Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Case Opened on 03:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Case Closed on 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 23:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 06:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page unless you are an Arbitrator or Clerk, or are making yourself a party to this case. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; as such, they should never be changed. (In the case of lengthy statements, an excerpt only may be given here, in which case the full copy will be added to the talk page—where any statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be saved.) Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should be added to the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page should not be edited. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of remedies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

• Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Jokestress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• James Cantor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Flyer22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Herostratus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KimvdLinde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Legitimus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This dispute largely revolves around our articles on paraphilias, particularly those that relate to transgenderism. James Cantor (talk · contribs) and Jokestress (talk · contribs) have been actively editing this area for some time, and they have often come into conflict with each other. Each has faced charges of POV pushing in our sexology articles. They each contend that the other is promoting biased information about scientists and unscientific information about sexology. They have been in conflict on many articles' talk pages and in Afds. Examples include here, here, here, and here. Both editors are open about their identities (James Cantor and Andrea James), and they have each been involved in high-profile off-wiki controversies in the field of sexology.

This case request was sparked by a dispute in our article on hebephilia. It led to an ANI thread, visible here. My involvement with this began when I closed an Afd in which they debated each other. I was concerned with the intensity of the interactions between them, and when I saw an ANI thread, I got involved and opined in favor of an interaction ban. During the course of the discussion, I became very concerned about Jokestress' use of Wikipedia to attack researchers she disagrees with. Recent examples are here and here. Several commentators who participated in the thread felt that Cantor was giving undue weight to his own work and the work of his colleges in several of our articles. He claims that this criticism is political in nature. While some felt that Jokestress was countering Cantor's bias, others saw her edits as POV pushing.

These claims are difficult to verify without understanding of an obscure subject area. There was fairly strong support at ANI for an interaction ban between Cantor and Jokestress, and most people who participated agreed that either James Cantor or Jokestress (or both) should be topic banned from paraphilias or sexology, but there was no consensus reached about the proposed bans. Subsequently, a number of the participants agreed that this could only be solved through arbitration--and I agree with them. At this point, I think it is safe to say that it is nearly impossible to improve articles on paraphilias due to the intensity of the dispute, so I ask the Arbitration committee to accept this request. I've included Flyer22, WLU, Herostratus, and KimvdLinde as parties because they were all involved in the dispute on the talk page of Hebephilia and in the ANI thread.

Edit: Added Legitimus (talk · contribs) per request on my talk page.

I admit I screwed up the name when I filed this. It does have a much broader scope than Hebephilia.

I'm adding myself as an involved party due to my involvement in the ANI thread, but I think this is the meaty case that ArbCom was designed for. As I've said on several times over the past week, there are many facets of this dispute, including questions about importing a (now-ten-year-long) dispute onto the encyclopedia, the promotion of fringe theories on-and-off-wiki, professional conduct on-and-off-wiki, when expert editing becomes COI-editing (and vice-versa, when outsider editing may compromise neutrality), and even encyclopedic treatment of a maligned minority, especially when said maligning comes from otherwise reliable sources. Of course, the committee's remit is limited, but I still think it's in everyone's interest for it to be taken up here rather than at AN/I where battle lines seem to be pre-drawn. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Thryduulf to a point regarding naming, but I think "paraphilias" is a little too restricted to the dispute. There are issues with gender identity disorders (i.e. alternative taxonomy and typology of transgenderism) as well as sexual identity disorders (i.e. paraphilias) in the dispute. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hans Adler: I don't think it's wise or helpful to this dispute to obliquely compare the actions of Jokestress to the actions of pedophiles. The NYT article, and indeed the Dreger paper, only really tell Bailey's side of the story in the off-wiki dispute. While, were I in her place, I would not have taken some of the actions that she did, it is important to actually properly know the context of what she did before jumping to such a conclusion. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say all of these other users summed it up nicely and between all of them you probably get the picture. As for my take on things, I admit I do tend to side with James Cantor most of the time. I have no off-wiki association with him or any of his colleagues, nor do I necessarily agree with all his group's published works. But when the chips are down, he is both a qualified professional and one of very few scientists involved in this dispute to have done actual primary research. A great deal of the professional works being stacked against his group's work are little more than editorializing. Some of these individuals, such as Franklin, appear to have personal stakes in discrediting this research, given her history of defending criminals for money. As for me, I don't care one way or the other if hebephilia is a mental disorder, so long as it's acknowledged that there are people out there who specifically target this population for victimization.

