (there's no denying that he is one) and he supplies other editors with papers, which is likely to curry favour (although it seems he is willing to supply whatever people might ask for, not just material favourable to his own position). However, the end result is actually an article which contains a lot of information against his position, so it does not seem to be the case that he has had any terrible distorting effect on it.

I'm perturbed by a few comments above along the lines of "anyone who is opposed to the medicalisation of sexuality (ie Jokestress) is OK by me". The article should properly reflect that this is part of the debate on hebephilia. But Jokestress's position seems more radical (and less coherent) than this, because she seems to want to write an article that puts it on a level with palmistry, which is something not supported by the sources or by common sense. Formerip (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about, FormerIP? Palmistry? Are you going to supply diffs for these false accusations? I have never said anything like that. My position is quite coherent and aligns exactly with the expert consensus of medical and legal professionals. I agree with experts who consider this to be a pseudoscientific construct similar to phrenology (example). You do not seem to have any coherent idea of my POV, so please do not try to summarize it or vote based on what you think it might be. I believe the hebephilia article should reflect the consensus view of experts, just as any article should, and it does not by any stretch. The reason it does not is because of the James Cantor voting bloc and their control of the article. This article may appear to be balanced on the surface to the uninvolved, but it is not even close to reflecting the actual expert consensus position, which has remained consistent over the years. It doesn't even include the publications of the most prominent "hebephilia" critics. Yet when I object to this egregious NPOV problem, a little alliance of editors tries to vote me off the island through means like this AN/I, attempting to make it look to uninvolved editors as if I am the POV-pusher. James Cantor is the person most responsible for skewing Wikipedia's coverage of hebephilia, up to and including tampering with the biographies of anyone who disagrees with his minority (possibly fringe) POV. [25] [26] I know this is a lot to take in for an uninvolved editor, and your comment and vote are both perfect reflections of why a vote on sanctions here is bound to be based on first impressions and misinterpretations rather than a full reckoning of the depth of the problem. I believe an ArbCom case will be a much better place to deal with these issues if sanctions are applied unevenly here. Jokestress (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Send to arbcom – they haven't had much to do of late, and this longstanding dispute is probably best resolved by them. Andreas JN 466 04:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose topic bans or any remedies on anyone. Support sending this to ArbCom. As MrADHD has figured out, the trans* continuum of articles comprise a warzone, a "POV battleground". Frankly, what disgusts me most about this - and has largely driven me away from editing Wikipedia - are not the editing actions and misbehaviors (or not, depending on how one views them?) of User:James Cantor or User:Jokestress, either one of whom knows more about the topic than I do as a relative amateur… but the incredible onslaught of anonymous persons, either in the persona of "Joe Random IP Address" or "Jane Pseudo Nym" raising accusations against publicly identified persons (including myself) and engaging in hyper-contentious editing: WP:CIVILITY on Wikipedia is nothing but a bad joke, from my point of view.

Re: James Cantor's comment:

"If one removes from Jokestress’ comment the poison to get to the facts, one finds there are no facts at all, just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and trying to tell people what I think (but don’t), what I believe (but don’t), and what I want (but don’t). The only “evidence” that I think/believe/say such things is what scholars of rhetoric call “the association fallacy.”" - User:James Cantor

Frankly, I do believe Dr. Cantor should follow his own advice here, and observe WP:AGF rather than endlessly accusing those who happen to disagree with him of ~~being~~ taking "politically correct" stances rather than raising meaningful points. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia - in full context, please?

Like I said there: I don't do PC.

thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

…added strikeout of "being" in "being taking", oops.-) - bonze blayk (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I informed Bonze blayk of this ANI report, because, like I told her, I know that she has expressed some issues with the editing of Wikipedia transgender articles and has interacted with Cantor a bit. Because of that and because Bonze blayk and I have bonded over some things on and off Wikipedia, it didn't seem fair to not inform her of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban for Jokestress, as well as a mutual interaction ban between her and James Cantor. To my knowledge I have never edited articles that cover transsexuality, or for that matter any sort of sexuality. However, I have lurked in this debate for several years. These two have imported an acrimonious and longstanding off-wiki dispute to our sexuality articles. The details of the off-wiki behavior surrounding the dispute are appalling, but I will not highlight them here. Many of Jokestresses' on-wiki interactions are disturbing. Borderline legal threats (accusing editors of "actionable libel") and veiled attempts to determine the identity of editors, taken as a whole, create a chilling effect on her perceived opponents. Her battlefield mentality is on full display in this AN/I report, particularly in this diff. This can't continue. Skinwalker (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban for Jokestress and mutual interaction ban between Jokestress and James Cantor. Enough is enough. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Jokestress

Per the instructions at the top of this page, I am working with the Oversight Team instead of responding here. Please don't take my silence as agreement with any opinions posted above. I'll have a longer reply sometime soon. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Oversight update

Now that oversight is completed, it's clear that

I was within my rights to remove actionable libel posted by Herostratus and Legitimus under WP:TPO.
Flyer22 and WLU were in violation of multiple policies in reverting my removals.
Flyer22's tattling via this AN/I report is pure trolling and disruption.
This AN/I report was a pretense to poison the well and get me sanctioned when I could not comment.

I propose:

This AN/I case be closed without action, unless you want to give a trout to Flyer22 for creating the disruption. I consider the incident that occasioned this to be resolved, as I am the aggrieved party, not her.
Barring that, trouts all around for incivility.
Barring that, wrist slaps for Herostratus and Legitimus for their policy violations, and for Flyer22 and WLU for reinserting said policy violations. In that case I should also get a wrist slap for rising to their bait and getting snippy.
Barring that, I propose interaction bans for Flyer22, James Cantor, WLU, Legitimus, Herostratus, and myself.

The COI matter of single-purpose account User:James Cantor and his sympathetic proxies listed above, along with my own COI and that of a few others, is much more complex and probably requires a different venue for resolution. Everything in the section above is a one-sided account of some drama from 2003 they use whenever I call them on their POV-pushing at human sexuality articles.

With the exception of a handful of edits, every edit User:James Cantor has made on the project under User:MarionTheLibrarian, User:WriteMakesRight, and his real name promotes himself and his friends, or denigrates their critics (including me). In the case of "hebephilia," James Cantor and his friends recently failed badly in getting the concept codified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), so he now seems to be using Wikipedia to rewrite what happened and to gain traction for his views among lay readers. This is an extremely complex matter that at first glance is hard to understand, and the topic matter means emotions can run very high.

This article space edit by James Cantor, a revision that removed a factually accurate and reliably sourced summary of what happened with "hebephilia," started the recent article space problems. Cantor is part of the "activist minority in the mental health field" (a published expert's words, not mine) described in that revision.
Uninvolved editors User:MrADHD and User:FiachraByrne made a series of excellent observations about the obvious bias in the article.
I was making good progress with WLU and James Cantor despite our differences until Flyer22, Legitmus, and Herostratus showed up. Flyer22 is the real hindrance to productive collaboration in my opinion and should have stayed banned from Wikipedia. This disruption is typical of her overwrought behavior. You can see she responds every single time to people she dislikes. It's a dispiriting grind to deal with her, as we can see by this entire thread.
It's very frustrating to see the James Cantor voting bloc control article content to reflect his views, fabricating a "consensus" on Wikipedia that is the opposite of the medical and legal consensus. I had previously agreed not to edit the article and have been limiting my comments to the talk page.
I'd rather we all spend our time fixing "hebephilia" than creating unnecessary drama here. This incident report was unfounded. These kinds of disruptions are not improving an article badly in need of attention due to POV and COI.

tl;dr version: Incident resolved to satisfaction of aggrieved party (me). Propose trouts all around, or barring that, interaction bans all around. COI issues need to be resolved elsewhere. Jokestress (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated below, "Reporting [you] was clearly about more than [you] tampering with others' edits. And as all others above have agreed, what I reported goes far beyond the refractoring of comments." And above, I've already stated, "You had plenty of time to comment [in this ANI report], such as when I first brought this matter here. You decided to lay low while all this was going on."

Your claims against me are baseless, while mine against you have been validated by others above.

You state that you "were making good progress with WLU and James Cantor despite [your] differences until [I], Legitmus, and Herostratus showed up." That's false. I was already at that article, working with you and others. Legitimus was already at the article as well. Cantor was barely participating. Legitimus was barely participating. Herostratus hadn't even participated. When you created that aforementioned Stagnant section on the talk page, essentially demanding that the article continue to be designed the way that you want it designed or else you'll make the article the way that you want it yourself, I called you out on that and that's when things got unpleasant yet again at the talk page. Then they got ugly when you suggested that we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia by not revealing our true (real life) identities while editing this topic.

