< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Sexology

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ks0stm (talk | contribs) at 12:49, 25 April 2013 (closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:49, 25 April 2013 by Ks0stm (talk | contribs) (closing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut

WP:ARBSEX

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

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

Misplaced Pages 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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages 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.

Support:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk)
Courcelles 15:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
AGK 15:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Some people need to actually take on board some of these points. The idealistic viewpoint is that those contributing to Misplaced Pages should do so to summarise what has been published by others, rather than to promote their own views, or to press to correct mis-interpretations or misrepresentations of what they have published. The usual way to correct such things was to publish a critique, rather than sign up to Misplaced Pages to influence the editing process. Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 03:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus

2) Misplaced Pages 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.

Support:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
(Copyedit: added "such as".) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Courcelles 15:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
AGK 15:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 03:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The principle could also mention the desirability of disclosing the conflict, where practicable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Courcelles 15:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
AGK 15:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 03:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tendentious editing

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

Support:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This draft of mine is a bit different than the usual tendentious editing principle, but I think it captures the essence. NW (Talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Courcelles 15:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
AGK 15:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 03:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

5) 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.

Support:

This case is a pretty classic example of Misplaced Pages being turned into an extension of an existing battleground, as RfAr statements made clear. No good has come of this spread, or any other. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Courcelles 15:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
AGK 15:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 03:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

There is a fine intersection at the corners of the harassment policy, conflict of interest, and assume good faith where editors might find themselves on shaky ground. COI issues are best addressed through collaborative resolution rather than talk page sniping or off-wiki activities. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It is unacceptable to accuse another editor of misconduct without evidence in any circumstances; the existence of a COI situation only makes these situations even more fraught. As for David's comment, another decision (drafted by Fred Bauder a long time ago) put this well: Our competing policies and values allowing anonyomous editing and discouraging conflict of interest "create a tension that of necessity is imperfectly resolved." Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Courcelles 15:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
AGK 23:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Per David Fuchs's comments. COI does need to be addressed where it exists, but it needs to be addressed cleanly and resolved, not allowed to drag out to the point where the dispute itself affects the editing environment for other editors. Carcharoth (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 03:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

As common sense when dealing with fraught topic areas. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Courcelles 15:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Should be obvious to any thinking person. I'd prefer to add "on pain of being beaten with sticks" at the end of the sentence, but this would probably not be in keeping with the solemn tone we try to strike in our decisions. AGK 23:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Should be common sense (and also ethical as well). Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 03:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Limitations of arbitration

9) The purpose of Misplaced Pages arbitration is to resolve disputes that are affecting the Misplaced Pages encyclopedia and its community. Misplaced Pages arbitration does not address scholarly, ideological, social, or other disputes that may exist outside Misplaced Pages, except to the extent that they may be affecting Misplaced Pages 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.

Support:

A principle perhaps not frequently hammered home. Arb decisions are not a statement of "which side is right" in any dispute. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Courcelles 16:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Good. AGK 23:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely. The corollary being to address other disputes elsewhere and to not bring them here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 03:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

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 Misplaced Pages.

Support:

I note that from a general survey of edits sexuality is a far more key component of Cantor's editing than Jokestress'; however no evidence demonstrated issues outside of this topic area. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
With some light copy editing. NW (Talk) 03:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
In evaluating all aspects of this case, we must bear in mind that the area of conflict involves professional and scholarly disputes and bitter and protracted off-wiki controversies, arising from strong disagreements as to, for example, how a group of human beings perceive and experience fundamental aspects of their existence and personhood. It is understandable that editors would bring strong feelings and beliefs to these topics, both on and off Misplaced Pages, and I would not sanction anyone merely for doing so. Nonetheless, at the end of the day, Misplaced Pages serves its community and its readers by ensuring that basic standards of editor decorum and neutrality are followed, even and perhaps especiallly in the topic-areas most fraught with controversy and edited by users with diametrically opposed viewpoints. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Could do with a touch of word-smithing, but otherwise sound. AGK 23:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not in dispute, as far as I know, though as David Fuchs notes, Jokestress does edit other areas as well, while James Cantor's edits are more narrowly focused. I'll add some general thoughts here as well, following my review of the evidence and other case pages. I agree with what was said at the end of the evidence page: "These are controversial topics where it's difficult to recruit editors who can accurately assess sources, and all competent editors are likely to come to the articles with WP:COI and some WP:POV issues." One thing I hope comes out of this case is a realisation that where 'experts' or 'advocates' help out with editing of Misplaced Pages articles, it is best if they aren't in an off-wiki conflict. Are there other sexology experts and advocates out there who are capable of editing collaboratively, and would they be willing to contribute to Misplaced Pages if the editing environment in this topic area improved, or is the entire field completely polarised? Hopefully not. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 03:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Courcelles 05:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 03:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Jokestress may have had a point in a very small number of instances, but in many others she was entirely off-base and in any event unilaterally bringing unsubstantiated accusations of a conflict of interest is entirely at odds with Misplaced Pages's standards of conduct. AGK 23:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
There are ways to appropriately raise COI concerns, but the approaches taken in the evidence linked at those diffs are not those ways. To be clear, I do think that those editing topic areas such as this should disclose any relevant COI, and I commend both Jokestress and James Cantor for openly disclosing their identities (which allows proper scrutiny of any potential COIs). Those editing pseudonymously should respect that (and should in turn disclose any COI they may have). Those those who edit openly under their own names (or disclose their identity) should not have that openness taken advantage of by others. However, those who disclose their identities should in turn respect those who wish to edit pseudonymously, and should not pry and/or use COI allegations in attempts to win disputes. It is a complex balancing act which if COI editors are to work together and collaborate productively, requires them to be aware of their own COIs and those of other editors, but use that awareness in a positive manner to work together and improve articles, not to work against each other. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The real point here I suppose is that any allegation of impropriety requires evidence to back it up. There's a longstanding principle on this ("Casting aspersions"): It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. Roger Davies 03:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger's got it, or as we've said before, serious accusations require serious evidence. Hand waving at a lack of evidence will not fly. Courcelles 05:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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 Misplaced Pages to the detriment of the editing environment on sexuality-related articles.

