Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * AGK
 * 1) Carcharoth
 * 2) Courcelles
 * 3) David Fuchs
 * 4) Kirill Lokshin
 * 5) Newyorkbrad
 * 6) NuclearWarfare
 * 7) Roger Davies
 * 8) Timotheus Canens
 * 9) Worm That Turned

Inactive:
 * 1) Salvio giuliano
 * 2) SilkTork

Recused:
 * 1) Risker

Alarming comments from "Anon"
The IP editor has made some rather disturbing claims.

1. For the record, I have absolutely nothing to do with any case of anyone blackmailing anyone.

2. The IP user shows several indications of being User:KimvdLinde:
 * The editor's concern appears to be KimvdLinde's withdrawal from the case (and my just mentioning it on the evidence page).
 * Geolocate indicates that the IP address is in exactly the same part of Florida as KimvdLinde: cf. http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/69.244.220.253 and http://www.neuro.fsu.edu/postdoc/linde/.
 * The IP editor has previously edited on parrots, essentially the only topic which KimvdLinde edits (other than when following Cantor)

3. Although I do not want to distract from the main event, I believe the IP editor should be checked as being Kim's sock puppet.

What to do if that turns out to be the case is probably best decided by others, but that above is not at all appropriate for someone with WP admin privileges.

— James Cantor (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the anon is me. Thank for contributing to the fear that is generated here at wikipedia because of mentioning my name here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are people who are willing to divulge my most private details here at wikipedia in order to protect you, and all you can think about is how I might MISUSE the system. Thank you so much.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if sarcasm is being employed here, or genuine concerns, or if this is naught but WP:POINTy disruption. I would agree that this sort of behaviour is extremely questionable coming from an admin.  If Kim is serious that the anon is her, then this is very, very curious behaviour, put politely.  I would much prefer the issues be clearly stated than alluded to in coy asides, quasi-anonymous editing, accusations of blackmail and possible sarcasm obscuring possible genuine issues.
 * Note that sockpuppet investigations will generally not link an editor to an IP account, only other registered accounts. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, for the record: I have absolutely no idea what KimvdLinde is talking about. Nor am I able to unravel the list of Kim's years-long erratic behavior: None of this suggests an appropriate mindset for any WP editor in any situation, never mind an admin, and never mind during an ArbCom case. — James Cantor (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Feeling strongly enough about me to write about it in her off-wiki blog
 * 2) Creating a user subpage to follow me, deleting it upon her “semi-retirement,”
 * 3) Declaring herself to be ‘keeping an eye’ on Cantor
 * 4) Entering multiple items on this case and then deleting them,
 * 5) Following me to other pages (as well as immediately following me on Twitter) upon that withdrawal.
 * 6) Editing in my section of the arbitration pages and then undoing it,
 * 7) Declaring withdrawal from this case but then entering evidence as an IP.
 * 8) Showing, via her contributions page, a very long-standing pattern of editing on only two topics: parrots and pages with me.
 * According to Kim's section of the evidence page, the alleged blackmail e-mail has been forwarded to ArbCom. I think it will be interesting to see what they conclude about it, since the rest of us cannot see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Worse, ArbCom contacted me after I withdrew with questions that indicated that I was not the only person blackmailed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I undeleted the page at my user space that James mentions so that everybody can see the content. I think that is fair. It is old data, but still. User:KimvdLinde/James_Cantor_COI -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress' evidence
I have had a pretty detailed look at Jokestress' evidence and have some comments on it. Per comment here, I am posting a selected list. The full set of commentary on every section can be found here.

Taken from this version. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of my comments are almost inherent to the diff itself and probably don't need commentary, if anyone feels such commentary adds length without substance, please feel free to remove it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This should be probably posted in "Analysis of evidence" on Workshop project page, not on this talk page. Oh man, you and some other clever people on the both sides spent so much time to prepare Evidence, Tables below, etc... I can only hope that arbs will actually look at this. Anyway, having so much time and effort wasted is probably the worst part of arbitrations and a proof of a serious problem that needs to be resolved by banning one or more participants. My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is analysis of evidence, and as far as I can see is supposed go at the bottom of the actual workshop page Slp1 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Geez, you're right. I'll try to make time to move it over during the next couple days (help would be appreciated if anyone else wants to volunteer).  Comments will be moved wholesale without editing, in the unlikely event any of the text is changed during the move, PLEASE note immediately and correct of desired.  Kid gloves here, since it involves moving others' comments.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

R to Fiachra. (I’m responding on the talk page, as the Workshop itself is now closed, I believe.)
Regarding Fiachra’s question here: Because it was unsourced. The diff comments were: — James Cantor (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * : Undid revision 347234895 by 99.35.9.120 (talk) rm unsourced. Needs an actual RS, not talk page comments.
 * : WP:NPOV WP:V
 * : rm unsourced; POV
 * : rm long unsourced (A refimprove tag was there for 6 months.)


 * Fiachra, the NPOV violation seems quite clear. Uninvolved editors, some of whom do not appear to be regular editors, made good-faith additions of well-known aspects of this controversy. While WLU could plead ignorance, and Flyer22 had claimed "hebephilia should not be confused with legal matters," Legitimus and James Cantor surely knew about the legal aspects as professionals in the field. Rather than writing for the opponent and demonstrating a commitment to fair coverage, they chose to remove information they knew to be relevant and covered in many reliable sources. That combined with badmouthing colleagues who disagree with the activist minority position on this controversy is classic POV pushing. Jokestress (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PROVEIT, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".
 * "Classic" POV-pushing would be the repeated removal of well-sourced material or the repeated inclusion of unsourced content, or content not verified by the attached sources, against policy, guideline and consensus. Put another way, it is opposition to appropriate edits.  Your criticism applies equally easily to yourself, I could ask why you expanded criticisms of hebephilia in this edit without including this reply by Blanchard to the points in question.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Because Blanchard's activist minority view was (and is) over-represented in the article. Jokestress (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Given this is what the page looked like, I would argue it is under-represented. The longest sections are "DSM-5 debate" (probably 3/4 criticisms, perhaps 1/5 description and the remainder Blanchard's replies to letters to the editor), followed by history which is mostly sourced to Karen Franklin's "pretextuality" article and does not include Cantor's reply.  Asserting someone is an activist minority does not make them one.  Given the current page includes even more criticisms, both in length and detail, I also don't see over-representation.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the expert consensus runs about 9:1 against the CAMH position, the article should be 90% expert POV and 10% activist minority POV. Jokestress (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean there are nine letters to the editor criticizing for every one that is positive? Quality should matter more than quantity in my opinion, particularly when Blanchard has replied to those letters and some of the concerns have been addressed or proved spurious.  Also, labeling the sides "expert POV" versus "activist minority POV" is rather questionable.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in rehashing the content dispute here, but I'll comment that this is exactly what I mean by misapplication of MEDRS in this case. If you believe considering hebephilia a mental disorder is a joke to be dismissed out of hand, you are not going to do much more than comment on it. You are simply going to get your position on record quickly due to the urgency of shutting down a bad idea. This is a debate ABOUT science, not a scientific debate. These attempts to downplay representation of expert consensus because the activist minority did "research" completely misses the point. This is about misuse of science as a tool for social control. "Diagnosing hebephilic behavior as mental disorder brushes aside common patterns of psychosexual development, sidesteps cultural influences on sexuality, ignores historic precedents, insults much of Europe and elsewhere that legalizes sex with 14 year olds, or younger, and attempts to insinuate psychiatry as an agent of social control." You seem dismissive of published explanations of why the consensus rejects this work. If an expert thinks research was created based on a bad idea, as an attempt to reify that bad idea, that expert is going to publish a criticism, not some double-blind peer-reviewed longitudinal study that further reifies the bad idea. The scientism inherent in your POV and conduct gets to the very heart of the problem here. The commentaries and letters are not an indication of proportion, the POLLS are indication of proportion. International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders 2010: ~99% opposed.   American Association of Psychiatry and Law 2010: 94% opposed.  American Association of Psychiatry and Law 2012: 82% opposed.  Jokestress (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Jokestress, would you mind clarifying where these polls/percentages were published? 5.12.84.31 (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. It looks like your source was Franklin's blog which Cantor describes as "other non-RS material". And looking at the case opening statements he received endorsements in this assessment from Legitimus, WLU, Flyer22, My Very Best Wishes, Hans Adler & probably some more editors. I guess wiki-consensus beats real-world professional consensus. The statement that hebephilia was not adopted in DSM-5 still lacks a citation as of today . Probably because of the above wiki-consensus on what is a RS in this area. A google search finds Franklin's and Allen Frances' blogs as possible sources, but I guess they don't count on wiki. Let's see what the Arbs decide. 5.12.84.31 (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cantor did not receive any endorsement from me to not use the Karen Franklin Psychology Today blog source for information about the DSM rejecting hebephilia as a mental disorder/paraphilia. My thoughts on the matter are found here (where I argued that most experts in these fields don't consider hebephilia, at least when it comes to mid-pubescents, to be a mental disorder/paraphilia) and here (where I pointed to what the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard stated about Cantor's removal). Both comments (only the initial comment regarding the first link) were posted at the same time -- at 19:25 on January 5, 2013. And as that second diff-link shows, what I objected to regarding using that Franklin source is the use of any unencyclopedic tone unless it's a quote and is put in quotation marks. Flyer22 (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * According to DUE, its the proportionality among the RS's that matter, not letters to editors or other non-RS material. Moreover, dissenters are always are more likely to write letters-to-editors than are those who agree.  Such letters cannot be meaningfully treated as a poll.— James Cantor (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you can continue discussion at main Workshop page as long as it remains unprotected. I am certainly not a psychiatrist, but someone who commits statutory rape must have a serious psychic/psychological problem. Of course one can always argue that Chikatilo was sane.My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My very best wishes, even though the (main) pages are unlocked, we still are not supposed to edit them now that the close dates have passed. Before Hersfold stepped down from his roles on Wikipedia, I'd asked him do Arbitration evidence pages usually stay in the format that the sexology evidence page is still currently in after their close date. I was concerned because, with the way that the sexology evidence page still is, anyone could still comment there, much like there was still tampering with the page past the time for the close date that Hersfold had estimated (the time range he'd expressed to me via email was that the evidence phase would close on or around 03:00 UTC on March 7). I told him that I know that the evidence pages obviously don't always close when expected, but that I was wondering if they are usually locked down, sealed in some way, after the close date has approached. He stated that, generally, any edits made after the close date will be reverted by a clerk and that the page is sometimes fully protected as well. So I cringed a bit when I saw you edit the evidence page yesterday. But you haven't been reverted. Obviously, these pages aren't being as policed as well as some others have been. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is WP:IAR. I do not think anyone will revert edits or protect pages, unless there is clear disruption, non-constructive edits or squabbling. I only toned down my wording in Evidence. As about this hebephilia discussion, this is a typical "majority or minority opinion" dispute. Usually one must be an expert to decide, especially if this is science. I am not an expert in this area. My very best wishes (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Science allows empirical evidence pride of place over theory. Wikipedia allows reliable sources pride of place.  A letter to the editor is not a good example of either.  In addition, though philosophy, history, law and culture all play into discussions about hebephilia, science and empirical evidence also have a role.  I am dismissive of your claims of an absolute consensus with no ambiguity, dissent or minority position (the kind that WP:UNDUE permits and encourages be documented).  Scientists are often convinced by empirical evidence, the investigation of an empirical base is being expanded, and opinions may change - such as they did for homosexuality and transgenderism.  Even in the citation for the poll indicates that while yes, there were symbolic votes against hebephilia, it is still a source of "lively discourse" - as in discussion, not consensus.  I'm not arguing hebephilia should be purely positive, in fact I have integrated significant criticisms, I just think Blanchard et al.'s position deserves a place.  And still this goes back to the fact that editors must demonstrate their opinions through the citation of reliable sources, and problematic editing is based on consistent inclusion of unsourced information, unreliable sources or inappropriately summarized sources against consensus. Mere opinion and demands to meet a specific idiosyncratic standard immediately and perfectly with no discussion, is unreasonable and inappropriate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the detailed (and unexpected) replies. In the four diffs above, the removed text was unsourced, much of it was poorly written and some of it was poorly reasoned. This kind of text is always vulnerable to removal. If, in other articles, editors remove unsourced and poorly conceived content whose general points I feel nonetheless merit inclusion, I would attempt to properly source and write that content myself. I wouldn't presume that there was a problem with another editor until I had at least tried that. I don't think the argument that Cantor was obliged to source and rewrite this content to a proper encyclopedic standard has much applicability. It may or may not have been desirable for them to do so but there's hardly an onus on them to do so and there's any number of plausible and legitimate reasons why they may not have done so. Moreover, looking at the Hebephilia article currently, much, though not all, of this material is given reasonable coverage within the article. This indicates that editors have not had any particular difficulty in adding such material if properly sourced. As a general aside and without regard to the editing behaviour under consideration, if one's concern is with the cultural construction or discourse of paedophilia, particularly since the 1980s, then it might be worthwhile considering why there has been such an unremitting focus on the least prevalent form of paedophilia (i.e. "true" paedophilia as a sexual interest in prepubescent children) rather than the category of age-specific sexual preference constructed under the concept of hebephilia.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find the answer to that at Articles_for_deletion/Adult_sexual_interest_in_children (deleted article), the article which attempted to address this problem. That's what set several of these people off (threats, outrageous personal attacks etc.). It was also the last time anyone attempted to challenge the OWNed version of Pedophilia. I can say of all the extremely controversial articles I have expanded without incident (pregnancy from rape, race and intelligence etc.), the ones most fanatically defended against all non-"science" POVs are the ones involving the intersection of sexuality and consent. Herostratus blew a gasket because I quoted Sex and Reason by renowned lawyer Richard Posner, the title of whose book is a perfect antonym for the problem we face here. It's a serious problem that oversteps the meaning and intent of CHILDPROTECT. I focused on "Hebephilia" because it's the clearest example for an uninvolved editor to understand the problem. There has been a complete shutting down of any discussion remotely involving expanding the scope of our coverage in this area. If you want to take a crack at it, be prepared for some of the most egregious personal abuse you'll experience on this project. Who knows, you might even end up on trial here. Jokestress (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite my point which was probably poorly expressed and tangential to the main concerns here anyway. Since you bring it up though, I went through the first 70 or so sources returned by Google Scholar for "Adult sexual interest in children" and remain unconvinced that it could constitute a distinct topic meriting its own article. I think any relevant material could be contained in the Pedophilia, Child sexual abuse, or Child sexuality articles. I don't doubt that edits to such articles are potentially controversial but that's hardly a surprise. In fact, given their sensitivity, I would prefer if those articles were controlled through respected or expert editors. There's a history of on-wiki canvassing by pro-paedophilia advocates which you're more aware of than I and that is, unfortunately, naturally going to colour people's perceptions. The AFD discussion for that article includes a statement by User:Chromancer that " Pedophilia, the article, is capable of addressing both a common usage of pedophilia and a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia" which Cantor agrees with . This certainly indicates a willingness, by Cantor at least, to include material that isn't solely derived from the sexology literature. I haven't been through the entire talk page archives or article revision history of the Pedophilia article but, from the evidence presented at this ArbCom case, the only diff you provide about potential content to the Pedophilia article was your mentioning of Havelock Ellis' views on the talk page . Obviously, historical