Your assertion that I am "the real hindrance to productive collaboration in [your] opinion and should have stayed banned from Wikipedia." is ludicrous, as even MrADHD, who propelled more eyes on the article due to concerns that the debate/controversy regarding the hebephilia diagnosis was being significantly downplayed, has made clear. I wasn't one of those editors reverting MrADHD. I was also never banned from Wikipedia. I was blocked. And Alison, the administrator/CheckUser who indefinitely blocked me, made it abundantly clear that I was wrongly indefinitely blocked. If others need her to weigh in about that and my conduct on Wikipedia, I'm sure that she would be more than happy to do so. And if it were me that you mostly have/had a problem with at the Hebephilia article, things would have gotten ugly between us before the Stagnant section because of how you treat those you dislike. But, no, who did things repeatedly get ugly between? You and Cantor. And as for me responding every single time to people I dislike... Why should I not respond to people making baseless claims against me, other than the fact that I am clearly rising to the bait?

Your claims above are nothing but a smear campaign against me. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

I just checked the edits in question, and they have been oversighted. This basically flips the issue around, and should be rephrased to why Flyer22 reinstated obvious BLP issues, and when she could not keep those in the article, running here to get the person who tries to remove those BLP punished. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A section devoted to me? Your obsession with me is pathetic. And the way that you often act unprofessional/childish (for example, being unable to work with someone you hate without bickering with them) has made me and many others (such as people at WP:BIRD) wonder how you ever were granted administrative rights. Reporting Jokestress was clearly about more than her tampering with others' edits. And as all others above have agreed, what I reported goes far beyond the refractoring of comments. While you're querying answers, you should also ask the uninvolved editors why they also viewed Jokestress's tampering with others' comments as inappropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being uninvolved, I saw those edits and they seemed like they were hypothetical statements. Maybe oversight had to get the backstory in order to deem them BLP, but at glance they didn't seem that way. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The details of this story have been rehashed many times in context of the disputed articles, and Flyer is very well aware of the details of that situation. An uninvolved editor might have been a different situation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The details of this story have not been rehashed many times in context of the articles I frequent, including the Hebephilia article (as the article's talk page and its currently only archive show). I'm not yet as familiar with the details as Cantor or Legitimus. And Legitimus and Herostratus messed up on their wording. My initial "We only have her word that they are WP:BLP violations." line, which I crossed out, shows what my mindset was. If anyone wants to WP:Assume bad faith and state that I was pretending, then whatever. But it would be ridiculous for me to assert what I did, as if the opposite wouldn't be proven. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If one removes from Jokestress’ comment the poison to get to the facts, one finds there are no facts at all, just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and trying to tell people what I think (but don’t), what I believe (but don’t), and what I want (but don’t). The only “evidence” that I think/believe/say such things is what scholars of rhetoric call “the association fallacy.” (If I and someone else can be fit into whatever degrees of separation, then I too am guilty of whatever crime the other person has committed in her eyes.)

As many here have already recognized, the problem is one of politics. To folks who do not study it closely, the GLBT communities can seem to have a uniform agenda (that being GLBT rights), and opposing it is dichotomously homophobic (or to risk being so accused). For anyone who attends them, meetings of GLBT activists are famously fraught with the “drama” over opposing flavors of political persuasions. However, the gay and lesbian movement (I am purposefully leaving out bi- and trans-) evolves. When I was first in school, it was politically incorrect ever to say that G/L folks were ever any different from straight folks. As G/L issues became mainstream, however, it become not only okay to acknowledge the differences, but even to do so affectionately and humorously. (Gay men being into fashion was an offensive stereotype in the 1980s, but now it appears on Will & Grace reruns and forms an entire marketing strategy.)

The trans- movement is, naturally, at an earlier point in this evolution. It is still politically incorrect to say that trans- folks are anything other than literally ‘women trapped in male bodies’ (or vice versa), and we are not yet at the point where many writers feel comfortable saying that there DO exist meaningful differences between natal women and transwomen (or men). When it comes to civil rights and certain other issues, the women-trapped-in-male-bodies can be a helpful metaphor. However, to a sex researcher studying (for example) the brain, it is not literally true. Unfortunately, saying so has become sufficient evidence that the speaker must be transphobic, incompetent, self-aggrandizing, or whatever. It is no accident that Jokestress’ complaints about me are not about what I actually say or do, but about what she believes or tries to get others to believe I >think< (but don’t).

Over the years, I have stopped bothering to correct the oft-repeated misstatements about what I think, but for the record:

I oppose reparative therapy. (Even though I am a member of APA, I am well known for criticizing their lack of action on the topic.)
I have and do publicly support the rights of the widest range sexual diversity imaginable, wider than any activist, scientist, or author anywhere. Although I have been very explicit to include the many kinds of gender transpositions, I am much more noted for defending the rights even of pedophiles. To insinuate that I somehow support rights for everyone from gay to pedophilic—but not for transsexuals—is frankly bizarre.
That WP sexology pages were doing fine when only Jokestress was here (2003+) but got disturbed from NPOV when until I arrived (2008) is also a rather frank denial of reality. Anyone is free to compare the before and after of the pages relevant to Jokestress’ off-wiki attacks, such as J. Michael Bailey and The Man Who Would Be Queen.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Cantor and I are in complete agreement that there are political issues here. This is about politics, labels, and definitions.

James Cantor has been described as an activist in peer-reviewed publications (an activist minority in the field, no less). He refuses to acknowledge he is an activist.
James Cantor opposes reparative therapy for gays and lesbians, but supports reparative therapy for gender-variant children. He refuses to acknowledge the "therapeutic intervention" he supports is reparative therapy.
James Cantor makes a great show of supporting the rights of people, but much of his work is around claiming gays and straights are "euphilic," a word he created and attempted to add to Wikipedia as part of his incessant self-promotion. By pathologizing and distinguishing his own sexual orientation from other sexual minorities, he is merely repeating the history of medicalization that used to be done to gays and lesbians (mental disorder label, reparative therapy, etc.). His recent attempt to make "hebephilia" a mental disorder failed outside Wikipedia, so now he uses a group of allies here to push his politics.
I have written a vast array of psychology articles related to paraphilia, including biographies of many of the main experts. I believe those edits are pretty consistently of the highest quality. I work on many topic where I find the concept problematic because few editors are willing to apply policy to those kinds of articles.

Anything that happens at this AN/I should be applied evenly to all parties, and then we can head over to Arbcom if needed after that. I reiterate my proposal of interaction bans for all, including with each other in every direction. These guys are playing a little chess game where if they get me at the price of one or more of them, they still have several players on their team in play. I have been on set all week and not really able to give this matter the time it deserves. I believe Cantor's pattern of editing needs a much more serious evaluation. The real problem here at this AN/I (in order) is Flyer22, Herostratus, Legitimus, and WLU. Cantor and I should probably go to Arbcom with his voting bloc once this is settled here. Jokestress (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem in this ANI discussion? The only problems I see in this ANI discussion are the bickering, false accusations/false claims and baiting. But as for the real problem concerning this whole matter, apart from the problems that have risen in this ANI discussion, most people (here in this ANI discussion) have agreed that it is mostly the toxic history between you and Cantor...because it has negatively affected the Wikipedia environment for years...and the way you conduct yourself on Wikipedia regarding other editors you don't like. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted already, I long ago stopped trying to correct Jokestress’ spin-doctoring. Nonetheless, her above list provides a good example of the problem, for those who would like to check her claims:

Actually, there is only Karen Franklin, a psychologist and defense expert witness, who said in a single article, without exactly naming me specifically, that she believes there exists such a minority. Incidentally, Franklin’s article was riddled with factual errors (available here), which Franklin refused to address when confronted with them. Readers can decide if Jokestress is providing a faithful (neutral) description of the truth.
Actually, it has long been shown by several studies that the usual course of gender variant kids is, in about 80% of cases, for the gender dysphoria to stop by puberty, after which they instead identify as plain vanilla gay/lesbian. The other 20% do continue to desire transition, although many wait until graduation or other “clean break” with their social groups. I therefore generally advocate therapy to help the kid and family adjust to both the present and the most likely future, holding off on irreversible decisions (such as castration) until we are sure about the individual case. Readers can decide whether Jokestress’ use of “reparative therapy” is an accurate or misleading description of my views.
Much of my work? Of the many dozens of articles, book chapters, etc. that I’ve written, I wrote one, in response to a question I was assigned about whether homosexuality counts as a paraphilia. After reviewing the known correlates of both, my conclusion was:

Overall, homosexuality and the paraphilias appear to share the features of onset and course (both homosexuality and paraphilia being life-long), but they appear to differ on sex ratio, fraternal birth order, handedness, IQ and cognitive profile, and neuroanatomy. [C]onsidered together, the existing data seem more consistent with the conclusion that homosexuality is a characteristic distinct from the paraphilias….Because only few paraphilic interests have received much scientific attention, it also remains possible that each paraphilia is associated with its own, novel set of correlates, and that homosexuality is no more novel in its profile of correlates than would be any other paraphilic interest. Thus, although homosexuality is probably better said to be distinct from the paraphilias, that conclusion is still quite tentative. The complete article is available here.

