Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-04-22/Arbitration report

Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban

The case started off-wiki in a bitter academic dispute between James Cantor and Jokestress, who are open about their real life identities, James Cantor and Andrea James. The case was brought by Mark Arsten, after the community was unable to agree on an interaction ban or a topic ban for James Cantor, Andrea James, or both.

The on-wiki conflict originated in the hebephilia article, which deals with the classification criteria of mental disorders for adults with a sexual preference for pubescent children, but involved other articles on paraphilias and transgenderism as well. James Cantor has been accused of using his own publications as sources for the articles, and of negatively editing Andrea James’ Wikipedia article; Andrea James has been accused of promoting fringe theories.

The proposed findings of fact that have passed as of this writing are:

No findings of fact were proposed for Mr. Cantor.

Proposed remedies that have passed to date are:

Arbitrators were sharply divided over whether to prohibit James Cantor from editing “hebephilia, biographies of sexology researchers, and related advocates”. Six votes were needed for passage; there were 3 support, 3 oppose, and 2 abstain, with a third arbitrator withdrawing after seeing how the case was proceeding.[1]

In the case, brought by Lecen, an editor is accused of systematically skewing several articles involving former Argentinean president Juan Manuel de Rosas in order to portray a brutal dictator as a democratic leader, in keeping with the political motives of Argentinian "nationalists" or "revisionists".

The arbitration committee is looking for uninvolved editors with expertise in Argentina and the Spanish language to participate in the workshop phase of the case.

The evidence stage closed 12 April 2013, and a proposed decision is scheduled for 26 April 2013, though these dates may be extended by the recent floods in Buenos Aires, which have adversely affected an editor involved in the case.

This case was brought to the Committee by KillerChihuahua, who alleges the discussion over this American political group has degenerated into incivility. Evidence for the case was due by March 20, 2013, and a proposed decision scheduled for April 3, 2013.

• Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal: This request, brought by IRWolfie, seeks to clarify the relationship between privacy and conflict of interest in a situation where employees of a transcendental meditation institute may be editing an article related to that institute.
• Request for clarification (April 2013) - Ebrahimi-amir ban appeal: An appeal of an Armenia-Azerbaijan topic ban was declined.
• Amendment request: GoodDay: In this request, brought by his mentor, Steven Zhang, the committee voted for a one year ban under a previous arbitration case.
• Request for clarification: Transcendental meditation movement: A request for clarification made by Keithbob regarding the transcendental meditation movement, which is under discretionary sanctions, and tagging of articles was closed, with the general advice that tags should not be applied routinely to broad categories, but only to articles that are under discretionary sanctions and that have seen problems, or where such tags might be helpful.
• Procedural issues at Arbitration Enforcement: A request for clarification brought by Gatoclass was archived with no action. The arbitration committee indicated they would review the issues of arbitration enforcement and discretionary sanctions in May 2013.
• Monty Hall problem: An amendment request made to the committee by Martin Hogbin for amendment of the remedies, including removal of discretionary sanctions, was archived without a decision after several of the arbitrators expressed reservations about loosening sanctions at this time.
• Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure: A request to clarify the appeal process for discretionary sanctions warnings was filed by Sandstein

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

22 April 2013 (all comments)

In the media

WikiProject report

News and notes

Featured content

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

• As expected, we see ArbCom being used to the benefits of angry cabals and special interest groups on the encyclopedia, as opposed to protecting valuable content builders from having their work eroded by POV warriors. Wer900 • talk 22:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• So, wait, we're going to prohibit a noted subject-matter expert -- one notable enough to have her own WP article -- from editing within her topic area of expertise? This seems very ill-considered. Powers ^T 16:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems very well-considered by me. Experts are often able to act in a way that exhibits the only true marker of adulthood, the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. But "often" isn't "always". Academia has its own, imperfect, way of dealing with the cases where experts are in conflict. And we have ours. Where an expert or experts turn wikipedia into a new battleground for his, her or their off-wiki disagreements, the benefit to the project of their expertise is outweighed by the disruption they cause. Here, ArbCom is asked to fashion a remedy for what no sane person could dispute is disruptive behavior by at least one expert. I can't help with that. They have a thankless job. I CAN help with that. Yo, ArbCom: Thanks. David in DC (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except they only took action against one half of the problem, thereby for all practical purposes officially endorsing the actions of the other. It is deeply troubling that Cantor is not being topic banned as well, considering his obvious bias and self-promotional activities. It seems like he's getting a pass because the opinion he is pushing is more socially acceptable, despite it not having the academic backing he pretends it does. DreamGuy (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]