texts by such figures as Ellis or Kraft-Ebbing are primary sources for this topic and would require secondary sources to place their views in appropriate context. I'd probably argue the same for Foucault. If I was involved in editing that article I'd probably want to include something about the rise of a public discourse about paedophilia in the 1970s and 1980s and its connection to a range of other public discourses involving pro-paedophile/age of consent movements (mostly pro adult-adolescent sex), and feminist and gay rights movements, and reactions against same, etc. Were there any specific source-based content edits or proposals (not opinion or general criticisms but specific proposals or edits) you or anyone else made to the article that were unreasonably and consistently refused? Are there diffs for these? FiachraByrne (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is a Catch-22, as I described in the case. Flyer22 et al. insist that pedophilia only cover a rigid narrow operationalized definition, with everything else characterized as "misuse" of the term or not relevant. I agree that adult sexual interest in children should be covered at Pedophilia, but they won't allow it there OR as a separate article. The Havelock Ellis view, easily sourced,  has become evidence according to these guys that I am "pro-pedophilia" and variants,  an absolutely outrageous personal attack which should lead to an instant block whenever it's asserted. Jokestress (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * FiachraByrne, here is one discussion Jokestress would probably link to (or maybe not, given that, in that discussion, she argues that "Saying 'pedophilia is a disorder' is merely reification of the concept and a violation of WP:NPOV"). We obviously include non-pedophilic aspects in the Pedophilia article. With Jokestress, it's that, since (and even before) the Adult sexual interest in children article was deleted, she thinks that the Pedophilia article should give as much weight to all sexual interest in children as it does to prepubescent children; since the legal definition of "child" is usually anyone under 18, this would include minors who are not only pubescent, but those who are post-pubescent. This is one thing I have complained about with Jokestress, including on the evidence page. WP:UNDUE WEIGHT is a policy, and, since these non-clinical views on pedophilia are not considered pedophilia by most experts in this field, it is undue weight to give as much weight to them in the Pedophilia article as we do to clinical views on the matter. One of the things experts are concerned about is the common use meaning of pedophilia -- people calling adult sexual attraction to any person under 18 "pedophilia" -- being conflated with child sexual abuse and age of consent issues. See here and here for examples. Occasionally, even the media is worried about such conflation. Even Jokestress has called the things she wants in the Pedophilia article "non-pedophilia," including in that AfD listed above. And then, as seen above, she'll turn around and call them non-clinical definitions of pedophilia. To most experts in this field, they are simply misuses of the term (and adult sexual attraction to underage post-pubescents in particular is a misuse of the term to all experts in this field; after all, 16 and 17-year-olds can be diagnosed as pedophiles if they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescents). Jokestress has never stopped trying to turn the Pedophilia article into the Adult sexual interest in children article; even showing up at the Pedophilia talk page to make snide remarks has been an effort to do that. But like I have stated, it is the Pedophilia article, not the Adult sexual interest in children article, and therefore WP:UNDUE WEIGHT must be deferred to. Besides the articles you mentioned, there are also the Age of consent, Age of consent reform and the Age disparity in sexual relationships articles to cover these adult-minor attractions/sexual interactions that are not defined as pedophilia by experts on the topic of pedophilia. The Pedophilia article should not be a dumping ground for any of these aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_17 is a perfect example of the problem Flyer22 causes across these articles. Active and vigorous suppression of anything she doesn't think belongs. Random editor asks why we don't cover historical aspects, Flyer22 justifies suppression, I complain, Herostratus pipes up, and the whole thing stays the way Flyer22 et al want it. That's why I haven't edited there in years and only stepped in at hebephilia because the problem got ridiculous. Jokestress (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jokestress considers adhering to WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to be suppression and something personal; I and others in this case have made that very clear. And as others made clear in the first link I displayed above, what Jokestress considers "historical aspects of pedophilia" aren't pedophilia, including by her own acknowledgment when she calls such aspects "non-pedophilia." Jokestress only wants these views in the Pedophilia article for the same reason she wanted to transform the List of paraphilias article -- because she doesn't view these things as real disorders and therefore wants to make them look less medical. Having the Pedophilia article equally cover all adult sexual interest in children would assuredly do that.


 * Also, FiachraByrne, as to why there has been such an unremitting focus on sexual attraction to prepubescent children in medical literature, if you were referring to medical literature, it's because it is, and has always been, considered abnormal attraction across human civilizations. In contrast, adult sexual attraction to pubescents used to be considered normal across many, if not all, human civilizations, and is still considered normal in some human civilizations -- such as a girl experiencing menarche being considered a woman. That's why the age of consent varies. It's also what a lot of the hebephilia debate is about. Flyer22 (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I don't see any evidence that any specific, appropriately sourced content is being excluded. There is lots of argument, some limited references to potential sources, but mostly I'm getting evidence of strong opinions and accusations rather than well thought out source-based arguments for content inclusion. Your position that "the view that pedophilia is an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality is not some fringe belief but the view held by Havelock Ellis, who isn't even mentioned in the article despite being one of the most famous authors on the topic in history" indicates a lack of understanding about how such material should be handled. Ellis' views are of historical importance; they don't form the basis for an argument that such views are not fringe in the present. Just to be clear, I think that there could be useful additions to the history section of Pedophilia article, which should properly focus on the history of the concept, and that a greater social context could be given to clinical developments and their public reception. Again, there's no evidence presented here that such appropriate content is being excluded. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2013‎ (UTC)
 * @Flyer22. Paedophilia assumes a new cultural and clinical salience in the 1970s & 1980s. The reasons for that change could, perhaps, be better developed in the article but I'd have to do a proper trawl through the relevant literature before making a considered argument in that regard. In any case, there's no evidence that such material is being inappropriately excluded. This would not be to make an argument that the historical or anthropological literature suggests that sexual relations between adults and prepubescent children was ever considered normal. However, I don't find the argument convincing that age of consent laws or the common age of betrothal provide strong indications for sexual norms. The concerns they reflect may relate more strongly to a cultural value placed on female virginity (and hence their rough correspondence in many instances to the period of menarche, which itself has changed historically). I find hebephilia, and its reception, interesting as it focuses on a more prevalent form of adult-child sexual relations that are, minimally in our period and culture, considered inappropriate whereas paedophilia is, relative to this, a rarer phenomenon. Also, I guess because hebephilia corresponds more closely to the public conception of paedophilia. However, none of that is relevant to the immediate issues at hand and is merely the opinion of someone with no expertise in these matters. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Fiachra, FRINGE is a typical reason given by Flyer22 et al when historically significant views of experts like Havelock Ellis are kept out of these articles. As you note, and as I note in the Workshop, we should not suppress historical views because they are considered fringe now. It's a key aspect of the NPOV, UNDUE, and OWN problems. Getting into the evidence of suppression at Pedophilia is too complex for this current matter, so I limited the evidence here to the 2013 incident. Depending on how this goes, unsanctioned editors can revisit all the problems at pedophilia. Jokestress (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The invocation of fringe and undue is appropriate enough given the general tenor of the discussion, the failure in that discussion to produce a secondary source that would indicate the appropriate weight and contextualisation of Ellis' views, a certain ambiguity as to whether Ellis' thesis should be presented as equivalent to current mainstream scholarly sources, and general politicking around the sexological conception of sexual identities. Is there a specific edit (diff) where you or another editor attempted to add information about Ellis' position supported by an appropriate secondary source to the historical section of that article? FiachraByrne (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a typical example of Flyer22 ownership at pedophilia. "Revert. I didn't agree to this, and there was no consensus." You'll note the summary of the hebephilia controversy. Time does not allow for me to list all of them. Just search "Flyer22" on the histories of the OWNed topics plus edit summaries containing variants of "revert" for other examples. Jokestress (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, if I revert something because I disagree with it and/or because there is no consensus for it, Jokestress calls that WP:OWN. It's already been noted in this case by myself and others that Jokestress has odd definitions of WP:OWN. Also noted is her tendency to ignore facts, tell half-truths and misrepresent matters in other ways. For example, most of the above text she displays as me having reverted is currently in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which reliable source stayed removed after Flyer22 removed it? Karen Franklin's. What got left out? Franklin's pretextual criticisms. That whole article has the same serious NPOV problems as hebephilia, mainly due to Flyer22 rather than a tag-team in that case. Jokestress (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone interested in my editing when it comes to Franklin can refer to these comments I posted on the evidence talk page. Also, here is another misrepresentation from Jokestress: Regarding Franklin being left out, see this diff-link showing me, just a very short time after reverting Jokestress in September 2010, restoring the text she'd inserted, including the text about Karen Franklin. What I did not restore is her alterations to the Misuse of terminology section, the elimination of the Misuse of terminology heading and her combining its text with the Other uses section. Franklin was not removed until February 2012, and it was not by me. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FiachraByrne, disregarding the latest comment from Jokestress, who is like a broken record, and is also why I did not respond to her latest comments about me on the (main) workshop page (I've already made my points known, such as my initial report at WP:ANI about her that was about more than her tampering with comments), I understand what you mean. And I've appreciated your thoughts on these matters. Flyer22 (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Flyer22. FiachraByrne (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Flyer22. FiachraByrne (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in reply. @Jokestress. I'm not sure that that edit you post above from the pedophilia article shows evidence of ownership. Flyer22 self-reverted, restoring most of the content, 11 minutes later. Most of those content changes stand or have been improved in the current revision of the article. Where they haven't been is in the Pedophilia section. I'd agree with you that rename for this section would be appropriate ("Popular use of term?") and that the editorialising/moralisign content should be removed ("even more problematic"; "unfortunately"; etc) while keeping clear that its popular usage is less precise, sometimes confused, and significantly different from its specialist usage. I don't think that a disagreement over this issue indicates "article ownership", however. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only difference in the title is that the word "medical" was added to it as part of some compromise. The "even more problematic" wording is something that I've been meaning to change for a long time because of the WP:Editorializing; that text was added by Legitimus, and I never got around to tweaking it. But what it (unlike the other examples) describes is an aspect that doesn't seem like popular usage; seems more like occasional usage. Whatever usage it is, it's certainly odd to refer to one partner of two consenting adults as a pedophile for any of the reasons it mentions. I remember being surprised when I read the passage because I've seen words like cougar and man-cougar to describe women or men who are romantically/sexually paired with significantly younger legal adults (18 and up), but (except for when it's a high school teacher dating a student, and the Mark Foley congressional page incident) never pedophile being used seriously in those cases. I've heard/read such comparisons (emphasis on the word comparisons) occasionally, but it's more common to hear/read such comparisons when it's a person who is 30-something or older dating an 18 or 19-year-old (again, especially when it's a high school teacher dating a student). Flyer22 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lay usage or non-specialist usage. I dunno. One point to bear in mind is that because of the topic this and related articles require responsible, informed editors who are willing to police them over extended periods of time to prevent the content being hijacked by advocates. Doing that without infringing ownership policy is tricky. In saying that I'm not suggesting that ownership policy has been infringed but just trying to recognise that it's a difficult and required task. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Too late?
I have been sick and then my brother in law was rushed to hospital with an acute central nervous system disorder - so I missed the deadline. I wouldn't mind passing comment on some of the proposals here in the workshop and possibly adding a couple of my own. Am I too late?-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission? The arbs haven't really provided much guidance throughout.  Perhaps draft on a subpage and add in a single edit, that way if they object it's a simple revert.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point in drafting I'm not sure how much additional proposals will affect the proposed decision, unless they're radically different from what's been offered. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A passing thought
Blanchard is an expert on transgender issues in much the same way that Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons were experts on nuclear physics. Yes, there is a body of work in peer-reviewed journals, but this work emphatically does not enjoy consensus support of their peers. It's harder in social sciences since, well, they aren't that scientific, and are not usually amenable to objective empirical experiment, but the fact that he and his followers medicalise normality and treat the transgender population with apparent contempt is pretty clear to anyone who has followed these debates on Wikipedia. James Cantor himself is, in my view, a civil POV-pusher, and is in this for the long haul. I don't foresee him ever giving up, and his edits seem to play better to an ideological rather than a scientific audience. Some of this stuff seems a bit squicky? Learn to deal with it. I have several TG friends, the idea that it's all about sex is not just offensive it is pretty obviously entirely wrong. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)