As for Jokestress, yes she seems very bright and writes very nicely, but she is not a professional in any kind of mental health discipline and has far less defensible biases. We previously interacted on the pedophilia article, and her remarks in these sections [1] [2] [3] gave me a very uneasy feeling. Read them for yourself and make your own judgment; for what it's worth, I've heard most of them before. But sometimes it's not so much the biases as it's how she goes about expressing them. The shear ferocity and incivility I've witnessed makes me want to keep my interaction with her to a minimum, even if it means staying away from articles she set's her crosshairs on. During the discussion about hebephilia, she accused myself and others of hiding behind anonymous usernames and made several actions that appeared to be attempts to "out" us.

This included trying to send me e-mails, or at least claiming she did[4] which I don't doubt was some kind of ploy to bait me into replying, thus revealing my personal e-mail address to her. Her large volume of experience with wikipedia also means she knows how to use the system to her advantage, like any skilled lawyer knows how to use the courts. That kind of behavior right there freaks me out, and makes me not want to ever post anywhere she's part of the thread. I can confidently say Cantor has never insulted me nor has ever made me fearful that he would take action against me if I disagreed with him.Legitimus (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very much endorse Mark Arsten’s summary.

In 2003, Andrea James began a campaign of harassment against J. Michael Bailey, anyone she thought associated with him, and anyone who ever spoke positively about him, including multiple other activists and figures in the trans community.[5] Her off-wiki attacks became so notable as to be reported by the NYTimes [6]. Since 2003, she has created off-wiki attack sites against them,[7] joined WP, and although a widely productive editor in general, began manipulating sexology pages to reflect her POV. (Indeed, the NYTimes mentions the WP conflict, already that notable, a year before I ever made any WP edit). Although I had the greatest access to RSs by which to reveal the POV pushing, Jokestress' bullying of any editor not agreeing with her particular brand of politics has made it impossible for anyone (even other openly trans wikipedians who do not share Jokestress' view) to edit Sexology pages, including pages I have never edited at all.

Following extended conversation at AN/I, interested and uninvolved editors recommended (in addition to an interaction ban) a topic ban for Jokestress (16), Cantor (2), or both (2).[8] (I appreciate discussion is not voting, but at least one other editor found this list a helpful guideline.) As discussion continued, however, some felt that no meaningful ruling could be made/enforced by a single admin, and the present request was filed by one of the uninvolved editors.

PLEASE NOTE: I expect to be away Feb 21-Mar 3, as well as scattered periods in March/April. I am happy to list them, if appropriate.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that this is not the time/place to contest claims made by other parties, but MrADHD's accusation is incorrect, as fact-checking shows: I started on WP in May 2008, using a regular (anonymous) account for two months[9], then began editing under my own name in July 2008[10], immediately linked the accounts[11]), and never made any "stealth" edit in the >4 years since.[12][13] As I say, this is not the time/place for such a discussion, and I am happy to revert this if appropriate, but I did not think the reversal of the timeline should be left untagged either.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re Hans Adler's observation: Both the NYTimes article author and the peer reviewed article author asked for interviews, and both were turned down. The author of the peer reviewed article is explicit about this in her article, and the subject of the NYTimes article explicitly discusses turning down the reporter here. — James Cantor (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both James Cantor and Jokestress are problematic on sex and gender-related pages. However, James Cantor is a recognized expert who has acknowledged his COI regarding sources and agreed not to edit (I have acted as an intermediary on some articles, reviewing sources and incorporating as appropriate, turning down when not). Jokestress is an experienced editor who also has a COI (being a male-to-female transsexual and having a history of activism that is both aggressive and unpalatable; Skinwalker linked a NYT article above, I would urge the arbitrators to read this far more detailed and lengthy article). However, she edits and tags articles quite freely with no apparent appreciation for how her POV and dislike of CAMH staff may bias her contributions. In addition, some of her actions on-wiki such as this one and this one show a troubling concern with real-life identities - troubling because of her real-life activism and the effects it had on J. Michael Bailey. Anyone aware of that history may find such efforts to determine, or allude to real-life identifies having a chilling effect - a concern I and Herostratus agree on. Jokestress also seems to not assume good faith of other editors, or at least not me; note the discussion here where an inarguably minor edit pointing to an inarguably reliable source resulted in a lengthy BLPN and accusations I made these minor and unproblematic changes out of spite. But perhaps I'm tilting at windmills.