Support:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 03:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
AGK 23:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Added "aspects of" between "imported" and "The controversy". Please revert if you disagree, Roger Davies 03:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Courcelles 05:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Indenting for now while I look more closely. SilkTork 08:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress topic-banned from human sexuality

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

Support:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
SilkTork 10:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, this is necessary. AGK 15:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 20:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 04:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Courcelles 05:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be appropriate at this time, but I would emphasize that as per the principles above, this is not meant as a finding or conclusion with respect to any off-wiki ("real-world") dispute in which Jokestress, or anyone else, may be involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Indenting for now while I look more closely. SilkTork 08:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress banned

2.2) Jokestress (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely.

Support:

I proposed this in the initial offwiki draft. NW (Talk) 03:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

As stated above, the only area where problematic editing was discussed was in this topic; I did note a history of apparently unproblematic editing from Jokestress in other topic areas; as such, if she can edit without incident outside this topic I don't see the need for a total ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Unnecessary. AGK 15:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I came close to supporting this, but am opposing for now. If the same problems recur in other areas, I would support a site ban. Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
As David notes, there is apparently no history of problematic editing in other areas, Roger Davies 04:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Not necessary at this time. Courcelles 05:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Not necessary. Worm(talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed in addition to 2.1.

Explaining my rationale more fully: Jokestress' behavior on numerous discussion pages across Misplaced Pages, coupled partially with some of her off-wiki conduct with regards to Misplaced Pages editors, convinces me that she ought not to be editing Misplaced Pages at all. NW (Talk) 06:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

James Cantor restricted

3) James Cantor is indefinitely prohibited from editing biographies of sexology researchers and related advocates. He may suggest improvements or changes on the respective talk pages.

Support:

Second choice Courcelles 05:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

~~"Enjoined" as in "urged"? No, I don't like ineffective remedies. AGK 15:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)~~

I read "enjoined" to mean "instructed". David, can you reword to make it more clear please? NW (Talk) 20:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

David has clarified that he meant "prohibited", so I've copyedited. I'm going to think for a little longer about whether to support this, but will vote soon. AGK 23:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Reinstating opposition, and proposing 3.1). AGK 00:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Per my comments below on the alternative proposal. Also, what is likely needed here is to encourage other sexology researchers (not necessarily those with as high a profile) to help out with these articles and I fear that a topic ban like this may have a chilling effect and discourage participation by others. What seems to have been most problematic about James Cantor's talk page participation is the amount of attention it drew from Jokestress and others. We need to do more to encourage researchers in topic areas like this to contribute on talk pages, but not where an off-wiki dispute is included as additional baggage. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 04:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Prefer 3.1 Worm(talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 00:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Offering this as an additional remedy. Cantor has for the most part held to a voluntary pledge to avoid problematic areas, however I can see the argument that this should be extended and enforced to ward off possible issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't Cantor being subjected to the same topic ban as Jokestress? I recall from the initial request that there were claims that Cantor was editing inappropriately. Has it been decided that Cantor's use of his own studies in Misplaced Pages articles is acceptable? Or that such claims were unfounded? SilkTork 10:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

James Cantor restricted

Support:

Proposed. Dr Cantor has a lot to offer Misplaced Pages, and I see no basis to restrict him further than how David proposes in remedy 3). However, I consider it necessary to curb his contributions to Hebephilia, an article about a subject which he plainly has extensive professional interest. Guiding him away from this sub-topic of sexology and onto others would be best. (To allow us some perspective, Dr Cantor has, to date, edited that article forty times. Given the wide scope for future problems and the relatively low number of edits, this remedy proposes a trade-off that I personally am happy to make.) AGK 00:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
First choice Courcelles 05:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
~~T. Canens (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)~~

Oppose:

I think it best to wait and see what happens here. If James Cantor voluntarily reduces his participation in this specific area, which I believe is largely limited to talk pages anyway, and focuses on other areas, that may result in a more balanced perspective as a Misplaced Pages editor. See also my comments above on remedy 3. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Probably unnecessary at the moment. Such a restriction could be applied as a discretionary sanction should problems arise, Roger Davies 04:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it is unnecessary to add to the other restrictions, and overlaps with the sanctions we're proposing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Partially per Roger, but I'm here because I opposed the discretionary sanctions remedy. NW (Talk) 00:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
After going over the evidence again, I'm no longer sure that this is necessary; as Roger said, if problems arise in the future, they could be addressed by discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Discretionary sanctions

4) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia). Sanctions can be appealed to the Committee for reappraisal after six months.

Support:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
SilkTork 10:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

I see no reason for the second sentence, regardless of what it is supposed to do. T. Canens (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Prefer 4.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I support 4.1 yet, but in any case the second sentence can safely be omitted. AGK 15:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Still thinking a lot about this case, but that last sentence would be an oppose anywhere. Courcelles 05:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Prefer 4.1, Roger Davies 04:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
NW (Talk) 18:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Prefer alternative Worm(talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

An attempt to address some of the other issues regarding the area, although the exact scope is open to some fine-tuning. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm unclear about the second sentence. Does that mean that we are not actually authorizing the standard discretionary sanctions, or that this remedy in particular ought to be reevaluated after 6 months? NW (Talk) 03:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

My intended meaning was that sanctions would be put in place via this case; I included a time frame for (optional) reappraisal in case the scope needs to be loosened, tightened, otherwise modified or abandoned. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly think the second sentence is necessary. Our comments here should serve as sufficient guidance for future editors who want to file amendment request. NW (Talk) 21:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems fair. I'll offer it without the sentence as an alternate, given that arbs have already voted on this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Indenting for now while I look more closely. SilkTork 08:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions (2)

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

Support:

Although we shouldn't lightly add another controversial subject-matter to the already overburdened AE process, I think it's pretty clear that this is necessary. If this passes, editors in this topic area should carefully review the page describing how discretionary sanctions operate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
With the same qualifications as NYB. AGK 00:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 04:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Courcelles 05:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

I would prefer we hold off on this and review in six months time. If problems still persist, then we could authorise discretionary sanctions at that point. Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Carcharoth. Additionally, a number of us have spent weeks looking at this case and haven't found a solution that we are happier with. I don't see this as an area with many new problematic editors continually coming in (compared to say Israel-Palestine), so pushing things off to AE, where things may not be given as detailed a look over, doesn't seem like the best way to go now. NW (Talk) 18:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Standard Enforcement

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. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

It should be noted that the decision in no way implies a side is "right", hence the reason for the "limits of arbitration" principle. There are issues here with discussions over what constitutes reliable sources and fringe theories that are not addressed by the decision. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

James Cantor

Having considered the evidence and this proposed decision, I must voice my concern that we are allowing James Cantor to continue editing pages related to Hebephilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Based on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence#Hebephilia, I am minded to propose we prohibit him from editing that article and related pages (such as that of "hebephilia opponent" Karen Franklin). Otherwise, I am generally satisfied that no sanctions are needed for James Cantor. We plainly do not wish to lose his expertise on paraphilia generally, but Cantor's edits relating to this one particular condition seem to this arbitrator to have been problematic. AGK 15:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

As of: 08:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Proposals which pass: Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Findings: 1, 2, 3, 4; Remedies: 1, 2.1, 4.1; Enforcement: 0
Proposals which do not pass: Principles: None; Findings: None; Remedies: 2.2, 3, 3.1, 4; Enforcement: None

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

I'm done. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to the way the votes have went, I think this decision is basically useless, but I'm not going to try to twist any more arms. This will be back at ArbCom in a few months, just as bad as it was before. AGK 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger Davies 08:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see either side changing their mind on Rem 3.1, it's hit deadlock. I won't drop my position there, but I will accept that nothing will come of it and this case should be closed. Worm(talk) 11:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with WTT that we've reached deadlock here. Further votes are unlikely to change matters, though there is still a 24-hour window before the case closes. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

So long as Rem 3.1 is neither passing nor failing, the case should not be closed. Courcelles 15:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Per Courcelles. NW (Talk) 20:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments