Revision as of 02:09, 6 March 2013

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request to link to optional evidence

1) Per WP:OWN: "The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors."

The goal of this tag team is to bring sanctions against me, even if some or all of them are sanctioned as well. They were able to bring this to ArbCom through coordinated personal attacks. Anyone in my position is at a disadvantage. My evidence must describe collaboration and conduct involving numerous allied editors and former editors. I have kept my evidence to 1000 words, but as part of organizing my thoughts, I created user subpages with details. I'd like to link to those, with a color that indicates they are optional. Jokestress (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Sceptre

Proposed principles

Conflict of interest

1) Where editors have a conflict of interest that may impair their ability to edit in a neutral manner, they are expected to use caution or abstain from editing altogether.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this is a key principle for this case. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Expertise

2) Misplaced Pages welcomes the contribution of experts in a certain field, but they remain bound to guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. They are advised not to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for promoting their own theories.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. It is important to note that contributions from experts are important, but NPOV must remain paramount. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest adding "advocates", either to this section or another section that is similarly phrased. The idea that James Cantor is an expert and has a conflict of interest but Jokestress, a non-expert, non-scholar, transwoman advocate seems untenable. Preventing someone from editing a set of pages where they have published in numerous peer-reviewed journals, while permitting someone who has not published in similar venues but has harassed experts in the matter seems bizarrely one-sided. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this hinges on your definition of "expert" as meaning either simply "knowledgeable person" or as "knowledgeable scholar". I was reading this with the more inclusive meaning, but as this is obviously not universal then being explicit is a Good Thing. The conduct of the parties to this case is not relevant to this principle though as it is a statement of universal community principles rather than a finding of fact about the specifics of this case. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

With the words "advised", "promote" and "own", this seems mild enough so as not to discourage participation by the best kind of editors. This choice of words suggests to me that it is primarily about scholars rather than activists, and in particular about James Cantor. I believe there exists clear evidence of problematic editing by Cantor years ago, followed, I believe, by an acknowledgement and an undertaking to edit neutrally. I would expect there to be some kind of statute of limitation to be in effect, so that this principle is irrelevant to the case unless Cantor has broken it in the last two years or so. I have no way of knowing if that is the case or not.

Basically this is just a reminder to the parties that Arbcom is probably going to be more interested in recent problems than in very old stuff, and that it's helpful to focus your evidence accordingly. Hans Adler 17:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree re: problematic early editing, and also efforts to change this, as well as a voluntary restriction of his own editing. There should indeed be a distinction between "James Cantor did something questionable 2 years ago" versus "James Cantor can never be redeemed as an editor and should be blocked". WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Fringe theories

3) Misplaced Pages editors are advised not to create the perception that fringe theories enjoy a level of support that does not exist, nor create a false equivalence between accepted scientific theories and fringe or unscientific theories.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I would like to see an explanation how this is supposed to be relevant to the case. Hans Adler 15:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's relevant due to Cantor's support of fringe theories, most notably, creating the article Gynandromorphilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sceptre 15:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a redlink, but Google suggested Gynandromorphophilia, created by Jokestress in late 2009 as a redirect to Transfan, then turned into an article by James Cantor in mid 2012. The article doesn't look particularly fringey to me in its present or early forms. Neither the topic nor the presentation. This looks like no more than simple disagreement to me. Frankly, the claim that a scientist with Cantor's credentials has significantly supported fringe in their own field appears to be quite extraordinary. What am I overlooking? Hans Adler 16:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Cantor is an admitted proponent of his colleague Ray Blanchard's fringe unscientific typology of transsexualism, which shares little support in the medical or wider community. As SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) noted at AN/I, the term only comes up twice in PubMed, one being the original paper by Blanchard. There's also an issue with some pathologies of transsexualism that seem to come out of CAMH that have worrying parallels with the pathologies of homosexuality in the seventies (most notably, Kenneth Zucker's rabid support of reparative therapy for transgender children while opposing the comparatively equivocal Spitzer paper. I'll expand later when I have a full keyboard to hand. Sceptre 17:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is getting worse, not better. Blanchard's scientific credentials seem to be just as good as Cantor's. These Google Scholar hits don't immediately look like how an expert would refer to fringe. When two scientific experts agree on something in a field as young and small as sexology, then it is very unlikely to be a case of FRINGE. Do you have any evidence that this classification departs significantly from scientific mainstream or makes esoteric claims about medicine, or anything else similarly damning? It just doesn't seem conceivable. Hans Adler 18:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If Cantor's theories are published in peer reviewed sources, they almost by definition do not fall within the first three categories of WP:FRINGE/PS, and might therefore be more suitable as mentions within a larger page rather than as separate articles - but I don't think fit within the context of WP:FRINGE. Fringe theories are generally not presented within the relevant scholarly literature and generally not discussed except as examples of how not to do science. What scholars, not editors, have called these ideas wrong, nonsense, unsupported or pseudoscience?