4. It is true, however, that Jokestress has written a vast array of articles in psychology. The extent to which they are accurate is again up to readers to decide.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facts:

The Franklin paper describing James Cantor's role in the field's activist minority is here: [27] After attacking her offsite, he attacked her here by tampering with her Wikipedia biography to make her seem less notable and credible: [28]
You can read about the reparative therapy James Cantor supports for trans children in many publications: [29] [30] [31]
You can see him self-promotionally add a word he made up, "euphilic," here: [32] Nearly every edit he makes has an element of self-promotion. Pick any one at random and you will see.
I'll stack my record and reputation on this project against his self-promotional activity here any day.

Jokestress (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: People can refer to the Gender identity disorder (GID) and Gender identity disorder in children (GIDC) articles for what Cantor means about GID in children being clinically distinct from GID that appears in adolescence or adulthood, and that those diagnosed with GID in childhood usually cease to desire to be the other sex by puberty, with most growing up to identify as gay or lesbian...with or without therapeutic intervention. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of GID in children is incredibly controversial; it was one of the major reasons why the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce opposed Ken Zucker's and Ray Blanchard's appointments to the DSM-V working group on paraphilias; they argued that Blanchard and Zucker and their colleagues are complicit in pushing unscientific and harmful theories that pathologised "commonplace expressions of sexuality and gender"; indeed, Zucker says that parents who allow their children to experiment with their gender expression are guilty of child neglect (and in one case, accused parents of a trans child of "being swayed by a transsexual agenda"). I'd be very careful before treating anything trans-related coming out of CAMH as anything more than a moralistic fringe theory; as the Spitzer controversy showed very clearly, this sort of theory wouldn't be tolerated were it to do with homosexuality (and really, Spitzer hedged his bets a lot more than Zucker does). I'm also very concerned by the diff to Karen Franklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that Jokestress has provided, as it shows that Cantor, at the very least, is not averse to COI/POV-pushing. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, are you stating that you don't believe that most children with GID cease to have GID before or by the time puberty starts and later identify as gay or lesbian? You only consider this a theory? If so, I think that there are studies outside of CAMH that have also concluded that GID in children usually ceases before or by the time puberty starts. I understand that the topic of GID in children is an especially sensitive matter, however, and I certainly don't mean to offend on that topic. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also asking because I have some gay and lesbian friends who were gender nonconforming (or gender variant, whichever term is preferred), and they state that they wanted to be the opposite sex when they were children (again, this is only some of my gay and lesbian friends). Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the content of the science, it matches exactly the experiences of Flyer22’s friends (and as I summarized it in the above). Although the finding was eventually replicated by Zucker, it was originally reported by Richard Green (but who disagrees with hebephilia)

Green R (1987). The "Sissy Boy Syndrome" and the Development of Homosexuality. Yale Univ Pr (February, 1987) ISBN 0-300-03696-5.

Regarding what Zucker says: It’s what ZUCKER says. Scientists are individuals, not a “them.” Prejudice is prejudice, even when the target group is not a demographic group. Although the temperature of the issues makes it practically impossible to discuss them, there are indeed issues on which I disagree with Blanchard, Zucker, Bailey, the DSM, or (lord knows) the APA.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising, however, that someone with such a fringe theory works with people who have similar fringe theories; at that point, it stops being individuals acting of their own accord and becomes a systematic form of abuse (for a British example, look at the #TransDocFail campaign on twitter, which uncovered institutional abuses of transgender patients), and I can definitely see the parallels with homosexuality-as-mental-disorder from back in the seventies. To Flyer: I think some people sometimes no longer identify as transgender as they age, but in so much as some people no longer identify as homosexual as they age, and vice-versa. I have serious concerns with someone who uses a term straight from the porn industry in a scientific context without any display of awareness; for comparison, I don't think anyone who wasn't in porn has used the word "ebony" to describe a black person since Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, James and Sceptre, for your replies to me on those matters. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This are best answered in reverse order. So:

4. Jokestress is right. Other than in the sexology articles, Jokestress’ record DOES and SHOULD so stack against mine. The problem is that edits need to be decided by their content and WP policy, but instead are being approved/opposed for any reasons but that: At first they would opposed if they seemed positive towards someone Jokestress disliked, then if they came from me personally (no matter what the content was), then if they seemed or could seem positive towards me (no matter who said it), then if they came from anyone who ever agreed with me (no matter the topic). The most florid example of this was probably at Peggy Kleinplatz: Jokestress first opposed my edits erroneously arguing that I was biased against the subject, but then switched to opposing the very same edit, now arguing that I was biased TOWARDS the subject. Neither was true; the only constant was that if the edit came from me, it was going to be opposed, the consensus disagreeing with Jokestress (but being accused, of course, of bias).

3. In the past four or so years, the pages I’ve edited the most have been: 1. List of paraphilias. The great majority of my edits have been exactly the same: reverting vandalism. 2. Sexual addiction. Not a single cite to myself. 3. Sexology. Not a single cite to myself. 4. Hypersexuality. Not a single cite to myself…

Moreover, as per WP:COS, it is perfectly acceptable for experts to cite themselves (within the usual constraints) including proportionate to their representation in the literature. These are the most cited works about pedophilia of the past 10 years. Of the 10,700 entries, my colleagues and I wrote 9 of the top 20. Anyone checking the pedophilia article will see, not that I/we are at all overrepresented, but that, if anything, someone has been very successful at disappearing us.

2. Incorrect. Indeed, I am not mentioned in any of those articles at all. As already noted: Most of the is opposition centres on what I allegedly say (and don’t), what I think (but don’t), and what I want (but don’t).

1. Correct. Franklin said/believes that, and it is perfectly reasonable to note it. But it is UNreasonable to have made it seem like it was much grander than that.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion - for what it's worth, I agree with what Herostratus said here - I am also afraid of Jokestress getting a hold of my real-life identity and undertaking real-life actions against me. I am further concerned that Jokestress might knows this, and initiates discussions like this one and comments like this one as a way of chilling the discussion and opposition. I don't think that ANI is equipped to deal with this; to truly understand my concerns, participants would probably have to read a lengthy article, and I doubt anyone wants to do so. If Jokestress does not realize the effect her comments have on other editors, then I am happy to have brought it to her attention. I hope she lets the entire topic of the real-life identities of other editors drop; they are irrelevant, as all pages are based on a summary of reliable sources - not editor opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is serious concern. There are real life consequences involved outside of the pedia, or at least the perception exists. I wonder if Arbcom should just address this instead. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is obviously very concerning. Has Jokestress continued to make these sorts of edits since they were brought up in this thread? Has she behaved in this way regarding any subject that would not be covered by the proposed topic ban (sexology and paraphilias, broadly interpreted)? If the answer to either of them is "yes", then I think we have no options beyond a trip to arbcom. However, if she hasn't then I'm still of the opinion that we should at least attempt the topic and interaction bans - if she abides by them then there should be no reason for her to interact with other editors in this manner (not that doing so is ever justifiable). There is little point in bringing a dispute to arbitration prematurely, as it makes the arbs more reluctant to accept a case if it subsequently does reach that level. While my opinion is that this is closer to requiring arbitration than I initially thought, I still think we as a community have a duty to attempt to solve it first. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion. Do others not see the pattern here? These editors like WLU publish or reinsert actionable libel about me, then say they are afraid of real-life consequences when I have their edits removed per WP:TPO and WP:Oversight. Is that logical? If they are afraid of me, why would they be aggressively attacking me and my reputation, to the point of exposing themselves to real-life consequences? Are they trying to get me to make a legal threat? Are they just trolling me in hopes of an angry response they can report here as threatening behavior? Are they trying to topic ban me for simply asking if they had undisclosed conflicts of interest? No matter what I do, even simply trying to defend myself from utterly outrageous accusations, they claim I am threatening them or disrupting the project. I can't believe some editors don't see what's going on here. Even though I am their current target, it's kind of impressive to watch how they operate. The alleged chilling effect I have as a scary threat to them or their "real lives" doesn't seem to be having any effect on their output here or elsewhere. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't afraid at all and just don't like me or my tone? Maybe, just maybe, they don't want to collaborate with me in the productive way I have collaborated with tens of thousands of other editors on some of the project's most controversial topics, like pregnancy from rape, race and intelligence, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, etc.? Their falsely stating that I committed felonies seems more problematic than my encouraging them to disclose any conflicts of interest. Yet I am the primary target of sanctions. I am glad many edtors here see through this ruse. Jokestress (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WLU does not operate that way. WLU can be tough in difficult editing environments but does not play dirty. If WLU is wrong in what he says it will be a good faithed mistake or else mud has stuck to you that your opponents threw at you which is giving you a reputation bias. You have at times come across hostile Jokestress so at times you have done yourself a disservice. I do agree that the focus being solely on you is not fair as it is a complicated POV battleground and requires ArbCom to figure everything out.--MrADHD | T@1k? 15:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress, I consider the now-oversighted comments a minor inaccuracy and irrelevancy that distracts from the greater issue and concern, which is again the chilling effect that your comments can have on talk pages. Please realize that when you make such comments to me and Herostratus (at minimum) in the future, it will be very hard to assume good faith over them and will look more and more like you are attempting intimidation. We have good reason to worry about your possible actions, J. Michael Bailey's life was rather hellish for a long while, in no small part because of your actions taken in response to what should have been a minor scholarly debate. All you have to do is stop making them and the issue goes away.

I've never accused you of a felony, my contribution to what you call "libel" consisted of a single revert of edits you made to someone else's comments. That editor has since noted that their statement is inaccurate, and in fact could have been resolved without the need for oversight by indicating what the specific, and rather minor inaccuracy was - that the pictures of Bailey's children you captioned were from his homepage, not elsewhere. I was less concerned over the accuracy of the statement than I was over the change to another's comments.

If you never again bring up the issue of others' real-life identities again, I doubt I will have any further concerns as superficially your contributions to pages are civil enough.

I don't see this discussion going much further, so I will try to leave it be. Hebephilia requires a lot of attention as there are still many sources to be integrated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, which "minor scholarly debate" made J. Michael Bailey's life hellish?

When he orchestrated the live fucksaw demonstration, causing him to lose his signature class, making him a sexologist prohibited from teaching the Human Sexuality course?
When he took images of elementary school-age trans children without their knowledge or consent and displayed them in a manner that provoked laughter and categorized their sexuality, causing a formal investigation which led to sealed findings and his resignation as department chair?
When he claimed that he "found" that bisexual men are all liars, causing a media firestorm?
When he claimed that being gay is "evolutionarily maladaptive," causing a media firestorm?
When he claimed that screening for and aborting gay fetuses is "morally acceptable" and a parental right, causing a media firestorm?
When he claimed that (hi Herostratus!) "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of pedophilic relationships does not yet exist,” causing a media firestorm?

Maybe what you consider J. Michael Bailey's "minor scholarly debates" are in fact some of the most controversial and deliberately provocative incidents in a discipline full of them? This isn't some poor widdle innocent victim. He's a professional academic troll. He gets money and infamy for doing some of the most outrageous and irresponsible stunts in his entire controversial field. He clearly gets off on stirring things up. Your desire to downplay his antics mirrors your own attempts to downplay your own antics in this case. You did not simply make "a single revert." You reinserted actionable libel over my multiple objections, then tried to get ME sanctioned as if I am the problem here. Your protests of innocence and claims of victimization may fool some of the people some of the time, just like Bailey, but taken as a whole, your style of interaction with me is a subtle, pervasive, and insidious form of trolling. You aren't scared of me at all, or you wouldn't be harassing me the way you do. You have an undisclosed COI in this matter that informs your editing on certain topics, but I can't even bring it up without being accused of "outing" you or "intimidating" you. It's a double standard in which you have the upper hand. You can make such claims about me due to my transparency and use of my real name, yet I can't even ask about your own personal motivations in editing this topic. I am prepared to outline on your problematic behavior in another venue if any sanctions are not applied evenly all around. Some methods of trolling, like yours, may seem "minor" to others, when they are in fact quite serious to the person being attacked (in this case, me). Having said all that, I have also noted that I believe we work together just fine when you are not trying to get rid of me via your little alliance and this silly drama. If you agree to stop playing little games as you are here, I am happy to get back to improving the article in question. Barring that, I call for sanctions all around. Jokestress (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress, now it appears you are trying to engage in mudslinging at WLU by insinuating that WLU is editing with a COI agenda. Please stop doing this. The only reason that WLU got involved with the hebephilia article was because I asked him if he could help as I knew he was a neutral editor with experience in controversial articles. See here,User_talk:WLU/Archive_10#Hebephilia..--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure what Jokestress means by "many edtors here see through this ruse," but it was already clarified that "photographing people out in public in situations where there is no expectation of privacy is not illegal. Otherwise the staff of TMZ would all be behind bars." I'm not aware of any place where it's illegal in the United States. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really unfortunate that Jokestress is bringing her campaign against Bailey onto Wikipedia. Whether Bailey is a good person or not, it's grossly inappropriate of her to be using Wikipedia to attack him. I'm too involved to be acting as an admin here, but insults like "professional academic troll ... He clearly gets off on stirring things up" etc. are close to BLP violations. Her posts above--using Wikipedia to launch attacks on living people--demonstrate nicely why a restriction is necessary. While she is certainly capable of productive editing, all the available evidence indicates that she's not capable of neutrality when it comes to Bailey and his area of study. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WLU dismisses his reinsertion of libel as "minor." He dismisses a watershed moment in transgender history as a "minor academic dispute." Neither are minor incidents. That is the point I was making. I know of no other way to make that point without presenting evidence. This has nothing to do with Bailey, and the only reason I have to bring it up at all is that he has been invoked about a dozen times here, including by you. If we are discussing ancient history, please take a look at James Cantor's POV edits at J. Michael Bailey (he was using the first of two fake names at the time), which reflect his extensive offsite promotion of Bailey [33] [34] [35] (removing reliable sources, POV edits). Neither of us have edited there in 5 years or so, but Cantor's entire Wikipedia edit history since then has been to promote himself and his allies and to denigrate those he dislikes. I have edited in nearly every area of the project without incident, with a focus on controversial topics, yet this same handful of people keep trying to get me sanctioned here through all kinds of gaming the system. I don't care who WLU is, but I find it highly problematic how he doesn't think he did anything wrong here. Mark, if someone said you committed a felony and doubled down with a claim that you would have faced prison time for cyberstalking [36], you would be within your rights to request those comments be removed. If WLU added the false accusation back after you removed it, I imagine you would not dismiss that as a "minor" issue. If he started bringing up some ancillary decade-old drama to justify his behavior, I imagine you would point out that what happened ten years ago does not change the fact that WLU had exacerbated a very serious problem this week. As I have said repeatedly, I believe an interaction ban applied evenly would probably suffice for starters, but anything more complex, especially the Cantor matter, should be determined at ArbCom. Jokestress (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no COI in this area, so any disclosure you make about my identity will be inaccurate. I therefore have no objections to you discussing what you believe about my real life identity. Feel free to do so with any interested admins or arbitrators, off-wikipedia if think that will avoid any chilling effect, or do so here, openly, if you prefer. Several admins know my real-life identity, among them Slp1 (talk · contribs) and Jmh649 (talk · contribs). I have no conflict of interested on this, or any sexology page.

But again, as I said previously - nobody's identity matters, sources do. I would much rather the discussion focus specifically on sources, a point I've made before. ANI is not the place to debate sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jokestress Regardless of the merits of your criticisms of/off-wiki actions against Bailey or the merits of Cantor's support for him, it's still inappropriate to be throwing insults around like you did above (i.e. "troll ... gets off on stirring things up"). Going forward, please do your best to avoid attacking sex researchers via Wikipedia. While editing sexology topics, it's Ok to to voice your disagreements with others' conclusions/beliefs, but personal attacks like the above should really be avoided. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request Closure

This "incident" report has not surprisingly degenerated into content issues and sniping between some of the involved parties. I don't think anything new can be added and an uninvolved admin should sift through the comments and proposals and determine if a consensus has been reached. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 06:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to make or imply any judgement about who's "right" or "wrong" in this dispute. But I do think it's blindingly obvious that Wikipedia is being utilized as a battleground in the continuation of a serious real-life dispute here. Undoubtedly, both Jokestress and James Cantor have much to contribute to Wikipedia's coverage of sexology topics, but I think that at this point the best thing for Wikipedia would be to restrict both editors from any further contributions on the topic of human sexuality, and to impose a binding interaction ban between them. I recognize that this resolution is, on some level, unfair to at least one and probably both editors, but I also don't see a better way forward. We just can't afford to play host to this sort of acrimony. If the topic bans are adopted, they should be viewed as a pragmatic approach to a very complicated problem, rather than a punishment or indication of moral failing on the part of the sanctioned editors.
I'm considering imposing the two topic-bans and the interaction ban, but would welcome any commentary on alternate approaches to resolve this unfortunate situation. Both editors would, of course, be free to appeal their cases to the Arbitration Committee, although I suspect that a formal ArbCom case would result in bilateral topic-bans (at the very least) after an additional 3 months of labyrinthine invective on the case pages. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this topic area fall under sanctions already? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in your view MastCell that the focus of the drama seems to be James Cantor and Jokestress. I have observed problematic editing and/or behaviour from both people you mention. I can't figure out who is 'most to blame' and who 'deserves' or warrants remedies but clearly they both are continuing ideological struggles on wikipedia which is wearing the community down. My instinct is ArbCom is the best step due to the complexities involved and the long history and possibly because others may be problem editors as well but maybe your proposal is what is needed - my concern is similar to yours, whether one or both parties warrant this action. Something needs done, that is for sure. If topic bans are given I think they should be applied to both editors rather than one or the other like you have proposed.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)×2 re: existing sanctions: There are no relevant sanctions listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions. The only relevant entry at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions notes that User:DMSBel is "topic banned from the topic of human sexuality, interpreted broadly", but have not edited since February 2012. It would therefore appear to be the case that no sanctions are currently in force in this area. The closest topic affected by sanctions would appear to be Abortion, but I have seen no evidence that this dispute is related to that one in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't see support for a TB for Cantor, so unless sanctions were in place I don't see how any admin could enact a ban unless sanctions were in force. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply below. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little green, the title of this whole discussion is under this section title - User:Jokestress_at_Talk:Hebephilia - so the conversation and remedies followed the section title and seemed to focus on one person and the whole conversation was biased/skewed towards a single individual when there are at a minimum two problematic editors on these articles. This is just a mess. Topic ban both or give a warning and final chance to both or else send to ArbCom to sort out and unravel the mess on these articles. That is what I think.--MrADHD | T@1k? 04:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrADHD, I had no reason to report Cantor. He was not primarily making the editing atmosphere at that talk page unpleasant, which is something you have similarly echoed. And, at the time, I was more focused on Jokestress editing others' comments; that matter has now been cleared up, as we know. But still, editors in this ANI discussion have looked at both sides, with comments expressing concern regarding both Cantor and Jokestress. Sufficient information painting Cantor in a negative light was also presented. But people have seen Jokestress's actions as more problematic. Flyer22 (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that a mutual topic ban would be better than banning just one, which is why I was trying to emphasise pretty much what you said, MastCell. While James' conduct IRL in relation to Bailey could've, to put it lightly, been much better (even with her explanation), I do also think that Cantor's professional conduct IRL needs a lot of work too. Both are importing their disputes onto the wiki. It's sad that this point has been lost because James' actions don't require the amount of understanding of the topic of transgender healthcare that Cantor's actions do. I do note that Cantor does, to his credit, divulge his COIs on his user page, his edits also seem to have the sense of lawyering the COI guidelines: for example, quite a few of his edits are relating to topics he and his colleagues (and maybe friends) have written on. On a broader point, I think our coverage of transgender topics needs a lot of work; I'm concerned with how our current coverage seems to be written by primarily cisgender editors with either no or questionable grasp of the topic. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By no means was I saying that a TB for Cantor may not be necessary, just (so far) there doesn't seem to be support for one. If you open such a request, I would withdraw my closure request. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm concerned with how our current coverage seems to be written by primarily cisgender editors with either no or questionable grasp of the topic." - Sceptre. Yes, "but": "transgender" persons are not necessarily better in this case, since it's an extremely diverse bunch, and they tend to be as much obsessed as cisgendered persons by one or more of the theories (or "anti-theories"? lol!) that have been put forward in controversies relating to groups grouped under the "transgender blanket". It's a complex topic, and there's some interesting scientific research on it, but it's all a subject of hot contention.

For some idea of the complications in improving articles falling within the general conceptual framework of "gender/transgender", I did a minor analysis of the articles that appear to relate to the topic back in Talk:Transgender back in July 2011… re: Organization of articles relating to trans* topics on Wikipedia - bonze blayk.

PS: Contra Flyer22 above, making "an honest mistake": I identify as a pre-op transsexual, not "transgender" (which has become understood to cover a huge number of trans* types?). Except… that's how my therapist categorized me, when she was saying I am "obviously transgender", and qualify for surgery? She has 30 years experience in the field. Look, when the terminology is this confused… all discussion on the topic is going to be confusing! - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a general comment; when there's a serious discussion about how we refer to Brandon "won Hilary Swank an Oscar" Teena, it shows something's up. I've also been accused of POV pushing by wanting to refer to unquestionably out people (e.g. Laura Jane Grace) by their preferred identities. I think there's a thread on Wikipedia that seems to disregard trans voices, even if published in RSes, in favour of institutionally transphobic systems such as the press (see: the Leveson Report, c. page 666) or the medical industry (see/News search: #TransDocFail). Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misidentification on my talk page, Bonze blayk. As you noted, the term "transgender" is broad. I couldn't refer to you as any other trans-identity when I didn't know which you go by. Maybe I saw your identification before, but forgot. I'll remember from now on. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on it more, yes, I have seen you identify differently than by the term "transgender," once describing yourself on a talk page as "a largely binary-identified trans woman." But I obviously didn't know that you never identify as simply "transgender." Again, sorry for the misidentification. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly that Jokestress should be topic-banned at all. Cantor, possibly but someone more versed in the subject area should review his contributions and see if they remain COI and promotional of fringe views and supporting his coworkers. Jokestress has been willing to try to keep all that promotional and fringe content in check, and not always successfully, and she has relied on Wikipedia guidelines and including NPOV and reliable sourcing to do so. It would be to Wikipedia's detriment to lose her in this area in any way. That's why I also question an interaction ban specially if she is outnumbered and outmaneuvered as it seems like this entire thread demonstrates. I do wonder if an Arbcom review of this topic area might help or if this is another candidate to fit under the current fringe theory arbitration restriction? Perhaps Jokestress could comment on how much of this is fringe that Cantor et al are editing under? That might prove to be a way forward in resolving this. Insomesia (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insomesia, you ask an extremely complex question. "Hebephilia" is questionably fringe (I'd consider it fringe) but its coverage on Wikipedia as it stands is unquestionably promotional. In 2009, Cantor and friends at Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) began promoting the inclusion of "hebephilia" in the next Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Some of the reasoning included data gathered using a penile plethysmograph, a controversial erection-measuring device that is not allowed in most criminal trials, because, like the similar polygraph, the data is open to interpretation. Medical and legal experts quickly raised serious concerns about the proposal. Some of the most notable medical and legal experts weighed in against the concept, including Richard Green, Charles Patrick Ewing, Charles Allen Moser, Allen Frances and Michael First. Frances and First, editors of the current version of the DSM, the DSM-IV-TR, wrote an excellent overview of how their version was misused in law, and expressed deep concerns that adding "hebephilia" would make things even worse. Many notable psychologists also weighed in, including Bruce Rind and Karen Franklin, the latter of whom has a good summary of the controversy here. Richard Green said, "Diagnosing hebephilic behavior as mental disorder brushes aside common patterns of psychosexual development, sidesteps cultural influences on sexuality, ignores historic precedents, insults much of Europe and elsewhere that legalizes sex with 14 year olds, or younger, and attempts to insinuate psychiatry as an agent of social control." Legal and scientific consensus is unquestionably clear that this should not be in the DSM-5. However an "activist minority in the mental health field" continues to press for this in other places after badly losing the DSM-5 battle. Cantor and Legitimus are part of the minority who disagree with consensus, though only Cantor is identified as part of the "activist minority." Is it fringe? Maybe. Are they promoting the minority view on Wikipedia out of proportion to the medical and legal consensus view? Absolutely. Jokestress (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, regarding what Legitimus believes, I point people to the Stagnant discussion of the Hebephilia talk page where he stated: "I also do need to mention that I have no opinion on whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder. This is another reason why I have stayed out of the debate. Though I don't think it's fair to favor certain professional's opinions who have never actually conducted any primary research in this subject area and appear to have financial and/or political stakes in opposing this. I am more interested in adding information about the term (and/or very concept) in an investigative capacity. The principle (whether called 'hebephilia' or something else) undeniably exists among criminal profilers and other members of law enforcement for use as a way to classify sexually-based offenders, though the actual motive that drives a criminal towards this population varies. For now I'd rather wait for the other parts to get sorted out." Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MastCell. I have to tip my hat to you. This is an intimidating issue, and I admire your chutzpah in taking it on.

I have no reason to contest people who say that they have been following my edits, and I don’t think there is much point (or interest) in reviewing them. In my defense, I would instead emphasize my pattern over time: Soon after joining WP, I discovered that openness would be the best policy (even if it typically worked against me); so, I changed my name to my real name. When I started receiving feedback that it would be better mentioned on relevant pages, I began posting it…even multiple times on the same page. When edit wars erupted (mostly with Jokestress), I swore off the relevant pages, posted the pledge that’still on my user page and unbroken, and did what a good Wikipedian should do: I walked away from the conflict, just as I walked away from the talk:hebephilia conflict when Jokestress arrived. After someone suggested to me that when producing a BLP of someone I know, I should submit it to RfC instead of creating it directly, and that is exactly what I am now doing (RfC/Robin Wilson (psychologist)). As perusing my talk page will show, my input to sexology pages remains repeatedly requested, not pushed.

I do not pretend that I will ever be able to convince every person in every situation that they will approve of my every edit. But if my record above does not demonstrate that I am and have always been open to community input, then I do not know what kind of record might.

Regarding little green rosetta’s observation (and forgiving myself my self-interest), I also was not perceiving support for topic banning me. I appreciate that consensus is not voting and that minority argument can be superior to a more common argument, but this was what I was perceiving: (I have no opposition to anyone moving themselves as they prefer, and I apologize in advance if I have miscategorized anyone.)

Topic ban Jokestress

ВикиT1

Carrite

FiachraByrne

FishBarking

Formerip

Herostratus

Legitimus

little green rosetta

Mark Arsten

Skinwalker

Thryduulf

WLU

Topic ban Cantor

Insomesia

Kim van der linde

Topic ban both

Hell in a Bucket

Sceptre

Arbcom

Andrea

bonze blayk

MrADHD

Although there have been calls for topic banning me, multiple editors specifically excluded topic banning me as a solution. Therefore, to answer MastCell’s question, an alternative might be to separate the discussion of topic banning me from that of topic banning Jokestress.

— James Cantor (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do "voting" here, mate. This sort of tabulation of results is not just "not useful", it's harmful. - 124.168.72.151 (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through everything here, I'm actually for Topic/Interaction banning everyone invovled at this point or sending it to Arbcom. I think to do otherwise is really shutting one side up through the ban. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP opposes a ban on Jokestress, and an interaction ban would be worse as one of them would end up with pseudo-first-movers advantage. Send it to ArbCom. - 124.168.72.151 (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Topic ban for both, although I feel Jokestress is more the serious issue here. Since there is no real indication they have been interacting anywhere else, the only point in putting an interaction ban in place would be to prevent interaction at a different topic. There is no reason that cannot be done at a later time if the negative interaction continues once they have left sexology. (Oh and while 'not a vote' etc, given this has spanned three subsections, the above table is at least a guide to which way the discussion has gone. I am sure the closing admin will read all the relevant comments.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone summarise for me the content of an argument for a topic ban of Cantor because, beyond assertions, I'm failing to see anything substantive in the discussion above. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is culled from a report prepared by someone else, so I have not double-checked it. You can pick any edit Cantor has ever made at random and have a 95%+ chance of hitting promotion of himself and allies or denigration of critics. James Cantor has been written into the bodies of Wikipedia articles at least 11 times; 7 by Cantor, with 5 of those anonymously as "MariontheLibrarian." Citations to James Cantor have been added at least 68 times; 45 by Cantor, with 39 of those as "MariontheLibrarian."

Partial list of Cantor's additions of himself to Wikipedia:

Debate_on_the_causes_of_clerical_child_abuse (as James Cantor) [37]
Pedophilia (as MarionTheLibrarian) 3RR ([38][39][40]), [41][42]
Sexual_Abuse:_A_Journal_of_Research_and_Treatment (as James Cantor) [43]
Chronophilia (as James Cantor) 2x [44]
Courtship_disorder (as James Cantor) [45]
Debate_on_the_causes_of_clerical_child_abuse (as James Cantor) [46]
Hebephilia (as MarionTheLibrarian) 7x[47][48]
List_of_paraphilias (as James Cantor) [49][50][51]
paraphilia (as James Cantor) [52]
Pedophilia (as MarionTheLibrarian) (3RR,6x[53]6x[54]11x[55]), 3x[56], [57] 2x[58][59][60]

Partial list of Cantor's additions of CAMH to Wikipedia:

Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology (as MarionTheLibrarian) [61]
Sexual_Abuse:_A_Journal_of_Research_and_Treatment (as James Cantor)[62]

Partial list of external links to CAMH, Cantor, etc.==

Andrea_James (as MarionTheLibrarian): Off-wiki criticism (as Cantor) cited on-wiki (as MarionTheLibrarian)[63][64][65]
Androphilia_and_gynephilia (as James Cantor) [66]
Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology (as MarionTheLibrarian) (anon blog, considered a fake) [67]
Catholic_sex_abuse_cases (as James Cantor) [68]
Cross-dressing (as James Cantor) [69]
Debate_on_the_causes_of_clerical_child_abuse (as James Cantor)[70]
DSM-5 (as James Cantor) [71]
Hebephilia (as James Cantor) [72][73]2x[74]
Paraphilia (as James Cantor) [75][76][77][78][79]
Pedophilia (as James Cantor) [80]
Penile_plethysmograph (as James Cantor) [81]
Ray_Blanchard (as James Cantor) [82]
Sexological_testing (as James Cantor) [83][84]
Sexology (as James Cantor) 2x[85] 2x [86] 3x[87] 3x[88]
Sexual_addiction (as James Cantor) [89]
Transgender (as James Cantor)[90]
Transvestic_fetishism (as James Cantor) [91]
Transvestism (as James Cantor) [92]

Please note this does not include edits by his sympathetic proxies and is a vanishingly smalle fraction of his promotional activity here under the guise of "expert retention." If this goes to ArbCom, I will prepare an more detailed list of the self-promotional/POV-pushing activity of this single-purpose account, including sympathetic proxies like Legitimus, WLU, etc. Jokestress (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to see anything significantly problematic in these additions and before posting them here you should have reviewed them to see if there was anything pertinent in the above diffs to an argument for a topic ban. For instance, correcting the article on the journal which he edits Sexual_Abuse:_A_Journal_of_Research_and_Treatment to include his own name as editor rather than the previous holder of that post is an appropriate amendment of the article. Posting such a diff is irrelevant to any would-be argument for a topic ban and, despite the above, this is an argument which I'm still failing to see materialise in any substantial sense. His additions to the paedophilia article were enormous improvements to that article and bear strong evidence, as if we didn't already know, that Cantor is an international expert in this field. Moreover, an article on this topic that didn't cite the research of Cantor and his colleagues at CAMH, as already observed, would be significantly unbalanced. If Cantor is citing his own research or that of this colleagues in sexology or related articles that is only problematic if one could show that those additions were undue; the mere fact that he has added his own research is not in itself an argument for a topic ban. And yes, expert retention is or should be an important factor here if one considers the state of some of these articles prior to his additions. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with much of that; however, sexology appears to at times become a battleground off-site. Has it become so on-site? What is the relative weight of the competing theories? How do we address that? The problem with COI is not just intentional slanting but unintentional also. Are there mediator types perhaps in Project Psychology, who can address these issues? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am unable to devote much time to this at the moment due to work commitments and would likely have ignored Flyer22's disruption if I didn't think I was going to get railroaded in my absence. Cantor's adding himself throughout the project seems problematic to a number of editors above, given the controversial history of CAMH. These controversial opinions take a lot of time to explain, because it requires people to step back and look at how sexological terminology perpetuates systemic bias. I suppose the best examples of problematic activism are the additions and promotion of many neologisms proposed by CAMH. They are based on highly problematic conceptual frameworks. Cantor/CAMH hold the minority view in regards to a number of these conceptualizations. The majority of medical and legal experts believe his point of view has far-reaching legal and ethical ramifications that could lead to a host of problems.

"Euphilic" (one published instance in sexology, made up by Cantor [93], added by Cantor to list of paraphilias) [94]
"Hebephilia" (competing definitions, competing views on reliability and validity, opposed as disorder by medical and legal consensus, promoted heavily by CAMH/Cantor)

"Pedohebephilia" (same as above)
"Ephebophilia" (same as above)

In addition to promoting concepts created or advocated by CAMH, he has actively tried to suppress a number of competing concepts. The one that comes time mind is a competing model to the CAMH conceptualization of sexual orientation, androphilia and gynephilia. CAMH uses the term in an age-based conceptualization, to mean attraction to adult males and adule females respectively. Experts are well-aware that, like "hebephilia," there is an academic debate in sexology about using the terms as preferable alternatives to homosexual and heterosexual, especially when applied to intersex and transgender people. CAMH is among the last holdouts in using the term "homosexual transsexual" to describe trans women attracted to men, Cantor has used the term extensively and defends its continued use. Rather than acknowledge the well-known debate which he surely knows about, Cantor attempted to have the entire article deleted and subsumed under sexual orientation. The AfD is instructive in his methods and tenacity:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia and gynephilia

Again, this is extraordinarily esoteric and nuanced, and it's difficult to explain in a venue like this under time pressures. What seems perfectly reasonable editing by Cantor to a casual reader is extremely problematic to the majority of experts in the field. Very few people who have not spent a lot of time following these controversies is going to spot the manipulation at hebephilia. If you sent this article as written to 10 sexologists, I am sure a significant majority would take issue with how this is presented on Wikipedia.

