Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Penwhale (Talk) & Ks0stm (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: David Fuchs (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes


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)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

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.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties

Requests for comment

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by Mark Arsten

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.

Statement by Sceptre

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]

Statement by Legitimus

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]

Statement by James Cantor

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]

Statement by WLU

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]

Statement by Flyer22

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]

Statement by Herostratus

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]

Statement by Jokestress

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:

  • 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]

Statement by Dan Murphy

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]

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes

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

Sexology: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <10/0/1/1>

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

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


Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

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

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

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)

Consensus

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)

Conflict of interest

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)

Tendentious editing

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)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

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)

Dealing with conflicts of interest

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)

Good faith and disruption

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)

Off-wiki controversies and biographical articles

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)

Limitations of arbitration

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)

Findings of fact[edit]

Jokestress and James Cantor

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)

Jokestress

Conflict of interest allegations

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)

Jokestress' off-wiki behavior

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)

Off-wiki conduct during the case

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)

Remedies[edit]

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 and James Cantor mutual interaction ban

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)

Jokestress topic-banned from human sexuality

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

2.1) Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles.

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)

Discretionary sanctions

Rescinded by motion at 23:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC). Note: Discretionary sanctions authorized in the GamerGate arbitration case, which may apply to this topic area, remain available.

4.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).

Passed 7 to 2, 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Amended to change "articles" to "pages"

Passed 7 to 1 by Motion, 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion at 23:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

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.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments[edit]

Sexology: Motion 2 (November 2017)

Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is rescinded. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy to date shall remain in force unaffected.

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

Sexology: Motion to amend Jokestress' topic ban (November 2019)

Remedy 2.1 of Sexology ("Jokestress topic-banned from human sexuality") is amended to read:

Jokestress (talk · contribs) 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 7 to 0 by motion at 06:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

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.

Notifications

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.

  • 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]

Sanctions

Category