Cantor as an editor has a total of slightly less than 5,000 edits (though there are edits under other accounts as well, Marion the Librarian has 1,153). He has also been pretty reasonable in my experience, when his edits are discussed and criticized within the context of the policies and guidelines rather than being criticized for holding opinions that are unpopular within a particular non-wiki community. The issues raised here, where a controversial topic in an obscure area is discussed seriously within reliable sources, would challenge any experienced editor, let alone a relative novice whose initial entries to Misplaced Pages's confusing and contested community and mores were fraught with conflict. I'm looking over James' earliest contributions as Marion the Librarian and they appear quite reasonable - problematic wording but well-sourced. Considering he is essentially forced to interact with Andrea James who made J. Michael Bailey's real-life quite miserable and is still essentially arguing that it's OK because Bailey deserved it . Cantor may not have a nuanced grasp of our policies and guidelines, particularly notability within the context of his expertise. It may be worthwhile he either create proposed new pages on a subpage and request a review before moving it over, but banning him as a POV-pushing SPA in the context of a highly contested area within the scientific community (let alone the real world) seems like a less than ideal proposal. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Blanchard's scientific credentials seem to be just as good as Cantor's". I defer to Bender Bending Rodriguez on this matter. I would suggest reading up on Blanchard's transsexualism typology, of which a basic understanding is vital to this case, to save yourself from further embarassment. I don't think that a person who describes transgender women as "men without penises" can be said to be an expert in any way on the topic. And I don't think a person who seriously uses the term "shemales" can be said to be an expert either. Sceptre 19:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case. Hans Adler 20:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a youtube video, I would be more inclined to take seriously a scholarly article or noted popular publication like the NYT. After all, the contents of a neutral page are determined by the contents of reliable sources, not by whether editors are personally affronted. I don't believe the arbitrators will determine if there is a conduct issue based on whether their personal beliefs regarding whether the mainstream (or minority) opinion on the causes, consequences and nuances of transexualism are justified.

