User:Razr Nation/Case/Hebephilia

Hebephilia Incident[edit]

Initiated by — Mark Arsten (talk) at 02:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties[edit]

Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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 · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Diff. 1
Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Mark Arsten[edit]

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.

Statement by {Party 2}[edit]

Statement by {Party 3}[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

Hebephilia Incident: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>[edit]

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