Talk:Peggy J. Kleinplatz

User:Jokestress's issues

I am trying my best not to interact directly with User:James Cantor unless he makes problematic edits in article space. His latest COI BLP violation involves downplaying the academic accomplishments of Peggy Kleinplatz, a chief rival of his regarding paraphilia. She's a collaborator with Charles Allen Moser, whose bio James Cantor tagged for notability (diff), for which he was blocked. He has removed information about Dr. Kleinplatz's graduating with honours an honours degree (diff), taken directly from her University's official page about her. I am requesting an uninvolved editor take a look and restore this information. I'd also like feedback on if this is acceptable editing by James Cantor. Jokestress (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL Jokestress, dear: Peggy Kleinplatz called me and asked me if I would make those changes. (I implemented only the changes that were consistent with WP policy.) So much for your conspiracy theory. Yes, I know: Conspiracies are so easy to spin, and habits die hard. Btw, there is one additional change she requested, but I haven't to implement. She would prefer that the page include her middle initial, as that how she publishes. Keep with the hounding, you're making my case for me.— James Cantor (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and with regard to the "honors," Jokestress' comment either misunderstands (or misrepresents) how higher education works, at least, outside the U.S. Peggy didn't graduate "with honors" (as Jokestress misstates), Peggy graduated with an "honours degree", which, in the U.S., would be a regular 4-year bachelor's degree. LOL— James Cantor (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:COI#Close_relationships: "If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article." Editors should not be taking requests from colleagues for article changes, especially ones that remove sourced facts. That is a conflict of interest. Jokestress (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

lol I'm sorry, is it that I have a COI that makes me biased toward or a COI that makes me biased against? She's my chief rival or my close colleague? Your self-contradictory statements don't usually appear quite this close together. (Of course, it is also possible that the accusation doesn't matter at all, so long as you have something to accuse me of. A laugh test, please, for "...suggest in good faith"?)

As for the article, it contained BLP errors, which I am entirely able to repair. I made only the changes that were supported by RS's and explained to Peggy why I couldn't make others. Indeed, you have not mentioned any problematic edit at all. The only edit you mentioned was (as your strikethrough shows) your error, not mine. Your vandetta against me only disrupts WP.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

COI goes both ways. Please add back her other degree and dates of graduation, which I included when I created the article. Removing that information detracts from the completeness and value of the article and is not acceptable, even if you were put up to making those changes by the article's subject. Jokestress (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I take that to mean that I was right: There were no problems with any actual edit. The only problem you had is the problem you have with me. The academic tradition is to include one's highest degree only, not supply a c.v. I have no problem at all with you adding any RS'ed information at all. (The graduation dates, however, didn't have RS's; you will have to cite one.)— James Cantor (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sensing any particularly important COI, and would suggest that this discussion sticks to being about the individual edits themselves. Cantor, as far as academics go it may be that in a journal or a resume you only include one's highest degree, but this is after all a biography, so information about what undergraduate school she attended if sourced is perfectly acceptable. Apart from that I don't see any other edits that cause any problems, and most of them seem to be appropriate corrections.AerobicFox (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. As I said, I have no objection to it being re-added. I was just elaborating on why I was willing to enact (and take responsibility for) the requested change.— James Cantor (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Kleinplatz sent the following email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org and cc'ed me. I don't think she would mind if I posted it here.

EMails Between BLP Subject and Wikipedia (not pilfered & not marked confidential)

________________________________________
From: Peggy Kleinplatz [kleinpla@uottawa.ca]
Sent: August 4, 2011 9:51 PM
To: info-en-q@wikimedia.org
Cc: James Cantor
Subject: Problem in an article about me

Dear Editors,

I have just received the email message below which includes links for
your information. I did not know if it was legitimate so I am
contacting you directly. The message from "Grey" asks if I had
contacted Dr. James Cantor to ask him to make edits to the Wikipedia
page about me. Yes, I did contact him. There had been errors of fact
about me in the existing article. For example, I was listed as an
Associate Professor whereas I am actually a full Professor.

I have a permanent hand injury which makes all computer use
prohibitively painful for me. Dr. Cantor was willing to fix the
errors as a favour to me. Please allow his edits to stand, with my
appreciation. His edits in no way "belittle" me. There is no conflict
of interest.

Sincerely,
Peggy J. Kleinplatz, Ph.D.

Professor
Faculty of Medicine
and
Clinical Professor
School of Psychology
University of Ottawa


>From: grey <bittergrey@infantilism.org>
>To: kleinpla@uottawa.ca
>Subject: Are you requesting edits to your Wikipedia page?
>
>Dear Dr. Kleinplatz,
>
>Sorry to bother you, but I was hoping to check something.
>
>Recently, James Cantor has made some edits to your biography on
>Wikipedia[1]. He has a long history of using Wikipedia to promote
>his own interests and those of his colleagues, as well as to demote
>competitors and competing views. Another editor quickly reverted
>the changes, noting that "The changes appear to belittle the
>subject. The editor has a [conflict of interest] in this area."
>
>James Cantor is claiming that you called him and requested those
>changes[2]. Given what he has tried to pull in the past on
>Wikipedia, few trust him. I was hoping to check with you and find
>out the truth.
>
>Sincerely,
>~Grey
>
>[1]
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peggy_Kleinplatz&action=historysubmit&diff=443065468&oldid=428041914
>[2]
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peggy_Kleinplatz&diff=443077415&oldid=443070535

So, the result of Jokestress/Guy's edits were to re-institute BLP violations, which the subject of the page is now reporting. Their involvement has improved things here how, exactly? Of course, anyone can re-institute my edits, which would solve the BLP problem again, but then what could Jokestress/Guy be said to have done other than to disrupt the page?
— James Cantor (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If this complaint was in any way motivated by a desire to improve the article it would have only taken upwards of about 60 seconds to verify that she is indeed a full Professor and has been since 2010.

Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these [content] policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.

(...)

Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content [or any other] dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.WP:COI

FiachraByrne (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The issues here have several components, none of which are the Full Professor position:

1. Because I created it, this article is automatically on my watchlist.
2. Other editors have requested that James Cantor and I not edit on the same articles.
3. I saw that James Cantor had removed information about Dr. Kleinplatz's academic credentials.
4. James Cantor has a history of doing this to articles about people with whom he has disagreements.
5. James Cantor has made subtle yet problematic changes to this biography previously, such as changing "Kleinplatz wrote" (standard per WP:WTA) to the less-neutral "Kleinplatz believes," [1] part of a long-running pattern of making opposing views seem less authoritative.
6. I asked above for James Cantor to add back her other degree and dates of graduation, which I included when I created the article and sourced with the external link to her school page.
7. After James Cantor refused, User:AerobicFox correctly pointed out that removal of the academic information should be reverted, which User:JzG did. This had the unfortunate effect of removing some updated information as well.
8. The updated information is in the process of being re-added, which I support. My only concern was removal of information about Dr. Kleinplatz's academic credentials, as that information is standard encyclopedic content.
9. Editors should not be removing sourced information from articles, especially academic credentials, especially credentials of those with whom they have disagreements off-wiki.
10. Editors should not be taking phone requests from colleagues for edits to their articles. We have blocked people like User:Thekohser for that kind of activity.
11. All of this could have been avoided if James Cantor would have simply added back the information which he removed about Dr. Kleinplatz's academic credentials. Instead, he refused, made a lot of sarcastic comments above, and raised a big stink.

I hope that the other updated information gets added back, and that the original information he removed stays in the article. I'll leave that to other editors to handle. My original objection is resolved with the reinsertion of information about Dr. Kleinplatz's academic credentials. Jokestress (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The focus of your attention should be the article not whatever extraneous dispute you have. If you were so concerned at the removal of Kleinplatz's academic credentials it might have made more sense to reinstate her title as Full Professor: this is inestimably more important than her holding a B.A. It might also have been pertinent to bare in mind that it is not possible to get a PhD - other than an honorary one - without having first received a B.A. A postgraduate degree necessitates an undergraduate degree. The removal of the reference to her undergraduate degree did not in any reasonable way exclude a relevant academic qualification from a person holding such an esteemed academic position as she currently does.

User:JzG's reversion removed more pertinent information than that which it restored. If the actual object of this exercise was to correctly represent Kleinplatz and her academic qualifications this was the only relevant error.

You focus throughout on the qualifications that James Cantor removed from the article without acknowledging that the information that he added was far more relevant. You then insinuate that this was done in perpetuation of an academic dispute, which would appear to be evidence of bad faith on your part, but neither you nor, judging by his/her edit summary ("The changes appear to belittle the subject"), JzG seem to recognise that Cantor's edit elevated the academic status of Kleinplatz to her proper post. The position you are arguing here is illogical and inherently self-contradictory.

The substitution of the word "believes" for "wrote" in the example given above is 1) trivial 2) perfectly justifiable.

I can't see any conflict with Cantor correcting a BLP issue following a request by the subject. Her response also puts paid to the notion that his intentions were to denigrate a colleague. Academics disagree all the time but that doesn't necessitate any personal enmity.

There is no parallel with the behaviour of Cantor and User:Thekohser. In the latter case there were clear issues relating to the commercial production of wiki articles. Frankly, that you would reference Thekohser at all in this context indicates just how detached from reality this whole interaction has become.

You haven't addressed the fact that the original insulting heading for this topic was a clear violation of WP:BLP. Cantor may have been "sarcastic" but his points above were quite valid and his commentary did not amount to anything like the "big stink" which you yourself created in penning the original title to this topic.

The most troubling aspect of this whole exchange, however, was bittergrey's email to Kleinplatz. That was really disturbing, especially considering the allegations he made.

To conclude, I have no time for this kind of behaviour. You both have a fairly obvious dispute over a specific topic. It's clear that that dispute is overriding other considerations here and that this article has suffered because of it. A fairly minor edit that was correcting erroneous information has led to a whole series of questionable responses and these appear to cohere to a fairly consistent pattern of behaviour directed at Cantor. If you or others disagree with the content that he adds or removes then I would advice you to address yourself to that content and not other peripheral issues. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to assume that Jokestress, or 95% of our editors for that matter, knows anything about what's considered normal in academic circles. The community fairly often includes information that a proper encyclopedia would ignore, including which high school the subjects attended, how many children they have, and how many times they have been married or divorced, even if these have nothing to do with the subject's notability.

I agree that BitterGrey was foolish to insult Cantor when he contacted Kleinplatz, and doubly foolish to not look at the changes first, and to ask himself whether removing false claims that Kleinplatz is a mere lecturer, and adding accurate information about her (much higher) position, could possibly constitute "demoting his competitors". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor who came here because I saw the note on the BLP Noticeboard. Frankly, there seems to me to be some squabbling about who did what when, and I form the preliminary impression that more than editor is to blame for letting the personal animosity mount, but it seems that the dust has settled with no active content dispute.

I don't agree with WhatamIdoing's disparagement of the standard Wikipedia practice of including basic biographical information that's unrelated to the subject's notability and/or is contrary to practices in academia. As long as there's no opposition to including Kleinplatz's B.A. degree, however, there's no reason to argue the point here. JamesMLane t c 03:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"I don't agree with WhatamIdoing's disparagement of the standard Wikipedia practice"

Did you really read that as a disparagement? All he says is "The community fairly often includes information that a proper encyclopedia would ignore ... even if these have nothing to do with the subject's notability."

This is just a description of the practice, not a "disparagement". Also, what are you trying to say when you say, "Frankly, there seems to me to be some squabbling about who did what when". I don't see any timeline confusion, what are you even referring to? This comment as well,"more than editor is to blame for letting the personal animosity mount", I don't see any relevance or purpose to making this remark. No part of your post argued for any content change which is what this page is supposed to be for, so please leave discussions about editors to their talk pages. AerobicFox (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As to your first question, yes, if the statement is that Wikipedia does one thing and "proper" encyclopedias do another, then I read that as a disparagement of the Wikipedia practice. Pursuing whether the editor intended disparagement, like pursuing all the other points raised in your post, would serve no purpose. JamesMLane t c 15:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)