James Cantor has agreed to a voluntary editing restriction in areas where he has a COI and has submitted new articles for review rather than creating them directly in mainspace. These are exactly the options I would suggest for any editor with a conflict of interest. The fact that he has undertaken them voluntarily suggests he has learned since his early days here. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Some already know that I feel that Cantor is a benefit to Misplaced Pages regarding sexology and psychology topics. But I felt that I should respond to one part of Hans Adler's arguments. Hans Adler, sexology isn't that small of a field. And two scientific experts supporting research that is fringe in the field of sexology and/or in the general scientific community happens often enough. It goes without saying that two scientists don't make scientific consensus. And to everyone, something being the minority view doesn't mean that it is WP:FRINGE. Yes, WP:FRINGE covers the topic of those who hold minority views...but there's significantly more to the description than that; I feel that it's very clear about what classifies as fringe; if I didn't, I'd propose that the WP:FRINGE page be written to be clearer about this, given the somewhat different interpretations that I see above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as the Blanchard-Bailey-Lawrence-Cantor theories into transsexualism go, if generous, I'd only classify it as 3 on the FRINGE/PS scale. Some of the details of the theory (such as the checklist Bailey has in TMWWBQ) is 2 at best. Also, you do bring up a point by people just assuming a once-reliable-always-reliable approach to sourcing which is simply not true, and may indeed be dangerous. Sceptre 18:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that your personal opinion, or do you have sources to support this point? Though WP:FRINGE/PS does not specify, in general the decision regarding whether a topic is pseudoscience, a fringe theory or alternative theoretical formulation would be determined by sources. I don't think it's legitimate for editors to label something as fringe, particularly when it may be due to them being personally affronted. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As the link Hans Adler posted above indicates, "Gynandromorphophilia" returns 16 results in Google Scholar including: Blanchard, Ray; Collins, PI (1993). "Men with sexual interest in transvestites, transsexuals, and she-males". The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 181 (9): 570–575. PMID 8245926. {{cite journal}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |author= at position 1 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). This 1993 article, described in its abstract as "a preliminary exploration of gynandromorphophilia", is itself cited a further 29 times in academic publications. Those 16 Google Scholar returns have a total aggregate of 118 citations (h-index 5; g-index 10). It's hardly a dominant concept in the field but neither is it fringe by any objective measure. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A search for Blanchard's typology of transsexualism returns 317 publications with a total aggregate of 6279 citations (h-index 45; g-index 69). It ain't fringe.

for h-index & g-index calculations Harzing's Publish or Perish was used.

FiachraByrne (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding what WLU stated about identifying fringe theories, we don't need reliable sources to call an idea and/or concept fringe...unless we are calling it fringe in a Misplaced Pages article about it or a Misplaced Pages article mentioning it. As the first line of the WP:FRINGE section titled Identifying fringe theories states, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Further thinking on this, it seems that, in some cases, it is even okay to call something fringe in a Misplaced Pages article without a reliable source calling it such. The #1 listing at WP:FRINGE/PS states: "Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure of the relevance of this, Flyer22, since it seems pretty clear that these aren't fringe theories "that depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support". There is the evidence above about coverage of these theories in scholarly journals. However, they are also covered -including by name Gynandromorphophilia - in the chapter on Sexual Disorders in Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology (2008)] published by the Oxford University Press. And yes, to forestall the obvious comment, the chapter on is written by Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree, but that is actually the main point: promoters of fringe scientific and medical theories don't get invited to submit chapters to prestigious textbook publications by university presses. And as additional evidence "Gynandromorphophilia", for example, is also discussed (supportively) in Sexual Deviance, Second Edition: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (2008), Transexual and Other Disorders of Gender Identity (2007), The Myth of Sex Addiction (2012), and Men Trapped in Men's Bodies (2013), all by reputable publishers. I can very much empathize with the distaste for the medicalization and pathologizing, but the fact is that based on the sources, these theories have received a considerable degree of acceptance in academic and other circles, and cannot possibly be described as "fringe" in WP's parlance. Slp1 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Above, besides responding to Hans Adler's comment, my point was/is to show how Misplaced Pages defines fringe/the circumstances that we are allowed to call things fringe without a reliable source (or reliable sources) calling them fringe; that's why what I posted above is relevant to this fringe discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Creating an article about a fringe theory should not be discouraged and should not be interpreted to infringe the above policy. We have articles even on balderdash like Intelligent design and homeopathy. When creating a new article about a little-known concept, it is absolutely appropriate for an editor to first add and expound the sources he has, and avoid adding any sentences about how it's a crank theory few believe in, until he or someone else finds a source that says that. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Another point about Blanchard being a fringe scholar with no respect - Blanchard was selected by the DSM-5 committee to review the gender dysphoria and paraphilias section. This was controversial and there was much criticism regarding his desire to include hebephilia in DSM-5, but the very fact that he was chosen to arbitrate possibly the most important document in the mental health field suggests his opinions carry weight and that they aren't seen as fringe lunacy. To pick an analogy, it would be like believing the United States committee on the redesign of natural born citizenship law was being chaired by Orly Taitz of the birther movement fame. Other, equally colourful analogies are available on request. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The primary locus of this dispute is a long-running off-wiki dispute between Andrea James (User:Jokestress) and James Cantor (User:James Cantor, User:MarionTheLibrarian, User:WriteMakesRight, et al), regarding ethical practices in the field of sexology, and more specifically, Cantor's colleagues and supporters.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this should be supported by a finding of fact that notes that Andrea James edits as user:Jokestress and that James Cantor edits as user:James Cantor and previously edited as User:MarionTheLibrarian, User:WriteMakesRight. Doing it this way avoids any implication that James Cantor has engaged in sockpuppetry or otherwise misused multiple accounts (at least I've not seen this alleged). Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Topic probation

