Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25 Melissa Farley

Who are the involved parties?
User:Iamcuriousblue and User:Axiomatica.

What is the involved article(s)?
Melissa Farley

What's going on?
Serious disagreement between two editors on NPOV issues. RfC issued, but little response. One editor continues to actively edit without consensus, the other continually reverts. Has degenerated into an outright edit war as of this writing.

What would you like to change about that?
Mediation between opposing parties and clarification on NPOV issues and Wikipedia guidelines desperately needed by both parties.

Discussion
I would suggest to all parties involved with this dispute a short summation each as to what you would like to see as a solution. I have read the complaints on all sides, and as lengthy as they are I do not need them repeated here (you can always link back to your discussion page.) Be brief and to-the-point, and let us begin a mediation process that will involve each party and reach a speedy result Btwoodward 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Iamcuriousblue
Thank you for stepping into this case, as its become very contentious and the primary editors of this article (myself and User:Axiomatica) have developed a very contentious relationship, and editing has devolved into edit warring.

I've tried to keep this short, but because there are so many points of contention, the overall summation is somewhat lengthy. I've tried to keep each point short:


 * 1. First, I'd really like to see more people involved in editing this article, because editing by only two people, both of whom have strong and opposing viewpoints on the subject, tends to be very unproductive. A cooling-off period, like I have proposed, until more editors come on board, seems advisable.


 * 2. I would like to see some clarification on Wikipedia policy. I think some guidance is needed so that the guidelines of both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are respected. Also, an answer to the question as to whether criticisms of Farley's ideology and research need to be segregated into a "Criticisms" section.
 * 3. Use of the terms "radical feminist" and "sex work":


 * 3.1 To me, essays by Farley such as ""Ten Lies About Sadomasochism" or "Kink.Com in San Francisco: Women and Gay Men's Abu Ghraib" make it terribly obvious that Farley is an exponent of the school of thought known as radical feminism – a term I don't think is necessarily pejorative, but rather refers to a specific ideology. The overall slant and many of the statements made in her published research indicate this perspective informs her overall research. I think the original description "radical feminist research psychologist" should stand for that reason (alternately, "radical feminist and research psychologist" would be a good descriptor). I've conceded the point for the time being, as I have not found any reference to her making an explicit statement that she is a radical feminist.


 * 3.2 The term "sex work" and "sex worker", as presently used, should stay, even if it is a term the subject of the article happens not to like. ("Sex work" is a widely accepted term in academia, social work, social policy, etc.)


 * 4. Sprawling lists, whether complete bibliographies or wholesale cut-and-paste reposting of journal article abstracts, are unacceptable in Wikipedia and I have been reverting them. Specifically, I think this edit by User:Axiomatica is unacceptable and I have reverted it. A section describing her research absolutely needs to be in this article, but it needs to be a summary of her findings, not a cut-and-paste job like this. If I'm wrong about this, I need some clarification about Wikipedia policy about this kind of material. However, if I'm right, then this kind of material shouldn't be here and I shouldn't have to fight an edit war to keep it out.


 * 5. I would not like to see Melissa Farley become personally involved in writing this article – that is in direct opposition to Autobiography. If she does become involved in editing, her role should be restricted strictly limited to the role outlined in Autobiography.

Statement by User:Axiomatica
The primary problem with this entry is that User:Iamcuriousblue has a long established history of reverting almost ever single edit by anyone other than himself. This makes it difficult to collaborate on the article. As the aricle stands right now, it contains factual inaccuracies.

Almost any point in a WP article can be written in a way that reflects consensus amongst editors, but we have been unable to get User:Iamcuriousblue to do any collaboration, as he instead insists things must be written exactly as he says, and he reverts any attempt to rewrite for consensus. In the past 2 days, User:Iamcuriousblue has exhibited some willingness to bend on issues that really should never have been in contention. Perhaps this is as a result of the suggestion that he be banned from editing this entry due to his censorship of others. Whatever the cause, this is a hopeful sign.

To address the specifics

1. There are more than two editors involved here. User:Iamcuriousblue did manage to chase away Nicki Craft last year who apparently spend many hours editing this article only to have everything reverted by User:Iamcuriousblue. Currently, User:Iamcuriousblue is chosing to harass and revert User:Ninroc who, like others, came to this article, saw it's obvious bias, and spent time trying to repair it only to be reverted with weak or no explanations by User:Iamcuriousblue. All that said, it would be great if there were more editors here. We could probably get this article whipped into shape pretty rapidly if User:Iamcuriousblue would agree to stop his wholesale reversions and LET OTHER PEOPLE EDIT THIS ENTRY.

2. I always defer to the part of WP:BLP that insists on a conservative and sensitive editing of bios involving living persons.

3. 3.1 Radical feminist. If the subject does not describe themselves as a radical. You simply cannot say "xxx is a radical." in the opening sentence of a bio entry. I thought this was settled in the LAST mediation effort. If a critic calls the subject a radical, the context and specifics need to be reviewed for relevance to the specific critique.

3.2 You cannot say Melissa Farley believes x or y about sex workers. She has written very clearly that she does not use the term and considers it to be an unscientific term, useless in her work doing psychological field research on the subject of prostitution. User:Iamcuriousblue's opinion about the term "sex work" is irrelevant. You don't get to put words in someone else's mouth.

4. User:Iamcuriousblue continues to say in principle that there should be more material about Farley's actual studies and findings. Yet every time someone tries to add such work, User:Iamcuriousblue goes into auto revert mode. He should be encouraged to edit rather than revert. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort and User:Iamcuriousblue's constant reversions do not lead to collaboration. All we are asking is that he discuss and edit, not revert.

5. Whether or not User:Iamcuriousblue wants to see Farley involved in this article really isn't up to him, it is up to Farley as is outlined in WP:BLP

--Axiomatica 07:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediator response
This response is preliminary findings and in no way whatsoever designates a final reply from me, nor does it indicate that this status is "closed".

Since Peter is the only user to respond thus far, I will address the concerns brought currently herein this page.

I will address the second point first, mainly because to me it is the easiest to answer. I believe that if one is to follow the policies set-forth for BLP, then they would be within the policies of NPOV. If you look at WP:BLP 2.1 (“Writing Style”), “The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.” The key word here is factual.

If you look at point number three, wherein there is discussion on the term “radical feminist”, it is fairly obvious that this would lie outside of WP:BLP 2.1 as it is not completely obvious that this statement is based on factual classification by either Ms. Farley or any other authoritative source. If there is a source, please provide references in the discussion above.

Your discussion 3.1 again seems to fall outside of the policies in WP:BLP 2.1 with your opening comment of “To me”, looking again at WP:BLP 2.1 “The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.” The article should not, according to WP:BLP 2.1 be an opinionated article, as it should be matter-of-fact here are the facts, here are the writings, and leave it to the user to label the person if they so desire. I believe that official title should be “research psychologist” or whatever would be the her professionally known title. More over, WP:BLP 4.1 states, “In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say.”

As for 3.2, as far as I can tell from research, the term “sex work” is commonly used to describe all types of work revolving around sexual activities for money. From researching, this appears to include stripping, etc. due to the nature of the work. A discrepancy would be “sex worker”. By definition, “sex worker” is the noun of “sex work”, however most all references to “sex worker” is to describe prostitutes. However, regardless of typical usages, definition should take precedence. Therefore, to stay within guidelines set-forth in WP:BLP 2.1, the term “sex work” and “sex worker” should be allowed within the article itself as it is a factual statement regardless of if the subject of the article dislikes the term.

According to WP:BLP 2.2, there is no mention of needing to section or specifically banning the sectioning of criticisms or intertwining within the article itself.

On the topic of bibliography WP:BLP does not specifically ban nor encourage them. The only real mention of self-work is WP:BLP 2.1, “The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves.” What this appears to mean is that biographies are just that, biographies. There is nothing wrong with and it actually should be encouraged to outline what a particular subject has done. For instance, I would not expect to see a biography of J.K. Rowling and not see a reference list of her works. However, I would not expect to see every, nor any for that matter, of her books copied and pasted into the biography, but perhaps a link to where I might read more of the book or buy it. Therefore, for the sake of staying true to the traditional “biography” I would have to say that the “Research” section should be no more than links to the self-written articles/case studies.

Btwoodward 00:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I am late to this discussion. Thank you for taking the time to review this issue. I agree with everything this mediator has said with the exception of the use of the term "sex worker."


 * To elaborate, Dr. Farley is a research and clinical psychologist who has conducted extensive, peer-reviewed, questionnaire-based field research in multiple countries, on the issue of prostitution. She has many articles and findings about the field of prostitution and has edited the book most frequently used by universities on the subject of prostitution.  She has expressed her thoughts about prostitution quite frequently as a scientist.  The term "sex work" does not have a scientific definition. It means different things to different people. Some people think it is a euphamism for prostition.  Some people consider all strippers "sex workers" while others differentiate between those strippers who exchange sex for money and those who only take off their clothes.  Some definitions of "sex work" go as far as to include anyone who uses sexual titilation in their work, which could include Britney spears and the Victoria's Secret lingerie models.  Farley has written quite a bit about how this term is misleading and unscientific.  So to say "Farley believe xxx about sex work", is just an inaccurate statement that should not be in her biographic entry on Wikipedia.  --Axiomatica 07:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes

 * What's the status on the case? The mediator apparently disappeared so I don't know if progress has bee made or if this case is needed. Wizardman  19:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Both User:Axiomatica and User:Btwoodward have their last recorded edits on June 28, 2007. They both suddenly became inactive and this case has been dormant since then. I guess it can be considered closed, as have no significant argument with how the article reads now, other than the fact that it needs to be expanded. The article still carries an NPOV tag, which I don't think is warranted, since I think the way it reads now is basically NPOV. However, being one of the parties in the dispute, I don't want to unilaterally remove the tag. I'd be happy to expand the article some more, but am hoping to have some other parties involved as well, so that the article doesn't just reflect my unconscious biases, or can be accused of such. Iamcuriousblue 22:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, just do what you can with the article, and if still no one removed the tag, there's always peer review. I'll close this case though. Wizardman  12:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the confusion may be that I thought the matter was settled. Iamcuriousblue had been advised he was wrong about the using the term "radical" to define the subject of the bio, and he had been chastised about being uncivil.  We were requested to abstain from editing the entry for two weeks.  Then I went on vacation.  When I returned I found Iamcuriousblue harassing yet another editor who was trying to fix the blatent bias in this article, including using his old tired technique of just reverting everyone's entries. This caused me to step in, try to reason with him once again, try to edit, and finally request that the article be protected and administrator intervene.  I also requested help on the Biography noticeboard.  Meanwhile Iamcuriousblue re-requested a mediation cabal opinion.  So here we are.  Thanks for any clarity any of you can bring to this entry.--Axiomatica 07:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, Axiomatica GROSSLY distorts the events. I had asked for a moritorium on editing, while we were in mediation, something Axiomatica refused. Hence both of us continued editing, culminating in Axiomatica's posting "Research" section consisting of a series of cut and paste postings of abstracts from Farley's journal articles. I reverted this as copyright violation and plagiarism. Axiomatica simply disappeared at this point, without announcing that they were leaving for a time. I actually did leave the article alone for a while. However, over a month had passed, Axiomatica was nowhere to be found, and no one else was working on the article, so I continued to work on it. Eventually, an admin closed the mediation case because both Axiomatica and the editor who was acting as peer mediator were no longer active on Wikipedia. Axiomatica falsely states that mediation was settled, that I was "chastised", and that somehow the mediators gave their stamp of approval to Axiomatica's action. I apologized for my earlier incivility, but there was no suggestion that there were to be any sanctions for this. The use of the term "radical feminist" could not be used where it wasn't cited and referenced. Its usage (as a criticism from others) in the present version of the article is cited and referenced, from one of Weitzer's articles among other sources. That clearly is in keeping with WP:BLP. Iamcuriousblue 17:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In any event, this Mediation Cabal is actually closed right now. We can go either of two ways right now. We can re-open this Mediation Cabal case, put up announcement and have another peer mediator step in. Or we can move the process to Mediation Committee, which is more formal mediation process. Since you have specifically said that you don't think peer mediation is workable, I think the latter course is called for. I have made the first step toward opening such as case at Requests_for_mediation/Melissa_Farley. I leave it to User:Axiomatica what course of action they wish to proceed with. Iamcuriousblue 17:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please advise if this mediation needs to be re-opened. user:Btwoodward 09:27, 13 April 2008


 * No, not here – if this case is to be re-opened at all, it should be reopened here at Mediation Committee. However, due to User:Axiomatica's apparent avoidance of the entire mediation process, I am seriously considering at this point simply taking it to Arbitration Committee. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)