An interaction ban and a modified topic ban would seem to address this (Jokestress being restricted from editing sex and gender articles, James Cantor restricted to editing only talk pages of the same articles) but that's a decision for the arbitrators. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed my overlong post in favour of this summary: Jokestress' opening comment seems to consist of four ideas. That she has The Truth, that she has no conflict of interest, that her contributions are unproblematic and that her actions are justified. I disagree for essentially two reasons - wikpedia is not a soapbox, place for advocacy or a place to right great wrongs, and wikipedia is based on what can be verified in reliable sources, in accordance with their prominence among experts. The problem isn't that Jokestress is a transsexual woman or a bad editor, the problem is a history of problematic activism leading to an inability to civilly interact with other editors in good faith (Thanks to KimvdLinde for helping me clarify my thinking on this point) combined with the belief in the correctness of her actions - a failure to see her own bias and COI. Everybody has biases, some of these biases are strong enough to make editing appropriate (particularly when there is evidence of this fact), but fortunately the insistence on an accurate summary of reliable sources can quite neatly address this point. I think both Jokestress and James Cantor would be well-served by pointing out missing or inappropriately summarized sources, not by insisting their are the final arbiters of content. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like others, I recognize the issues with James Cantor's editing. I also acknowledge that I am not the most neutral person to comment about Jokestress. The problems between the two of us, which also made her a problem for some others, started with the creation and deletion of the Adult sexual interest in children article. She wanted an article that covers all adult sexual interest in children, including non-pedophilic interest (such as child sexual abusers who are not pedophiles; yes, those exist, which the Pedophilia and Child sexual abuse articles already address); to this end, she also wanted the article to cover what she considers normal adult sexual interest in children (prepubescents and non-prepubescents). When she did not get her way with that article, she tried to turn the Pedophilia article into that article, disregarding WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Refer to this discussion where we talk about it again. In that discussion, which she repeats her POV of "normal adult sexual interest in prepubescent children," I also mentioned how, when we get pro-pedophilia editors and/or editors who advocate adult-child sexual relationships (with prepubescent children or with any minor under the age of consent), she sometimes supports them, such as User:Cataconia, and that "[a]ll [she does] with regard to [that] article is stalk out its talk page and take the time to violate WP:TALK to complain about the editors [she] disagrees with, especially if [she sees] a chance to criticize James Cantor, any time [she sees] fit, all while trying to make [her] complaints relevant to whatever topic [she is] responding to." Here are diff-links showing that behavior, including support of Cataconia:[14][15][16]. I mentioned that she should have been banned from that talk page a long time ago or should have banned herself from it because her posts there are unproductive and continuously combative. I noted that Wikipedia is not a battleground and that her taunting, combative rants and/or spiels do not belong there. The kinds of views Jokestress accuses us of constantly shutting down at the Pedophilia article and related articles are expressed by the WP:CHILD PROTECT policy.

I and others stress that Jokestress has a clear non-medicalization POV, in which, for example, she treats all paraphilias as a normal variation of human sexuality. She has made plenty of comments about rejecting medicalization of sexuality, often times acting inappropriately toward James Cantor while she's at it; see, for example, her comments in this discussion (which has subsections) at the List of paraphilias article. This toxic environment that results when Jokestress interacts with Cantor and/or others she dislike/hates, such as me, needs to stop. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I significantly reduced the size of my above comment, per the 500-word limit (it's within limit, disregarding three of the diff-links and this note). Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should accept the case; if you do I'll make an argument for finding a way to encourage Jokestress (an extremely accomplished and valuable editor who has written or started hundreds of articles in many topic areas) to not edit in this one area which is so personally, professionally, and emotionally fraught for her.