1) All articles related to sexology—broadly construed—are subject to a standard topic probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Extension of my topic ban proposal at ANI. Sceptre 14:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Could you please provide a diff of your ANI proposal.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you explicitly not suggesting discretionary sanctions?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is very important to avoid creating a huge vague zone of sanctions surrounding sexual matters. The effect of these things with situations like Palestine and Eastern Europe is only to foul good editors in a net of overly harsh sanctions. Some might think that Misplaced Pages can define "hot topics" and "safe topics" and zone trouble out of bounds, but these are people who have never seen a grown man get red-faced and shaking mad at a Christmas dinner because he read someone on the Internet say that the wheels on a model train were junk. The fact is, everyone has their vocational and avocational chauvinisms, each different. There is a market to cater to everything, and there are people with a vested interest in every market. The effect of bringing overbearing sanctions to sexual matters would only be to encourage admins with preexisting prejudices to act on them, or to encourage allegations that this had happened. This is especially true if people start getting ambushed by sudden determinations that transvestitism in general or the "santorum" neologism are actually "related to sexology". So ideally - don't do this. And if you do do this, put as many high fences around as small a number of affected articles as you can in order to reduce the rate at which the disease can spread. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Thryduulf

Proposed principles (by Thryduulf)

Misplaced Pages is not a platform for advocacy

1) Misplaced Pages articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Abridged from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PSYCH#Content of Misplaced Pages articles. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a forum for disputes from elsewhere

2) The primary purpose of Misplaced Pages is to write an encyclopedia. Importing disputes from other venues into the English Misplaced Pages, including from real life or from other Wikimedia projects, is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verbatim from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb#Misplaced Pages is not a forum for disputes from elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

3) Misplaced Pages is a reference work. Use of the site for political, ideological or similar struggles accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adapted from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Misplaced Pages is not a battleground and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous and pseudonymous editing is permitted

4) Editors may choose whether to disclose their real-world identities on Misplaced Pages or to edit anonymously or pseudonymously. For a variety of reasons, a majority of Wikipedians edit anonymously or pseudonymously. It is believed the opportunity to edit anonymously or pseudonymously increases participation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adapted slightly from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb#Personal identifying information. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Outing is not permitted

5) Editors who choose not to disclose their real-world identities have the right to do so without fear that another will attempt to out them and/or cause them difficulties in the real world.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is new but is based on WP:OUTING and various principles relating to it, anonymous editing and disclosure of personal information. The wording is possibly not ideal. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact (by Thryduulf)

Proposed remedies (by Thryduulf)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Jokestress topic banned

1) user:Jokestress is topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to sexology and paraphilias, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose: I have concerns that this proposal will give Cantor a free pass when his on-wiki activity is arguably bad, if not worse. To Jokestress's credit, she doesn't game the rules as much as Cantor seems to be doing. Will be willing to support a mutual topic ban plus general sanctions, though. Sceptre 17:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is what I proposed at AN/I where it got widespread (but not consensus) support. It should therefore be at least considered here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with this proposal, I would suggest it be expanded or supplemented to James Cantor being restricted to talk page edits only on sexology-related articles. This would offset the concern that he would get a "free pass" while still allowing him to provide expert commentary on areas where he has published in peer reviewed journals and thus unarguably possesses expertise.

We acknowledge that experts often have COIs and problems editing in their areas of expertise, but we do try to work with them and retain them. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've not seen any evidence presented that suggests James Cantor should be restricted from talk pages (which this proposal does for Jokestress), so I suggest that for clarity any restriction on his participation on articles should be a separate remedy. I'm not currently convinced that such a restriction is necessary though, but I note that not all evidence has been presented yet and so my opinion may change. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

While I can see the pragmatic logic of WLU's proposal in offsetting concerns, based upon the diffs offered in evidence thus far, and conceding that his edits may be imperfect on occasion (e.g. this factually accurate but inappropriate addition: ), there doesn't appear to be any overriding necessity at this point in time to restrict James Cantor solely to sexology talk pages. Doing so may also impact on article quality in this field as the vast majority of Cantor's edits are well sourced and improve content. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I would have something to say here, but I am too scared. Hans Adler 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I support this. I think the evidence shows she does not edit fairly in this subject field; I think her evidence during this case shows she does not recognize this, and would therefore not be able to follow any restrictions and that therefore a complete broad topic ban is necessary. Despite some problems when he got started, I think Cantor does edit fairly and expertly, and his editing should be encouraged, with no need to restrict it to talk pages. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• My main concern about Jokestress is not her content editing, and even not her bias (yes, it is obvious), but her off-wiki attack website with blacklist of other participants, as I noted in Evidence. I believe this is the most serious problem, especially taking into account her words about their organization ("We mobilized all around the world as never before"). I remember one highly productive participant who was site-banned at the ANI for making a defamatory off-wiki posting about another user (unless I am mistaken). I believe arbitrators should tell something about this problem. If they think this is not a problem, it would be a very bad sign from my perspective. My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress and James Cantor mutual interaction ban

2) user:Jokestress and user: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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is what I proposed at AN/I where it got widespread (but not consensus) support. It should therefore be at least considered here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement (by Thryduulf)

Enforcement by block of topic and interaction bans

1) If any party breaches a topic or interaction ban they are subject to, they may be blocked for a short period of up to 1 week for a first offence and rising to blocks of up to one year for a third offence and indefinite for a fourth or subsequent breach.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Wnt

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

Andrea James and James Cantor are well-known, respected professionals who think and speak about sexual issues from widely different perspectives, and Misplaced Pages is grateful for their service. The dispute that has arisen is rooted in the issue of medicalization of sexual diversity. The determination of what is normal versus pathological variation in human behavior can be highly emotional and has real-world consequences that can extend, in some instances, even to the indefinite imprisonment of some individuals, and therefore has a powerful political dimension. The Misplaced Pages policy determination of whether special medical rules apply to articles about these conditions is, therefore, a polarizing decision that tends to beg the question of which side is correct in the first place. The tendency of professionals to have material conflicts of interest, and the difficulty of discerning between these and mere schools of opinion, further complicates these decisions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

JC is a professional academic researcher in the general field; AJ is a professional commentator and author on the subject; these are two different forms of expertise, and not necessarily to be balanced against each other. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policies provide insufficient guidance on POV deletions

Although WP:COI and WP:NPOV mention deletion in passing, and WP:Articles for deletion references COI, no existing policy clearly prohibits the nomination of articles for deletion by those ideologically motivated to suppress coverage of a topic, even those with a history of nominating articles that were later kept. However, this behavior initiates or exacerbates conflicts throughout Misplaced Pages.