If I had more time, I'd give an expanded overview, but this is probably all I can do today. I become available again after 5 February, but I imagine a decision will be rendered by then. Jokestress (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia and gynephilia. Technically, Cantor was in error in request a delete rather than a merge or redirect and the closing admin elected to keep the article. However, Cantor, on any fair reading, largely demolished the arguments that the combination "Androphilia and gynephilia" merited inclusion as a distinct topic in an encyclopedia. Nobody came up with secondary sources that considered the topic in sufficient depth to support a standalone article. There's no evidence of any attempt at suppression and, throughout that exchange, there was considerable misrepresentation of Cantor and the topic at hand. I don't think that the issues discussed at the AfD were "extraordinarily esoteric and nuanced" but, rather, explicit and incontrovertible. Moreover, the article and the AfD discussion – in addition to some of your comments above – provides far better evidence of your own approach to some WP articles & debates in the sexology category as an opportunity for activism and POV pushing. I don't say that lightly and I have sympathy with some of your arguments regarding the pathologization of sexual identities, orientations and behaviours (actually, neither pathologization or medicalization are really the right terms, but we're talking about their creation as objects for a particular discipline which may contradict, undermine or belittle your own self-identification, self-creation or be perceived as such). But this isn't the correct forum to advance such a position absent its presence in authoritative sources. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[A moved-down comment that is a reply to Jokestress] A good thing has come out of my "disruption." Recent widespread attention being brought to your disruption. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gee. It seems we're playing "Who's got a problem here?"

"Disruption is as disruption does"…

Since User:Jokestress brought up the Deletion nomination of the article Androphilia and Gynephilia initiated by James Cantor a year and a half ago, and Flyer22 brings up the notion of disruptive editing… my memory is once again teased… not in nice ways, thank you, because every comment I made there was met with a fresh insult by James Cantor?

I shall list and link them, for anyone patient enough - or with a sufficiently low threshold of amusement to make it genuinely worthwhile? - to slog through them.

"Although Bonze clearly did it unwittingly, Bonze is strongly agreeing with me. (!)" - James Cantor

"Comment. User:James Cantor, I could not disagree with you more strongly." - bonze blayk

"Comment. Bonze continues to prove my points for me:" Now THIS is classic: "It is unfortunate that Bonze's reflex to disagree causes so much, if hollow and unfocused, dissent. We're actually in tune on very much." - James Cantor

I am loving the ad hominem. Don't you? I wound up linking it in my Profile! (The stupid thing here is that I actually do agree with James Cantor on a number of points where most trans folk get really tweaked?)

Androphilia and gynephilia - comment on organization of articles, prompted by Whatamidoings's remark on Wikipedia "serving its readership" - bonze blayk

"*Comment. (A) I can't find any coherent argument here, after removing the obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND and hostility issues." - James Cantor

NB: James Cantor had modified my Comment to insert alphabetic labels as if I had been making labelled points, followed by another ad hominem argument. WTF?.

My revert of these modifications - bonze blayk

"*Comment. WP:BATTLEGROUND? "hostility issues"? Hm. And here I thought I was commenting on issues relating to the organization of articles relating to Transgender in Wikipedia." - bonze blayk

In a response to a question from User:WhatamIdoing, I subsequently note that I was the person who had eviscerated the "sources" provided for it so that it subsequently become the target of an AfD by James Cantor.

You have to read this last because there's a very excellent joke re: WP:ELNO at the end? It's about James Cantor adding his favorite WP:SPS to the self-same article back in 2010!

User:Jokestress wound up providing a substantial number of WP:RS to the article, in part because I am quite simply incapable of providing them - I do not have access to research resources since Cornell went digital.

All of this starts out in June 2011 (as James Cantor noted later), with him offering "Delete page?" as a suggestion and subsequently interacting with me regarding the quality of the article one week after my editing efforts denuded it of junk "sources". - SIMPLY BRILLIANT.

Oh yeah, WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY and like that, "honored once again in the breach". Once again: the organization of these articles "could stand some improvements". Thanks, sincerely, - bonze blayk (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the relevance questions, I'd be looking for evidence much more recent than 3RR problems in 2008 and similarly old additions of relevant external links. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cantor seems to declare a COI re: hebephilia here, but then reverted content addition by Jokestress here under NPOV, which is somewhat worrying. In general, he seems to be editing on a fine line between "expert" and "COI editor", and the article Gynandromorphophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could do with a check over by someone unaffiliated with Cantor but with more knowledge of medicine than me. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever this dispute is discussed, the key issue is the perception that James Cantor edits with a conflict of interest. So James, I'd like to ask whether you're willing to agree not to make any edits directly related to your employment or your close colleagues, or their or your own theories. I see you have two COI pledges on your user page, but they list specific articles. If you could extend that to any article where you might reasonably be seen as promoting your own ideas or those of your close colleagues, it would help a lot to put this to rest. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in principle, yes. That was the spirit in which I made my user page pledges. In practice, however, I believe that that would quickly devolve into warring over whether any given case counts— James Cantor (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But an editor having a conflict of interest because he or she is editing topics they are experts on doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't be allowed to edit those topics. We have editors at WP:MED, who were notified of this ANI discussion, and who are experts on certain medical matters and therefore edit articles directly related to their employment. We shouldn't ask editors to not work on topics they are experts on, especially since it's often great to have experts, unless they are inappropriately editing with their conflict of interest; that's the issue -- whether or not their COI editing is appropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of expertise, but of editing to advance one's own theories, which shouldn't happen unless (perhaps) there is truly nothing controversial about them. In this case, it does seem that minority theories in sexology that stem from James and one or two other researchers at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto are being promoted in a way that is arguably UNDUE. This is one of the reasons we have the COI guideline; it's a test of whether one's own ideas really are notable enough for inclusion, in the sense that, if they are, someone uninvolved will eventually get round to writing about them.

For example, James created Gynandromorphophilia in August 2012. We already had an article on that subject at, first, Transfan, then Attraction to transgender people, so Gynandromorphophilia is arguably a POV fork. According to MOSMED, we are supposed to use "the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." I searched for this term on PubMed, and at that time found only two examples: a paper by the inventor of the term, Ray Blanchard, a close colleague of James at CAMH, and one other from Hungary. I asked James at the AfD for other examples of its use, but there was no response. The article was kept, but it seems to be a clear example of editing to promote a little-used term (and the perspective associated with it), with the result that Wikipedia is causing the spread of it, rather than merely (or also) reflecting that spread. If James would agree to stop making edits like this, I think the dispute would probably end. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you reread that AfD discussion you'll see that Cantor had previously posted a list of sources that use the term [95]. It's hardly overwhelming but it's significantly greater than the scholarly sources using the term "attraction to transgender people" (1 result which does not define the object) or, as that article was previously entitled "transfan" {78 results none of which refer to the article topic}. Looking at the two existing articles, Attraction to transgender people and Gynandromorphophilia, the latter is a narrowly defined object within the discipline of sexology, the article is well sourced and it's coherent and succinct. The former, which defines itself in a broader sense, does not have these virtues. The Attraction to transgender people article needs to have more thought put into it about what its actual topic is and what sources from a relevant field might be used to properly construct it ((sociology or anthropology one would imagine). Currently, these articles are not compatible or, if a merger were to take place, the Gynandromorphohilia article would (or at least should) largely subsume the Attraction to transgender people article. Within the terms of WP:COI I don't see any great benefit accruing to Cantor from the addition; I do see benefits to Wikipedia, however.

Looking at the contents of Wikipedia, I see no convincing reason for your faith that "community" inclination to write articles is a good indication of whether an article should or should not exist. Given the predilections of the community I'd have greater faith in the collective adding to the latest release of marketable children's toys or the most notable entrants in the MILF pornography category]. Undoubtedly, there are no significant COIs in the additions to either of these two latter categories and they're certainly worthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia worthy of the name. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[A moved-down comment that is a reply to SlimVirgin] Thank you for clearing up/expanding on your thoughts. It obviously appeared to me that you were requesting that Cantor stop editing topics he's an expert on simply because he has a COI on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that the gynandromorphophilia page is a perfect example of my NOT advancing my own theories. MOSMED does indeed prefer the technical term, and I knew that there existed two such terms, gynandromorphophilia (by Blanchard) and gynemimetophilia (by Money). So, not only was I sure to create both stubs, I was careful to ensure they were verbatim. I'm hard pressed to think of a more neutral approach. It was not until Jokestress AfD'ed the one associated with Blanchard, that I started to expand it. Jokestress then AfD'ed the other one. Only the Blanchard stub survived. FWIW, reading the AfD for gynemimetophilia may be illustrative.— James Cantor (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James why didn't you simply create the article under the title Gynandromorphophilia and gynemimetophilia? That makes the most sense to me. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just didn't think of it, really. At the time, there seemed no reason to.— James Cantor (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better for you not to make edits about your colleague's theory. But if you were going go, the material should really have been added to the article that already existed, Attraction to transgender people – researcher A calls this X and argues blah, researcher B calls it Y and argues the opposite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly. But I believe the issue is whether my behaviour suggests self-promotion of the magnitude Jokestress suggests or within the range meant by WP:COS.— James Cantor (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fairly clear that your edits regularly promote the ideas of CAMH researchers, yourself included. This would be less of a problem were those ideas not so contentious. But they do seem to be not only controversial, but minority and sometimes tiny-minority ideas. The problem stems from the conjunction of those two issues: first, that you're involved off-wiki in the creation of minority theories, and second that you add them to Wikipedia, which has the effect of spreading them.

If those theories gain ground within the academic or medical community, someone else will eventually write about them on WP, though it may take some time for that to happen. But the spirit of the COI guideline is that you ought to wait for that to happen, rather than doing it yourself. The question here is whether you're willing to interpret the COI guideline more broadly than you've been doing so far, in order to stop the dispute (or, at least, to do what you can to stop it). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all clear what metric suggests the proportions you describe. As I noted previously, of the 10,700 scholar.google hits to pedophilia, 9 of the top 20 come from CAMH. Although the claim has been made many times (and I have ceased bothering to correct it), just about every reasonable metric suggests the opposite.— James Cantor (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right. My point is only that if you agree to construe the COI guideline more broadly, it might head off an ArbCom case. If you feel it's an unreasonable request, that's fair enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you and Jokestress could get together to draw up a list of articles that would arguably be covered by COI. If you could agree on a list, and then stick to it in letter and spirit, it might resolve things completely. And if there are any where you feel she has a COI, those could be included. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) One minor clarification: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia was closed with no consensus, so anyone is free to renominate or open a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding here that my post above wasn't in any way a criticism of your closure, Mark. The numbers weren't in favour of deletion, and it's not clear the arguments were either. I didn't vote delete despite my concern, because I wasn't sure. And I didn't want to have to do a lot of reading to become more informed about it, so I just let it go. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, that was one of those tough to close Afds. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And even if the AfD had closed with consensus for keeping the article, anyone of course would still be free to renominate the article for deletion or to open a merge discussion about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Redux

On second thought, I think that this dispute is best referred to the Arbitration Committee. Given the depth of feeling all around, and the length of time that this dispute has festered, I doubt that any solution unilaterally imposed by a single admin (e.g. myself) is going to stick. Nor (selfishly) do I want to be the "policeman" for this topic area going forward. I've read Dr. Cantor's and Jokestress' responses to my proposal (both on-wiki and off-wiki), and I acknowledge both of their concerns about its fairness.
I think there's a lot to admire in the contributions of both editors, and I've long been on record as advocating greater involvement by real-world experts on Wikipedia. I also understand the depth of feeling provoked by this topic area - it's one of the most deeply personal subject matters imaginable, and I don't think that there are any easy solutions to the underlying conflict here, between the academic freedom to voice unpopular views and the personal freedom to define one's own sexuality rather than have it defined for you. There was probably a time when I would have waded in further, but that time is long past, and I would suggest forwarding this dispute to ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse the above analysis by MastCell. This matter requires a depthy examination and I think the structure at ArbCom is better suited to handling it than AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a case requiring cool heads if there ever was one. MastCell's first attempt at a quick resolution is appreciated, but this should really go to ArbCom. I'm not holding my breath for their level of coolheadedness after the Jclemens and Elen of Roads sagas, but it's a slightly better forum than drive by votes at ANI largely from editors who previously had a conflict with one or the other of the two main editors involved in this. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can we leave the digs at retired arbs out of this? I think the discussion is contentious enough as things are. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neither seems to be actually retired. Voted out of office is not the same thing. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) The more detail that gets posted here, the more I'm coming around to the view that arbcom is where this needs to be and that now is the time that it needs to be there. I think this discussion has been productive in the sense that if a request for arbcom was placed now it would be more likely to be accepted than it would when the thread began. Arbcom will not (and I suspect could not even if it was empowered to and wanted to) sort out the content issues. It would only deal with behaviour preventing the community sorting them out. Jokestress is undoubtedly part of the problem, and I don't see a way out of this that doesn't involve her being topic banned. James Cantor seems to be trying hard to avoid problems caused by conflicts of interest, he isn't perfect (but nobody is) but sniping at him doesn't help anybody. I'm less convinced though that others aren't warranting of sanction too. To use a visual analogy I see Jokestress' involvement as a large (but probably well intentioned) dinosaur attacking the editors of this topic, with some others stepping over the line while trying to defend themselves and others. At the same time there are a small number of small yapping puppies also attacking. If we remove the big dinosaur, it is possible that (1) the puppies disappear, unwilling or unable to attack without the dinosaur or (2) the puppies grow up into big dogs and take over where the dinosaur left off. In scenario 1 the defenders, in the absence of anything to defend against may either (a) settle down to quiet constructive article work or (b) freed from the dinosaur go out and attack. In Scenario 2, those defenders may (a) just be in the same position they are now, or (b) they may be the more powerful and turn into the attackers. If we remove the dinosaur and get 1a then everything is hunky dory. If we get anything else then it might be that picking off the big dog(s) or overzealous defenders is something we as a community can do to allow the content discussions to happen and get resolved; or it might be that we then need to hand it to arbcom saying "we tried, but it didn't work". Alternatively we could go to arbcom now saying "we could try doing something ourselves, but we don't think that we would solve the problem". At this moment I don't know which I think is better. I appologise for the temporally incorrect nature of my analogy. I know dinosaurs and dogs never hunted together. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilsport. Seriously though, can you or someone more knowledgable than myself move this to a sub-page and set an archive date on this ANI? This thread is getting huge and looks like no end in sight. Think of the poor browsers. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Endorse sending to Arbcom. If this were only a content dispute mediation would be in order but there are such swirling issues of on-site/off-site battleground, personal attacks, academic reputations of living people, COI, what to do when the ostensible assertions of a topic area appear to some to be personal attacks in themselves, NPOV issues, etc., that a one administrator or AN/I vote fix seems unsuitable. Instead, this calls for in-depth examinations of edits and page talk, measured against policy and the good of the Project, to clear the ground. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so who's going to do the paperwork and file for a case? (Not it) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James should probably first be given the chance to extend his COI pledge to any article directly related to his work and that of his colleagues (broadly enough construed so that the dispute ends). If he feels that isn't a reasonable request and would prefer ArbCom to deal with it, then okay, but it makes sense to offer him the option. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With this discussion now being on a subpage, I feel like nothing is going to be done about the problems that have been expressed. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All anyone has to do is file an ArbCom request and link to this page for reference. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've filed an arbitration request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hebephilia. Everyone is welcome to comment there. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress has stated above that she won't be available until 5 February. Would it not be better to wait until then before continuing with the arbitration request? FiachraByrne (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I hadn't realized that when I filed the request. It looks like the case might be delayed if she's unavailable, considering this comment. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just stick a note at the top of the request stating that Jokestress won't be available to comment until the 5th. She supports the arbcom request anyway and I don't think it should make much difference to the ArbCom members if they have to wait a week or so before issuing a formal decision. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet completed my statement (still editing), but FWIW, I will be away Feb 21-Mar 3...I have no idea if an ArbCom case would go on that long, but I'd rather note it earlier than later.— James Cantor (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling is that the arbcom case wont be concluded by then, given that it's a complex case spanning a long time period and a lot of articles and that it seems very unlikely to be opened before 5 Feburary at the earliest. I recommend you make a prominent note of it at the end of your statement and then again once the case is opened (either with your evidence submission or on an appropriate talk page, perhaps the main case talk - a clerk should be happy to advise on the best location though). I would also suggest that other parties with known planned absences make them known at the start as it avoids any appearance of trying to duck responsibility (cf Coren's comments on the Pratyeka request). If you don't want to declare anything publicly then email the arbitrators and they will take it into account. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Arbcom cases often last a couple months. They can be pretty slow moving, so missing a week or so might not be a big deal. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close?

An arbcom request has been made, and there haven't been any edits to this page in a couple of days. Is it now time to mark this as closed? Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay by me.— James Cantor (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.