Beyond that, I'd recommend that people pay special attention to whatever Legitimus has to say when considering these topics. He's learned, erudite, even-tempered, reasonably affable, and generally in the mainstream but also open-minded. He's a key asset here. Heed him. Herostratus (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22’s edits attacking me were oversighted as actionable libel. Same with edits by Legitimus, Herostratus, and WLU. Their goal is obtaining sanctions against me, even a pyrrhic victory involving sanctions against them. For now, I’m ignoring all misstatements above and attempts to paint me as the main problem, a psychopathic criminal (!), etc.

I was first to request ArbCom, though I believe an interaction ban and agreement by all not to edit in Sexology article space should be tried first.

If this is to be our Ragnarök, let’s expand this case to include those who’ve escalated disagreements with me or James Cantor to noticeboards. Those named above are only part of the problem. Rather than collaborating, some editors run to noticeboards and rehash complaints about our off-wiki activity, often from over 10 years ago. Uninvolved editors react to that instead of the current dispute.

If this proceeds, I’ll make this case:

• My editing on sexology, taken as a whole, has significantly improved our coverage.
• With few exceptions, every edit by User:James Cantor aka User:MarionTheLibrarian aka User:WriteMakesRight promotes himself and his friends or denigrates their critics. He’s a single-purpose account and activist minority in his field abusing “expert retention” for self-promotion, the worst I’ve seen in my nearly nine years and 49,000+ edits.
• James Cantor’s alliance of sympathetic proxies effectively owns articles in Sexology. They manufacture “consensus” that misrepresents or suppresses much reliable and verifiable published work. It’s like chess: James Cantor is a powerful Queen with a number of Rooks, Knights, Bishops, and Pawns in play (several lost to blocks, bans, and attrition). On Wikipedia, systemic bias renders me a less-powerful Bishop, and I’ve not prevailed in most content disputes. If they get me topic-banned, they win, so they continue seeking first-move advantages.
• I endure sustained personal attacks by editors with strong emotional responses to Sexology, particularly the volatile intersection of human sexuality and legal consent such as paraphilias. As a prominent trans woman, I expect attacks on me and my work off-wiki. I should not have to endure them here.
• Anonymous editing of Sexology topics leads to bad behavior and undisclosed conflicts of interest. One of my “crimes” was asking Legitimus to clarify his COI after he defamed Karen Franklin. She is among the majority of medical and legal experts opposed to the concept of “hebephilia” championed by James Cantor. Cantor and Legitimus have focused their attacks here on Franklin.
• Psychology and sexology are often misused as agents of social control. Wikipedia’s systemic bias overemphasizes medicalization and pathologization of human sexuality. Several fields of inquiry examine sexuality, including law, feminism, philosophy of science, etc. Work in these fields routinely gets downplayed or suppressed at Sexology topics in favor of anything that appears “scientific.”
• I believe this case, if accepted, can provide guidance on:

• Systemic bias within Sexology topics.
• Expert retention vs. COI.
• Reification of spurious or pseudoscientific concepts.
• Creation of off-wiki content in order to include it here.

I propose holding the case pending consensus on including additional parties. Jokestress (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWarfare: Others involved over the years include DickLyon, WhatamIdoing, and Bali ultimate. Many may have helpful insights, including DGG, JzG, SlimVirgin, Cerejota, and Insomesia, among others. Inactive or sanctioned involved editors include Jmichaelbailey, ProudAGP/BarbaraSue, Hfarmer, Tijfo098, Bittergrey, and Skoojal. Retaliatory editing of my biography as a response to other disputes is especially problematic IMO. Jokestress (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited to comment here. Ms. James is an activist who is convinced she knows better than academics working in this area and their publications. She has a long-term track record of seriously abusive, borderline threatening, behavior towards both scholars she personally disagrees with and other transsexuals who do not share her views. The pictures with captions calling the children of one of the scholars "cock-starved exhibitionists" and so on is part of a pattern. It's clear to me what should be done here. But that's my final word on the matter.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I note that this has been accepted by the Committee. Per this diff by Jokestress, the case will probably not open until February 5 at the earliest. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @James Cantor: Of course. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting more statements. Courcelles 07:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept Courcelles 07:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's especially surprising that the community is having trouble solving the dispute on their own: having two parties in conflict come to Wikipedia to rehash a dispute over the substance behind articles connected to their conflict is something the project has very little defense against (I can remember a few other salient examples of an off-wiki dispute being replayed here that caused widespread disruption for years before they could be controlled).

  I'll wait until the two primary parties give their statement before voting on this case formally, but I'm probably going to accept this case now, before it degenerates into a wider melee. — Coren ^(talk) 13:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accept; it's clear by now that there should be a case to examine whether how the off-wiki dispute has impacted our editing process and what can be done to fix that, but it should obviously be held until Jokestress's return. — Coren ^(talk) 04:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Waiting for more statements, before making my decision, but, at first glance, there appear to be issues which ArbCom should examine and, for that reason, I am inclined to say we should accept the case. Also, if we end up accepting it, I believe it should be held in abeyance, to allow all parties to fully participate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As above, waiting to hear more statements; and I'd like to look a bit more into what the community have done so far, and the difficulties the community have encountered in finding a solution. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking about this. People are indicating that interaction bans and topic bans appear to be the solution, but that the community feel that would be unenforceable without ArbCom. Is there enough evidence here for motions? If we can deal with this matter by motion, I would prefer that to a long drawn out case that ends up coming to the same conclusion, but in the meantime creates a lot of drama on and off-Wiki. The content side of matters we can't deal with, but the conduct we can. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this case to be about anything more than the conduct of James Cantor and Jokestress? We can't deal with the off-Wiki stuff that people link to, and we can't deal with the content. All we can look at is if the conduct of editors is disrupting the project. We can spend two months arguing over the finer details, and getting some unwanted press attention into the bargain, to end up with a decision to somehow stop the disruption. If we have evidence now that two users are disruptive when they encounter each other, and they are disruptive when editing articles on a certain topic, then we can find the same workable solution today as in a very weary and unpleasant two months time. Is the question here about if these two users are being disruptive, or is the question about how to deal with that disruption? If it is clear they are disruptive, and nobody disputes that, then we don't need a case, we can just go to motions to agree on a solution. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth including Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-01 Lynn Conway as background material. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it is flattering that people think the Committee can discover hidden truths, or that the members are smarter than the average bear, the reality is that we are just a bunch of fellow Wikipedia users who have been voted in from a very, very small selection of volunteers putting themselves forward. We have no special knowledge or skills above the average Wikipedian. All the Committee can do well is make binding decisions. Sometimes those decisions are good, sometimes they are bad, mostly they are just what could be agreed upon and looked OK at the time. I think it is clear that there is enough disruption occurring between James Cantor and Jokestress that an interaction ban is justified. The editing by both James Cantor and Jokestress of sexology articles draws attention and causes concern. James Cantor has offered for some time and continues to offer a mutual topic ban. This appears fairly straightforward: two users are being disruptive when editing certain articles and when dealing with each other. The community and even one of the two main parties feel that a mutual interaction and topic ban would be appropriate. We can decide that now by motion. So, we try an interaction and topic ban for both of them, apply discretionary sanctions to the topic area, and see if that reduces the disruption. If it doesn't then we can come back and look deeper at other solutions. If it does work, then we can look at appeals to lesson the sanctions, and see how that goes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer either the community or the Committee set up interaction and topic bans and put the topic under discretionary sanctions, and for us to see how that works, but as that is now not going to happen, and we have all the statements, I'll put myself in the accept group. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC) No. On reflection, I still think a full case is wrong, so it would be inappropriate for me to register an accept vote. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept - however hold opening the case until the return of Jokestress. Risker (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Recuse. Risker (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept and hold pending the return of all parties, if that's necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept with same conditions. NW (Talk) 02:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jokestress: What additional parties do you think should be included? NW (Talk) 18:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. T. Canens (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not deal with this by motion. The complexity requires a full case. T. Canens (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. The off-wiki dimension to this dispute makes me skeptical that this is the sort of thing we should remand to the community. AGK [•] 09:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - leaning towards acceptance, but would like to hear a statement from Jokestress first. I don't think the situation is so urgent as to require acceptance before such a statement is provided. Certainly if a case is opened, a statement by Jokestress should go on the record along with those made above, and not placed out-of-context somewhere else. Once that happens, we will be in a position to decide how best to handle this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Some small delay to consider obvious additions to the list of parties to this case may be needed, but in general the list of those who are parties to a case at the point of acceptance is not fixed or formal. Those who are not parties can still be discussed within a case as long as they are notified and that notification is formally noted within the case. Carcharoth (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Worm^TT(talk) 11:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept  Roger Davies ^talk 21:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas—such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological, religious or political dispute—or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

2) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. In a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, not engage in soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as by misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive.

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

3) Guidelines on editors with a conflict of interest strongly discourage editors from contributing "in order to promote their own interests". 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.

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

4) Sustained and aggressive point-of-view editing is disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia's core content policies. Users who fail to abide by those policies may be sanctioned appropriately, up to and including banning from the site.

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

5) Wikipedia 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.

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

6) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another editor whom they suspect of having a conflict of interest in particular topic area of misbehavior without evidence in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. If they have evidence, they are expected to avail themselves of the appropriate dispute resolution forums. Where evidence cannot be publicly stated because doing so would violate the harassment policy, users are expected to contact either the Arbitration Committee or the Volunteer Response Team.

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

7) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

8) An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing the biographical article on that individual.

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

9) The purpose of Wikipedia arbitration is to resolve disputes that are affecting the Wikipedia encyclopedia and its community. Wikipedia arbitration does not address scholarly, ideological, social, or other disputes that may exist outside Wikipedia, except to the extent that they may be affecting Wikipedia itself. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any side in connection with any form of off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation or proceeding.

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

1) Jokestress (talk · contribs) and James Cantor (talk · contribs) are involved in off-wiki advocacy or activities relating to human sexuality; the topic is a primary area that the two edit on Wikipedia.

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

2) Jokestress has repeatedly asserted, without evidence, that users she is in an editorial dispute with have a conflict of interest with the topic at hand.[17][18][19]

Passed 8 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

3) Jokestress is a prominent party to an off-wiki controversy involving human sexuality, in which she has been sharply critical of certain individuals who disagree with her views, and has imported aspects of the controversy into the English Wikipedia to the detriment of the editing environment on sexuality-related articles.[20]

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

4) Off-wiki conduct of individuals not named on-wiki while this arbitration case was pending, as referred to on the case pages, is not attributable to any of the named parties to the case and has not affected this decision.

Passed 8 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

1) 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.

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

2.1) Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality and gender, including biographies of people who are primarily notable for their work in these fields.

Passed 9 to 0, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Amended 7 to 0 by motion at 06:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Passed 7 to 0 by motion at 23:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Passed 7 to 0 by motion at 06:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

On 3 May 2014 Arbcom established a new method of notifying for discretionary sanctions which is explained at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. All notices given prior to the May 2014 cutover date will expire on 3 May 2015. New notices are to be given using {{Ds/alert}} and they expire one year after they are given. No new notices should be logged here.

• 5.12.68.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) warned.  Sandstein  13:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 99.192.90.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Elaqueate (talk · contribs), Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs), Daira Hopwood (talk · contribs) notified: 99.192.* Elaqueate Sportfan5000 Daira Hopwood - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 77.107.172.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) warned. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs) and Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs) warned [21][22]. --Rschen7754 22:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs), Yworo (talk · contribs), and StAnselm (talk · contribs) warned [23][24][25]. --Rschen7754 01:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Epicgenius (talk · contribs) notified.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• JDiala (talk · contribs) notified following this edit. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Søren (talk · contribs) notified. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 24.220.174.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) warned after edit warring at Cisgender. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• KoshVorlon (talk · contribs) warned [26]. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment JHunterJ is attempting to mis-use the discretionary sanction for what he perceives as a violation on MOS . MOS is covered by a discretionary sanction, but not this one. I would ask that my name be removed, and that an impartial admin review the discussion on MOS's talk page where I explain why I removed the section.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll only note here that I am an impartial admin—I was not involved in the previous MoS disussion which I cited when reverting KoshVorlon's incorrect edit. I would be happy to hear if other admins believe that the MoS section dealing with transgender is covered by this sanction though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jokestress (talk · contribs) Blocked for 1 week for violating topic ban [27] less than 24 hours after acknowledging a warning that violations would lead to a block. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]