I should note that yes, WP:NPOV says that text should not be deleted based on whether it is biased; however it is not so clear that this calls for an examination of whether the person proposing the text for deletion for this or other wrong reasons is doing so out of bias. Misplaced Pages has been more diligent about additions than removals - i.e. the NPOV policy says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" but not "Avoid removing seriously contested assertions as false". This is not something for ArbCom to resolve, but it is a sea change in community policy that would be required for Misplaced Pages to recover, especially since deletions of new articles are a key cause of editor loss.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

We do remove articles if the are biased beyond reasonable remedy, because the bias can be considered advocacy, which is a violation of WP:NOT and a clear reason for deletion, unless it can be adequately dealt with. If it is entirely advocacy, it's even a reason for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G11,

With respect to removing biased test, WP:NPOV was cited incompletely, the section reads: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. " Note the "as a general rule" and "solely". When the section cannot be edited or balanced, or the statement qualified, we do routinely remove such material--again, on the basic principle that WP cannot be used for promotion. There are of course other forms of bias than that used for promoting a cause, but in the matters discussed here, promoting a particular cause or view on a subject is exactly what is at issue. (I recognize that claims have been made that some of the editing is due to a more general bias against those of any one of several particular sexual orientation; such claims would require very clear evidence and I do not think that's been demonstrated.) DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed principles

"Opposition research" can be a form of harassment

The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Misplaced Pages articles may be.

As I unsuccessfully suggested previously, the mere fact that we know who an editor is does not mean that it is proper to discuss her or his off-wiki activities or beliefs for use against him or her in on-Wiki processes. There can be no sense of legitimacy here, as opposed to partisanship on these highly charged issues, unless participants feel that they are being evaluated based on their on-Wiki conduct and not our opinions about the totality of their beliefs. Wnt (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:James Cantor

Proposed principles

What is not a SPA

From SPATG: It is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. Subjects like spiders, nutrition, baseball, and geometry are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is a SPA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Herostratus

Introductory notes

I hope I'm doing this right; clerks, you have my permission to move or redact material as appropriate.

I don't have enough knowledge to say anything useful about James Cantor, James Cantor vs. Jokestress, sexology articles in general, or James Cantor or Jokestress editing sexology articles in general. I just have the three specific proposals below.

Proposed principles

Sex and young people

1) Misplaced Pages material regarding the intersection of sex and young people ought to be treated with very special care, and -- perhaps more than any other topic -- the Misplaced Pages should be very conservative about giving a platform for non-mainstream views. The reasons for this, besides normal encyclopedic concerns (per WP:FRINGE) are practical (our reputation) and moral (not in term of sexual morality of course, but in terms of potentially giving anyone the wrong idea if you see what I mean -- not a very nice thing for us to ever be doing).

I know this is not a "core principle" or anything that can really be written down, but come on: this is just practical and right.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anonymity, and fear

2A) At this time, editor anonymity is a basic core pillar of the Misplaced Pages, and is part of the basic "deal" we accept and expect when we register to edit the Misplaced Pages. While it is perfectly acceptable to campaign against this as a general principle, it's not OK to harp on individual editors for choosing to remain anonymous or discount their contributions.

2B) Misplaced Pages editors ought to be able to able to edit the Misplaced Pages without fear of real-life repercussions. I grant that Misplaced Pages editors who choose to edit anonymously must be expected to always keep their guard up, to a reasonable degree, and be careful about dropping identifying clues. But editors who, by whatever means, give another editor reasonable cause to believe that he might be in for a hard time in real life should he perhaps fail to keep his anonymity guard up do not enhance the atmosphere of the Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I fully support this. 2B relates to harassment and outing, which are explicitly not tolerated behaviours. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress's accomplishments

3) Jokestress is an extremely able, productive, and useful editor over a broad swath of topic areas. Just look at the number of articles she's created -- many hundreds, I believe. And being hauled before the ArbCom has got to be a depressing headache. Nobody's perfect, and while Jokestress might be advised to stay away from some few areas that are personally, emotionally, and professionally fraught for her, she's a hell of a good editor in a lot of other areas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Well, I guess something like:

1. Jokestress's contributions to material relating to sex and young people are not a net positive.
2. Jokestress has annoyed editors about their being anonymous, and given a reasonable person cause to fear being outed, and maybe harassed after.
3. When she's not getting into sexology and so forth, Jokestress is a very good editor.

Proposed remedies

Jokestress enjoined from editing in some areas

1) User:Jokestress should be enjoined from editing material involving sex and young people, broadly construed, such as Hebephilia and Adult sexual interest in children and so forth. Forever. (I have insufficient knowledge to recommend whether or not this should be expanded to include all articles in the general area of "Sexology", as others have suggested.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jokestress admonished

2) User:Jokestress should be admonished not to taunt editors who chose to edit anonymously, especially in fraught areas, for as for instance here: ("I see an undisclosed COI from an pseudonymous (editor). Perhaps you'd like to join those of us who identify ourselves for purposes of transparency... James Cantor accidentally outed himself; perhaps you can be more intentional. That goes for everyone else using fake names here as well. It's very easy to make accusations while hypocritically hiding behind a username.")

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jokestress commended

3) User:Jokestress should be be formally commended by the ArbCom for her many fine contributions, especially in light of being dragged before this tribunal-like proceeding. Yes I know this is not part of ArbCom's brief but don't care. We are encyclopedists not clerks at the DMV, and in the spirit of Wikilove and WP:IAR we need to care for our wounded. Besides, don't you guys get tired of always just punishing? You're supposed to be sort of a stand-in for Jimbo, and he'll praise people now and again.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Whatever's usual

1) I don't know -- however these things are enforced. Warn her then block her if she edits in those areas, I suppose. (What constitutes "material relating to sex and young people" is debatable; common sense should prevail.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

None

2) Just an admonishment, so I don't know what "enforcement" would entail. She just shouldn't do it any more and I'm confident she won't.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Barnstar

3) We need to keep editors like Jokestress humming along and happy, so whatever you think'll help do that. Maybe a barnstar, either signed by all the member so the ArbCom or by a member in the name of the ArbCom. It's a wiki, and there's a first time for everything.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Jokestress

Proposed principles

Misplaced Pages is affected by systemic bias

1) The Misplaced Pages project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting in an imbalanced coverage of a subject, thereby discriminating against the less represented demographic groups.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Scientism is one form of Misplaced Pages's systemic bias

2) René König of Maastricht University Virtual Knowledge Studio (2011): "The results of my case study are in line with other work that noticed a scientism bias (Geser 2008) and characterized the encyclopaedia as 'deeply conservative.'”

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Retaliatory editing is a form of personal attack

3) Civility is part of Misplaced Pages's code of conduct and one of Misplaced Pages's five pillars. Users who hold certain beliefs about an editor, that editor's on- or off-wiki activity, or that editor's characteristics, sometimes express those beliefs in problematic ways.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The first sentence is undoubtedly a principle and is worth including. The second sentence reads as a finding of fact and needs to be supported by example diffs. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors must assume good faith

4) Avoid accusing others of bad faith without clear evidence that indicates bad faith. Making such claims often serves no purpose, and can be seen as inflammatory and hence can aggravate a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Notable Wikipedians face unique forms of problematic conduct

5) Notable Wikipedians are susceptible to a range of personal attacks to which other editors are not. These include changes to articles made during disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This needs to be more specific - how do changes to articles made during disputes affect notable Wikipedians differently to other Wikipedians? In what way are such changes personal attacks? How do the two sentences relate to each other? Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be providing details on all of these after the evidence phase closes. Jokestress (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP rules are the same for everyone. They must be followed regardless to participation of the subject in wikipedia, regardless to the ongoing arbitration, etc. For example, here I removed negative information about a living person per BLP rules. Text tells (a simplification): "Andrea criticized Bailey" (yes, this is fine) and "Bailey is bad" (no, that does not belong because the page is about Andrea, not Bailey). This is not a "personal attack" on Andrea as claimed in Evidence . My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles on minor-attracted adults show a pattern of tag team ownership

6) The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The section title here is a proposed finding of fact (and I don't recall seeing any evidence presented that supports it). The actual text is a principle though, and would be better titled something like "tag team ownership", but again I don't recall seeing evidence of article ownership in this manner. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

How does one distinguish between "tag team ownership" versus "a consensus that one disagrees with"? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Paid advocacy is a conflict of interest

7) Paid advocacy is any contribution or edit to Misplaced Pages content that advocates for your employer's point of view.

Paid advocacy can include subsidized advocacy, where an editor draws a salary from an organization, then edits Misplaced Pages to promote ideas and people associated with that organization. Taking evidence from the CAMH/"hebephilia" matter that brought us here as an example:

Such cautions notwithstanding, the unique composition of the DSM-5 sexual disorders workgroup heavily favors adoption of these empirically suspect diagnoses. The chair of the Paraphilias Subworkgroup turns out to be none other than Ray Blanchard, the first author of the research study upon which the proposal is based, and indeed Blanchard is using his DSM workgroup post to lobby for the diagnosis. The chair of the larger Sexual Disorders Work Group, meanwhile, is Kenneth Zucker, who is chief psychologist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, where the research was conducted. Furthermore, Zucker and study coauthors Blanchard and James Cantor serve together on the editorial board of the journal that published the study. Thus, the CAMH group is poised to exert tremendous influence over the revision process for the DSM-5 sexual disorders and, by extension, the shape of forensic diagnosis of sex offenders for some time to come.

Blanchard held a position above Cantor at CAMH. Describing them as the "CAMH group" or variants is shorthand, because promotion of concepts like "hebephilia" emanates from work carried out at CAMH and publications by its employees. Cantor is the top editor of Blanchard's bio and has added Blanchard's work and ideas throughout Misplaced Pages, despite much of that work being controversial and not accepted by medical and legal consensus, like "hebephilia."

If that currently isn't considered paid advocacy, I feel we need some consensus around whether or not that is COI editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No. "Paid advocacy" is engaging in advocacy in exchange for payment. Advocating for your employer's point of view when that advocacy is not what you are being paid for (i.e. whether you advocate for them or not you still get paid your salary) is simply advocacy, although I don't really see much of a need to distinguish between paid and unpaid advocacy in the majority of cases (including this one).

It is also important to stress that it is possible to edit in a manner which supports or reflects your employer's POV without engaging in advocacy or other unacceptable editing. For example if your employer's POV is notable but not mentioned/under represented in an article then editing that article to neutrally include an appropriate mention is not advocacy. Of course one has to be careful to avoid a conflict of interest (or the appearance of one) but this is entirely possible and uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

My employer (a publicly funded hospital and university teaching hospital) has no policy on any topic here at all, and no evidence has been presented that it does. Indeed, no such institution ever does have any such policy. Academic environments encourage debate and include very many varying points of view. So, although I agree with the WP policy, in the absence of evidence that my employer has any policy about any of these topics, this would not seem relevant. (Advocacy stances that my employer does take are available from their website and pertain to issues such as fighting the stigma of mental illness, homelessness among the mentally ill, etc.)— James Cantor (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: That's a quote from Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. I believe it's important to affirm as a finding of fact that James Cantor is editing about his employer and over-representing their POV, especially at hebephilia. Their POV should be about 10% of that article, and 90% should reflect the medical and legal consensus. Jokestress (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Any advocacy, paid or not, is prohibited per WP:SOAP, except wikipedia-related advocacy (such as wikipedia essays). However, as explained in WP:SOAP, "as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view", this is not advocacy. Hence this is very much a subjective judgement of arbitrators, whether or not a reasonable attempt to describe the topic from a neutral point of view was made. My very best wishes (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? I have heard about the DSM-5, and I have heard about the CAMH, but who is this Karen Franklin, and who cares about her article published in a journal with impact factor 0.962? 67.255.120.20 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Expert retention can be misused as pretext for advocacy

8) Subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Misplaced Pages. Advocacy can include over-representing an employer's POV, or POV deletions of opposing views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Attributing views to editors can be a personal attack

9) Comments posted on Misplaced Pages suggesting that an editor may be pro-pedophile or similar language should be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of possible libel. Comments suggesting an editor advocates or advances such views or similar language should also be RevDeleted promptly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 4

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: