Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen/First mediation/Archive 1

Our next step.

I have read the information at Guide to mediation after a case is accepted, and I recommend everyone else does as well. If I am understanding its recommendations correctly, assignment to a mediator is not automatic, and it would be helpful for us to seek a mediator proactively. From that policy:

...If a mediator does not take on a case within between two and four weeks (depending on the backlog), it is generally closed as stale, with the option for the parties to reopen it if the conflict has not been solved through other processes. Parties often find this frustrating, but the nature of mediation as a voluntary process prevents anyone involved from being forced to participate, including the mediator. Parties are highly encouraged to seek out a mediator from the active Committee members in order to speed up resolution; parties that are hands-on and demonstrate a strong desire to find a resolution often have successful mediations, while those that are unwilling to take an active hand in mediation find that their cases become stale.

The list of mediators is here. I can't say I have any strong preference for any one potential mediator over any other, but if anyone does, then it might make sense for us to sell our case to that potential mediator.

— James Cantor (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to any of them. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the shotgun approach. We ask all of them whoever responds in the positive will be the one.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC) As a matter of fact to me that is the harmless logical next step. So I will just do it.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We're actively discussing who is going to take this case on our mailing list so please stay with us. I suspect we'll have someone within the next couple of days. Please don't think we've forgotten about you guys because we haven't. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Great; thank you.— James Cantor (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Emerging new controversy

Just found out about this via lynnconway.com A book by Kelly Winters PhD. psychologist published from what I can tell essentially by Kelly Winters. The contents seem to be from a number of blog postings she has compiled into a book (See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ). IMHO her being a PhD. in psych would make this book admissable as per WP:SPS. Although I likely would clash with a few here about the weight it should have in the articles. At most, I think, a choice paragraph from it should be quoted or paraphrased in nothing more.

I think that we should address or agree on how to address this new sore point within the mediation.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you see an controversy as likely to emerge around this? Seems to me that having more sources may be a big help in providing a balanced view, if there's anything in it about the things that have been difficult to source satisfactorily so far. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has a transwoman who is arguably aslo an academic expert in the field voicing her criticisms of the diagnoses of not only Autogynephilia, and homosexual transsexual, but also of GID, and transvestic fetishism. She advocates for the total removal of all such language from the DSM. I am assuming what's in the book and what's in the blogs is essentially the same. A transwomans perspective on that would be a good addition to many articles. Here is what I see comming. Somoene will want to quote in a copious ammount of what's in the book, verbatim. Because it's in their opinion the greatest book ever written on the topic. It also would then be a RS which calls Autogynephilia a fringe theory. While someone else will argue the book is merely a self publishing in hard copy of what was already written in blogs. That the PhD. Psychologist who wrote it is not a sexologist and therefore still not truly an expert. Only a sexologist could decide what is or is not fringe in sexology. I think that's a pretty good guess of where the hard anti-sexologist party, and the sexologist party would respectively stand on the issue. Am I grossly wrong? Could such views be reconciled without some kind of arguement? I don't think so.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we all believe in WP:NPOV here, so we just have to fairly represent all views on the issues. Having this new source can only help. Of course, we will push back if someone tries to "quote in a copious amount", giving it WP:UNDUE weight relative to other views. Dicklyon (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A self published book is not a RS any more than a self-published blog; given that most of the people involved in this had doctorates,will therefore just be another person with her individuals views on things. I say this without actually checking what position she takes. I consider almost everything presented as sources for this article as personal opinion, more or less well informed, and all positions to be personal views which some people find appropriate, and others do not. The evidence is divided between a little inadequate science, and a good deal of itmakessensetome. DGG (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"inadequate scicence" by the standards of the exact physical sciences or by the standards common to psychology. ("penis envy" anyone? That's what the Newton of psychology gave us.)--Hfarmer (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me (anyone) if I am putting the wrong words into anyone's mouths, but I believe the argument being made is more subtle/complicated than how DGG put it. I think Hfarmer and Dicklyon are acknowledging that the book is an SPS (as do I), but they are pointing out an SPS counts as an RS on WP pages nonetheless, when the producer of the SPS is an expert on the topic. Of course, that leads the conversation to Is Winters an expert on this topic? But our collective experiences here suggested (to me) that this question would be better postponed for the mediation.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I just wanted to make sure we could cover this in the mediation since it will assuredly come up.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediator

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) has offered to act as mediator for this case. She has been offered the case so the she can get the feel of official mediation and so the committee can assess her performance for a possible nomination to join the committee. She has extensive experience in informal mediation and this will no doubt help move your dispute forward. If anyone has any concerns or objections, please do voice them here within 48 hours and then we can get underway. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections.--Hfarmer (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No objections. — James Cantor (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy to have you; thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, but be aware that the Wikipedia Review has said I am SlimVirgin's sockpuppet.--Cerejota (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What? lol! Are you serious?  :-) You got a diff where they say that?--Hfarmer (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

no objections, DGG (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No objection. BrownHornet21 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Question. Will we need unanimous agreement to the choice of mediatior regardless of the 48 hour window?--Hfarmer (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, that's why I've given you guys 48 hours to raise concerns before we set off. We don't need everybody to explicitly state that they're happy and I think 48 hours is long enough for everyone to be made aware and offer their comments. If people didn't agree, then we'd find a new mediator. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I take it we are now ready to go? — James Cantor (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I've just told SlimVirgin that she's good to go. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for opening statements

Hi everyone,

I've been asked to take this mediation, because I'm thinking of applying to join MedCom, so I've been given this case to see how things work out. I hope that's okay with you all.

I'd like to start by asking each party to make an opening statement here, listing their main concerns, so that I can see what the various perspectives are. Depending on how things look after that, I'll try to summarize and make some suggestions. I'll probably open a subpage to do that, or possibly more than one if there are separable issues, and we can take it from there.

Please feel free to write a long statement if that will help, or keep it short as you prefer. I would prefer if we could keep the discussion onwiki, though I'll take e-mail submissions too, if there are concerns that someone doesn't want to express in public. Bear in mind that I won't be able to respond much by e-mail, and I won't be expressing any personal views, agreement, or disagreement (unless it's about policy), but I will read what you send. Also, as the mediation progresses, please let me know if you think I'm not handling the case well; the feedback will be very helpful. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jokestress

Before we get into all the accusations, I would like to make a simple proposal based on User:DGG's suggestion. I will voluntarily abstain from editing in article space on any articles related to sexuality or transsexuality, as long as WhatamIdoing, DarlieB, ProudAGP, Hfarmer, Dicklyon, and James Cantor all agree as well. I don't think this voluntary agreement needs to extend to talk pages, but I would be willing to agree to that as well provided everyone else does. Jokestress (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: I see people feel a need to air grievances rather than propose how to move forward. I believe the edit histories and bloviation of the editors below demonstrate:

• James Cantor (aka WriteMakesRight aka MarionTheLibrarian) is a single-purpose account here to promote his parochial beliefs about sexology and those of his coworkers, and to denigrate their critics, including me.

• ProudAGP is a single-purpose account here to promote the work of J. Michael Bailey and his friends, and to denigrate their critics, including me.

• Hfarmer is a disruptive self-dramatizing agenda editor with massive ownership conflicts on homosexual transsexual and related topics. Hfarmer seeks to escalate any disagreement through canvassing and tendentious editing, and seems to enjoy the attention it generates. Like Cantor, Hfarmer is increasingly using wikilawyering to further this disruption and seeks to “prosecute” something in this mediation in order to impose involuntary sanctions, versus all of us reaching consensus.

• WhatamIdoing is a longtime editor whose edits across the project are valuable, but she is the most insidious POV-pusher here, using these articles as a battleground where she seeks to right great wrongs. Her only interest in this topic is to punish those she sees as enemies of “academic freedom” for actions involving J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist whose former transsexual client says they had a sexual encounter, and whose "science" book casts himself as the hero of a cure narrative about a gender-variant child. She found deliberately outrageous statements I have made off-wiki to be outrageous (as intended) and seeks to punish me on-wiki. In my years of editing, I have dealt with many people like her whose views I consider equally odious (eugenicists, quacks, cranks, racists, hoaxers, authoritarians), but never in my years editing have I dealt with a more enraged tendentious editor. In my opinion, WhatamIdoing is the biggest problem here, because she has a very sophisticated m.o. for POV-pushing through longtime involvement in policy pages and noticeboards.

• Dicklyon is a longtime editor whose edits across the project are valuable but marred by occasional lapses of civility and unfortunate personal attacks. He’s unhappy about numerous WP:BLP issues on his friend Lynn Conway’s page, which has led to his general involvement in this debate. He is frequently accused by the above of POV-pushing on talk pages.

• DarlieB is a fairly straightforward agenda editor without much experience or interest in following policies.

• Jokestress is a longtime editor whose edits across the project are valuable but who has a stated WP:COI in matters related to sexuality and transsexualism, where she is frequently accused by the above of POV-pushing, personal attacks, and tendentious editing on talk pages.

All of us have conflicts of interest as I understand its use here. I believe the first four editors above would not even edit these topics if I were not a Wikipedian, and they seek to import off-wiki grudges here. Because I have expert-level knowledge of these topics, I have tried to work with them to develop consensus-based versions of disputed articles. We were making good progress until Hfarmer started getting more and more disruptive last fall. I have no problem discussing content with any of them as long as necessary on the talk pages, but these guys can’t seem to do it without making personal attacks in their attempts to annoy/offend those with whom they disagree. See this 2008 exchange where WhatamIdoing attempts to extort an apology for my off-wiki activity, or James Cantor’s 2009 link to an attack site (by blocked User:KJWRE subtitled “Why do I call Andrea James the Jackbooted Kommandentessa a Nazi”) or Hfarmer’s 2009 link to Encyclopedia Dramatica and their article about me.

My proposed remedies:

1. Any agreement needs to include all seven of us.
2. The key element is volunteering to do no more editing in article space for sexuality and transsexuality topics.
3. I would rather not see any voluntary talk page restrictions but will agree if everyone else does.
4. I agree that there's a concern about future editing via proxies which should be addressed.
5. There should be some sort of formalized agreement ending any future personal attacks, with clearly defined consequences for such attacks.

Beyond that, I am open to whatever. Jokestress (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dick Lyon

In response to opening remark by Jokestress: I don't think we can solve the basic problem by not editing, unless we also get some unconflicted editors to work in this space; but I'll go along with Jokestress's suggestion if that's what people want. Of course, it should also be recognized that such a truce may have to some day be abandoned if someone new starts to push one POV again, as I had to abandon the truce with Cantor when Hfarmer went to work on the Conway bio.

I see a few main issues: (1) conflict of interest and improper editing based on it, on the part of User:James Cantor in promoting the veiwpoint of his colleagues including especially Ray Blanchard; (2) unfair attempts by several editors, allied with Cantor, to exclude one side of the story and write the articles from only the point of view of the academic sexologists; (3) excess noise and drama sometimes injected to destabilize things.

I got involved when James Cantor, in the guise of User:MarionTheLibrarian, started attacking the bio of my long-time friend (ex-boss from 30 years ago) Lynn Conway back in May, here (the diff looks odd, where he refers to her as "James" instead of "Conway" because he had copied his earlier attack on Andrea James, aka User:Jokestress, into the Conway bio). That was a long time ago. He has been on his best behavior since admitting his identity after our first mediation, but his COI still motivates a lot of really bad editing, such as the creation of the absurd Feminine essence theory of transsexuality.

By the way, when James Cantor wrote Some scholars have likened James to "the Al Sharpton rather than the M.L. King sort" of activist.http://alicedreger.com/informed_dissent.html in the bios of Andrea James and then Lynn Conway, he actually did give a (blog) source, from which we can infer that "some scholars" resolves to none other than James Cantor himself!

Cantor's main tactic recently has been to assert WP:RS and WP:SPS in such a way as to try to suppress all the commentaries in response to the "history" written by Alice Dreger. This long piece in the Archives of Sexual Behavior was written basically to absolve J. Michael Bailey of any wrongdoing and to accuse Lynn Conway, Andrea James, and Deirdre McCloskey of harassment and such. The editor Kenneth Zucker, another colleague of Cantor, published Dreger's piece as a "controversial paper", and solicited responses to it in advance, publishing them all in the same special issue of the journal. But Zucker mentioned that Dreger's was "peer reviewed" and didn't say that about the others, which are more like letters to the editor, though solicited and on the same topic. On this basis, Canter, and his buddies WhatamIdoing and ProudAGP and sometimes Hfarmer, want to exclude these commentaries as not reliable sources, and write the articles as if Dreger's piece is reliable. In fact, the vast majority of the 23 commentaries point out that Dreger's so-called "history" misses the mark by a mile; they present another side to all of Dreger's main points, casting consideral doubt on her conclusions, and perhaps even her integrity. Wikipedia needs to present a balanced view of this controversy, just as the Archives of Sexual Behavior did in spite of the their vested interest in Dreger's POV.

To complicate matters, Cantor has allies in User:ProudAGP, of whom I know nothing except that his/her handle implies he/she is proud of Ray Blanchard's controversial theory of autogynephilia (or proud to be autogynephilic); and User:WhatamIdoing, who points out that she has absolutely no COI herself, being a heterosexual female non-sexologist knowing none of the principals, who, however, has admitted on numerous occasions a motivation based on being totally appalled at the behavior several years ago of the transsexual activist Andrea James who had attacked J. Michael Bailey by using his words against him in combination with photos of his own children on her web site; I think this has left her (WhatamIdoing) with a very real and very strong interest that conflicts with wikipedia goals.

And then there's User:Hfarmer and User:DarlieB; each in their own way introduces more drama and noise than we need. The transsexual DarlieB is clearly on "my side"; with friends like this, who needs enemies? And Hfarmer, the transsexual black muslim physicist, seems to be in it for the attention more than anything else. Good luck with these two.

DGG and BrownHornet are not taking sides, and have done most of what's humanly possible to get us all to behave; we thank them. Probably Cerejota is in that category, too; I don't remember how he got hooked up with this mess.

It's complicated. But simple. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe [Cerejota] mean[s] someone else; as far as we know, Lynn Conway has never edited wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by James Cantor

From my point of view, the situation is as it was at our recently discussion at COI/N: There is a group of three editors with an on-going COI problem on a set of related pages pertaining to transsexuality. All three involved editors (one of whom is me) acknowledge real-life relationships with some aspect of the content of these pages, and all have been challenged regarding COI several times by people with opposing perspectives. As I said at COI/N, I believe that all three of us should be limited in our editing of the pages:

• user:Dicklyon has acknowledged that he is a personal friend and a former employee of Lynn Conway. He has been blocked three times for edit warring on this and on other pages.[1] He has been topic banned on another topic (see here). He entered into a mediated agreement with user:James Cantor not to edit the controversy sections of the problematic articles (see here), but he recently declared unilaterally that he was withdrawing from that agreement (see here) because it suited him in his dispute with yet another editor on the same topic (user:Hfarmer, see here). This suggests, at least to me, that there is little point to entering into voluntary agreements with him again.
• user:Jokestress has acknowledged that she is Andrea James, a self-described transsexual activist whose widely reported activities include submitting formal real-world complaints about the people described on the WP pages she edits and writing to their employers urging that they be fired, including Kenneth Zucker, J. Michael Bailey, and Ray Blanchard. Her involvement in the controversies described on the WP pages has even made it into The New York Times. All of these real-world activities are contained on her personal website, www.tsroadmap.com. She is currently left to her own devices in deciding whether and how to edit the articles that document her own actions in the real world. user:Dicklyon has previously opined that neither user:Jokestress nor user:James Cantor should be editing the pages.
• user:James Cantor has acknowledged that he is a professional colleague of Ray Blanchard, a researcher whose work is widely cited (including being contested) on the set of WP pages. I entered into a mediated agreement with user:Dicklyon not to edit the controversy sections of the problematic articles; however, with Dicklyon’s withdrawal from that agreement, a new solution is needed to avoid a return to the prior state of edit warring. Previous WP accounts used by user:James Cantor are listed on his user page; they are user:WriteMakesRight and user:MarionTheLibrarian, which he used before acknowledging his real-world identity.

When I brought this to COI/N, I proposed ending these long-standing wars once and for all by for all three of us entering into the agreement that was used successfully by user:Dicklyon and user:James Cantor until Dicklyon’s withdrawal, and to let the pages be edited only by the remaining "non-COI" editors.

A correction to Jokestress' statement above: After I started the discussion at COI/N and proposed the above, it was user:Dicklyon (one of the "COI editors") who proposed expanding the topic ban to include the "non-COI" editors,[2] not user:DGG (an admin who is generally considered by the rest of us to be rather impartial). Unless I misunderstood him, user:DGG's response to my proposal was about expanding the topic ban to include the talk pages.[3]

Thus far, much of the discussion regarding who should be removed from the pages has referred, not to following WP policies and guidelines, but to how many people from each “side” would be neutralized. From my point of view: Removing the COI editors is necessary to meet WP:COI, but removing the non-COI editors is only for strategic purposes. (Of course, Dicklyon and Jokestress believe that my point of view is a strategic purpose; but there has not yet been any mention of what WP policy would be served by removing non-COI editors.)
— James Cantor (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon is entitled entirely to his opinions, but not to incivility. We are not going to get very far if he cannot find more appropriate ways to express himself than “Hfarmer, the transsexual black muslim physicist, seems to be in it for the attention more than anything else. Good luck with these two.”

— James Cantor (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota is entitled to her opinions, of course, but her statement contains several errors of fact, which (I believe) have lead her to conclusions that are non-sequitur.

For example, there is no basis for Cerejota to say "Lynn Conway should also stop editing her own bio." Lynn Conway isn't editing anything. Cerejota may be confusing Lynn Conway with Andrea James, who has been editing articles that document her own off-wiki actions.

Cerejota’s belief that "James Cantor could edit on the general topics of human sexuality, but should be careful to not include information that links to his COI points" is self-contradictory: Any review of my (professional) publication history (which is easily googleable) shows that I publish on pedophilia and sometimes on homosexuality, but not on transsexuality. Thus, saying that I could edit in topic on sexuality but not on topics in my own "COI points" is to say that I can edit on transsexuality, but not pedophilia. (Tangentially, my edits and opinions on pedophilia are frequently requested from editors who follow the pedophilia page.)

Moreover, Cerejota’s philosophy contradicts the relevant policy. From WP:COI: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." As my edit history shows, I habitually announce whenever I cite my own work, my edits have been accepted nearly unanimously if not unanimously,. Moreover still, Cerejota appears not to have noticed that I do not, in face, edit the controversial sections of the WP pages in question. I stopped doing so several months ago (according to the agreement I had with Dicklyon) and—even though Dicklyon has ended that agreement—I have refrained from editing there nonetheless.

As I said, Cerejota is entitled to her opinions, but those opinions are relevant only when they are based on accurate information.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for referring to you as "she." I'm not even sure what it is about your screen name that made me think of it as a feminine name.

Yes, you are in error regarding Lynn Conway, as both Dicklyon and I have pointed out.

Your subsequent comments about my handling of COI simply ignore what I said, so there is little more I can do. Although you are entitled to a conservative interpretation of WP:COI, your interpretation yields a rule that is opposite to what the rule actually says. That is, the rule says one may edit in an area in which one has "professional" expertise. You are saying that I may not because I am a paid researcher. All I can do, of course, is to point out that professional means paid.

— James Cantor (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've said of Jokestress before, her edits suffer by what she leaves out more than by what they contain. By still refering to me as an SPA, she applies from WP:SPA that "Some editors are concerned that contributions by single-purpose accounts have not aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards", but she overlooks that "Other editors raise counter-concerns pointing to the need of the Community to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject," and "extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage an expert opinion". Expressing half-truths will not resolve anything. As ProudAGP alluded, one will rarely find the problems with Jokestress' edits by reading what she writes; the greatest problems are in what she leaves out, such as the missing pieces of WP:SPA.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hfarmer

The solution to this problem will have multiple facets. Simply banning or baring every involved editor is not a solution and IMO is an invitation for someone or the other to sock or meatpuppetry. We need to use a scalpel and not a cleaver.

First of all though this mediation can only deal with what is on wiki.... all that has happened off wiki is pertinent here. This case in very much about a book called "The Man Who Would be Queen" By J. Michael Bailey. A book which contained a theory by ray Blanchard which named two types of male-to-female transsexuals either "autogynephilic", or "homosexual". In real life there has been a long running controversy over the subjects of this article. It has gotten personal. Charges of ethics violations have been filed. People have felt smeared by a sexological theory. Reputations have been damaged... Really nasty stuff all around. What has happened now is users who have deep involvement in that have been on Wikipedia editing in ways that betray their inability to be truely neutral.

Blanchard's theory has been called Fringe by some editors here but they can find no references from within the field of sexology which say so.

There are also NPOV issues raised by some. However I would submit to you all that just who is raiseing those issues... their real life COI and deeply entrenched bias plays a huge role in their perception of POV. Even something that is really NPOV to a very biased person will look POV...Basically because it does not represent their views to a great enough extent.

Issues of civility or incivility have been raised about various users myself included. Those should be handled by other means not in mediation.

Here are other issues that I think are important. NPOV and "homosexual transsexual", Inclusion of an essnetiallyl self published book by a TS psychologist (who is not a sexologist). It turns out I was mistaken. Kelley Winters is in fact not even a psychologist. I have purchased and read the book by the by, 2.5/5 stars, not much of it is useable on wikipedia due to SPS anyway.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To the COI issue

First of all there are users here who have real life provable conflicts of interest. Those are Dicklyon (Dick Lyon), James Cantor (James Cantor), and Jokestress (Andrea James) Each of these people post thier real names on their user pages so there is no outing here. Let me summarize the evidence of COI on them. Andrea James has an entire webpage dedicated for many years to gathering information on this topic. Including publishing her always negative opinion of it. The page should speak for itself. James Cantor is a coworker or associate of Ray Blanchard, who's theory that male to female transsexuals come in two types is a large part of this matter. Dick Lyon was a coworker and good friend of Lynn Conway. Lynn Conway's website makes clear where she stands on this.

In my case I have to admit that I live in Chicago. I am a transsexual woman who has been around the block at least once. I have meet many if not all of the people most deeply involved in this story at some point or the other. I met Bailey a few times in the period a few years prior to pubishing his book, I last met the one known here as JSM a few months ago now. I have met many others as well. In any case we just meet in passing really. It's not as if I am going shoe shopping with JSM tomorrow and freaking bowling with Bailey next week or something. We all just live in the same city and have circulated in a small community. If that makes for a COI according to the rest of you so be it. I will admit though that in the back of my mind I think that if I wrote something vicious enough here I could hear a knock at the door. I contend that I have no conflict of interest and my editing demonstrates that. I have been religiously neutral.

Then there are users like ProudAGP, WhatamIdoing, and DarlieB who while involved editors have no provable real life conflicts of interest what so ever. I have agreed and disagreed with members in this group but I am not going to say that they should be banned from editing without their being some real cause for that.

I propose the following in response to the proposal by User Jokestress. The users with proven real life COI Jokestress, JamesCantor and Dicklyon all are to be community banned from editing the article namespace of the listed articles. However all of them would still be able to raise issues on the talk page. All other editors would be free to edit the articles unless and until real life COI can be proven Or they are blocked for some other reason.

To the Fringe Issue

Dicklyon even admitted that within sexology Blanchard's theory is not considered fringe:

As to "these theories" and "widely discredited", there's a lot of confusion right there. This theory (Feminine essence theory of transsexuality) appears only in the paper by Blanchard that both proposes it and discredits it. None of the other sources are about this theory; that's part of what's dishonest about how the article was written. As for the other Blanchard theory, it's NOT discredited within the academic sexologist community so much, but it certainly did stir up a fight with the transwomen. Dicklyon (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC) [4]

I submit that this hits' the nail right on the head. In deciding weather or not our encyclopedia ought to call a theory fringe we should look to the field and subfield which actively researches the topic academically. In the field of psychology, and subfield of sexology Blanchard's theory is not considered fringe. Blanchard himself is not considered a crackpot or crank either (he's helping to write the DSM... the bible of psychology.) There are reliable secondary sources in which the terminology used in Blanchard's theory is criticized, that's about it. That information is already in the articles.

NPOV and homosexual transsexual

There has been an issue as to weather or not this article was about a term or a phenomena. If it is about a term then only english language sources which use the term "homosexual transsexual" verbaim may be used at all. If this is about a phenomena, the phenomena of transsexual women who are attracted to men, then a wider range of sources can be used. I made the compromise offer that is it in fact about both. That sources which use the term verbatim, as well as sources which describe analogous cross cultural and historical groups, criticisms which do not use the term verbatim, etc. can be used in the article. Since in my POV this particular part of the enchilada has been refered to in some way, it seems, for as long as peopled cared to record the existence of transgenderism/transsexuality.

As for general NPOV ing.... as far as I can see it is neutral. A healthy but not overwhelming amount of criticism is in the article. What the heck more could anyone want?

Dicklyons in civil edit above

In his statement Dick Lyon wrote that I an simply seeking attention. In doing so he relies an a stereotype about transgender women (In particular young ones who like men.) This argument goes back to usenet days... Usually a older transsexual will call a younger outspoken transsexual an "attention whore". Those were not his exact words but do not mistake the intent. What he wrote about me and Darlie B is fundamentally Homo and trans phobic.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to Dicklyon's intent, but I do have to emphasize my disappointment that his comments are not being addressed more directly than with "I hope that everyone will be as civil as possible from now on." Perpetual incivility is very much part of why we require mediation in the first place.

SlimVirgin: You asked that we provide feedback, and to note this is my first comment in that regard. Enforcing what professionals call "fair fighting" is the first rule of mediation. What to you seems like a first instance seems to (at least some of) us as yet another jab in a very long line of them.

(I'm happy to relocate this comment if Hfarmer would prefer that I do.)

— James Cantor (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it was probably not necessary for me to articulate my perception about what motivates Hfarmer. No harm meant, but I still had her recent antics on my mind; nothing to do with her transsexuality, just her editing. Dicklyon (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Kelley Winters and her Book

The book in question is "Gender Madness".. Is essentially self published, published by "gid reform advocates" (herself) and based on a series of her blog postings. I could argue that she is an expert being that she has a PhD in psychology... but I have a question what subfield? If it's not sexology, and she has no peer reviewed publications in sexology then what's in her book is only her opinion. Can anyone tell me what subfield she works in? --Hfarmer (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick policy clarification — we're allowed to use self-published material so long as the author is an expert in the field whose work in that field has previously been published by an independent reliable source (see Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources). Kelley Winters seems to fit that criterion. This, for example, is a paper of hers in what looks like a peer-reviewed journal. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked if someone could tell me what subfield she works in. I knew that that's why I asked if someone could tell me what subfield she works in. I have to ask since she has published this work you linked to, can her blog postings on this topic be used?--Hfarmer (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the blog posts can be used, unless she's commenting on living people, in which case not. Per WP:BLP, self-published sources are not allowed for material about living people. [5] If she's only talking about people's theories, it should be okay, so long as there's nothing contentious. But if there's anything like, "Dr X is talking such rubbish I hardly know where to begin," then no. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that it is probably inappropriate for me to insert something in someone else's statement (I'll be happy to move or remove this), but I think it's too early to go into the Kelly Winters issue. We haven't even received statements from everyone yet. I do think, however, that addressing the incivility of Dicklyon's statement is appropriate at this stage, as I noted above. If I am being overly sensitive regarding incivility, however, I would prefer knowing that sooner rather than later, as excusing incivility this early in a mediation will certainly allow it to balloon quickly.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree this book is out of scope; none of us has even seen it yet, nobody had done an edit based on it, etc. It appears to have been brought up for dramatic purposes. My expression of this opinion is not meant to be incivil; it seems to me important to be able to express what we think is going on that makes the problem more complex than a mere content dispute. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

True but do you not think that as soon as Amazon.com can deliver it it will not become an issue here? Frankly the reason I included it in my opening statement was in order to express MY concern over this issue. Which is what these statements are for. Since we are talking about this issue now, and it's fresh in my mind.... Slim Virgin, well there are a number of statements like that in her blog post Kelley Winters' essays ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, of-the-asylum/ 16 ). Dr Cantor also points out on my talk page Dr. Winters writes here that she is not a mental health professional and apparently her PhD. is not in psychology. I had assumed it was. For the record and as the last word in MY statement let me in light of the above write my humble opinion. We should look at what Dr. Winters has published in peer reviewed journals and other RS's on this topic. Then only the very specific things she has published about in RS's are useable. In the book she talks about Blanchard, and says things that are related to this topic. However it seems in her paper she writes about the GID diagnosis and not about Blanchard or his theory. So IMHO I guess what's in her book is not useable in relation to this specific topic. But it could be used elsewhere on wikipedia. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the book hasn't been used in the article yet, there's probably little point in discussing it now. What we need for the time being are statements from everyone giving their view of the main issues. James, regarding the civility issue, obviously I hope that everyone will be as civil as possible from now on, so that there's no further deterioration in the relationships. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO this is one of the main issues. The question of the peer commentaries has come up and is related to this one. The issues are who is an expert and what is an expert for wikipedia's purposes. Those are the underlying issues. They apply to this as much as to the commentaries. This book will certainly be introduced.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrected section heading. According to her blog, her name is "Kelley Winters, Ph.D.", that is Kelley with an E in each syllable. - Hordaland (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Reiteration of my proposed solution

Since it has been said all anyone is doing is airing grieviances... Let me write in a more prominent place what I proposed before.

I propose the following in response to the proposal by User Jokestress. The users with proven real life COI Jokestress, JamesCantor and Dicklyon all are to be community banned from editing the article namespace of the listed articles. However all of them would still be able to raise issues on the talk page. All other editors would be free to edit the articles unless and until real life COI can be proven Or they are blocked for some other reason.

As to Jokestress's proposal I reject the idea that basically every editor needs to be banned from editing article namespace on these articles, or should abstain voluntarily. Only real life COI backed by evidence should result in that kind of step. Only JamesCantor, Jokestress, and Dicklyon have that. I am not saying that the rest of us are perfect model editors at all. As for saying that I have a COI. Present evidence for that. Just what association, or insidious motivation do I have? Is it that I am a transwoman who is unwilling to do backflips for the great Andrea James? --Hfarmer (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what I take that line back. But come on saying I have a conflict of interest. You act as if this is going to be like the way some transsexuals react to what is written on TSroadmap. As if because Andrea James wrote it it must be the truth. hmph, show some evidence. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by WhatamIdoing

My concerns are primarily about academic freedom and chilling effects on free speech. Consequently, I don't follow at least half of the articles listed here for mediation. Here's how I see the relevant bits:

Background

• A professor of psychology who specializes in sexology talks to a bunch of people. These interviews are the sort you'd do for any normal work of journalism, or just chatting over a beer in a bar. They are not the kind of structured surveys with proper controls and validation processes that you'd use for research, and these reports would never be accepted for use in a proper research paper.
• He publishes a "pop science" type book that discusses a bit of the academic literature and illustrates some of the concepts using the life stories of the people that he's been talking to (typically using pseudonyms).
• Getting sex reassignment surgery (SRS) in the US requires supportive letters from two psychologists. Getting these apparently is very time-consuming, difficult, and expensive. Bailey writes 'second letters' for a couple of people seeking SRS. These letters are provided free of charge and without any conditions about being in his book (in fact, it's not clear to me that any of the people receiving these letters were actually represented in the book, and some letters appear to predate his interest in writing this book). In these letters, he apparently accurately identifies himself as a professor of psychology (which is not the same as being a psychologist licensed in a given state). The actual guidelines don't specify whether the letters must come from a person with a valid state license: whether to accept a letter from a non-licensed psychologist (such as a researcher) is left up to the surgeon.

Response to Bailey's book

Much of the response is what you'd expect and welcome in any politicized scientific debate. There are dozens of POV-driven (both sides) book reviews online. Some people liked it. Many people disliked some or all of it. People shared and defended their views online and offline. However, there were a few actions that went beyond a normal, healthy debate:

• Andrea James posted the names and school pictures of Bailey's children on the web, with captions like "'Kate': a cock-starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on the idea of it? We’ll find out in 12 easy questions!" and "classification system to categorize Bailey’s children. There are two types of children in the Bailey household: Type 1, who have been sodomized by their father, or Type 2, who have not."[6] (Note to Dick: These words do not appear anywhere in Bailey's book.)
• Lynn Conway and Deirdre McCloskey organized complaints against Bailey at Northwestern for violating federal research regulations. The 'research' in this instance was simply talking to people. It turned out later that about half of the alleged research subjects were never mentioned in Bailey's book. A transwoman that we usually call JMS (because every author uses a different pseudonym) further alleged that that Bailey had abused the research relationship by having an unspecified form of sexual relations with her at a specific time, date and place. (No independent person has taken this allegation seriously, as Bailey was known to be elsewhere on the specified date.) Conway and McCloskey also filed a complaint based on these allegations. The major points of this effort were to discredit Bailey's message and to convince Northwestern to fire Bailey.
• James, Conway, and McCloskey complained to the State of Illinois and to Northwestern about Bailey writing free letters about SRS. Practicing psychology without a license is a class B misdemeanor; a conviction can result in six months in jail. The state dismissed these complaints out of hand.

How this scandal hurts free speech and academic freedom

• Having your children publicly humiliated and feeling threatened because you expressed your professional views will deter honest expression of your views. We all believe that posting the names and pictures of an abortionist's children online deters abortion providers; that similar actions could have no possible negative effect on persons in other professions is frankly inconceivable. What I posted above is only a sample: Andrea James attacked Bailey's children, ex-wife, girlfriend, and friends. After James called a Dreger's five year old a "womb turd", the university's legal office told Dreger to file a police report.
• The campaign of complaints about "research subjects" affects a very broad area of academic work. This campaign only makes sense if you believe that academics in the social sciences and the 'soft' sciences require careful institutional control to prevent professors from just talking to people. If a magazine journalist had done exactly the same thing, then nobody would have complained about whether chatting in a bar or asking people to tell you their life stories required advance approval by an Institutional Review Board as federally regulated human research. (In fact, OHRP [the relevant federal agency] specifically disclaimed this position in early October 2003.) This campaign (perhaps unintentionally) boosted an ongoing regulatory debate about whether competent adults need to be legally "protected" from talking to other adults about whatever they want. Increasing paperwork decreases academic freedom. ("Academic freedom", in this instance, can be summarized as "university faculty should be subject only to the same laws as non-faculty." If you don't need to file paperwork to chat with someone at a bar and write about your encounter in a book, then neither should a faculty member.)
• The legal complaints over the SRS letters have two interesting aspects: One is that people who suffered zero harm from the letters tried to get Bailey put in jail for writing them. This indicates that the goal was to destroy Bailey personally. The other is that these letters have no apparent connection to the book. This, too, indicates that the goal was to destroy Bailey himself, not just his book.

Andrea James has (IMO deservedly) taken a lot of flak over the bad treatment of innocent people and the objectification of researchers' children, and James' life would doubtless be more pleasant if we all conveniently forgot about this despicable behavior and pretended that it was all a perfectly decent way to treat the innocent bystanders and/or that attacking children couldn't possibly have any chilling effects on their parents' free speech. However, I don't think that's plausible, because we have sources that discuss the negative impacts of the activists' campaign, and James' actions in particular, on issues ranging from general free speech issues to whether new researchers will study transsexuality at all. (All sources agree that attacking children for the perceived sins of their parents is not socially acceptable behavior, but IMO that's an issue for the real world, not for Wikipedia.)

Dick Lyon naturally doesn't like having Lynn Conway's actions presented in a way that makes them seem less than admirable, but I think his larger concern is that Conway's significant achievements in computer science may be swamped by the 'showy' trans activism. I don't know how to resolve this. At one point, there was a strange page dedicated to the controversy, in an effort to keep it out of individual bios. But that page is gone now, and Conway was a major actor at several key points during the anti-Bailey campaign. It would be odd to exclude the information from Wikipedia.

Dick also defines a "balanced" article as one that allows equal time for Conway's views (or other non-expert views). Unfortunately, this conflicts with Wikipedia's WP:DUE rules. Due weight is determined by the POV's prevalence in reliable sources. The activist POV is primarily presented in self-published sources written by non-experts.

Here's perhaps a short way of saying this: when you look at the writings of people that are not principals in the scandal (that is, not the book's author or the people filing formal complaints against him), the issue over and over and over again is liberty. The New York Times has a feature-length article that leads with considerations on freedom of speech. The Chronicle of Higher Education invests half an article on how academic freedom would be diminished if just talking to people were deemed a federally regulated activity. Practically every newspaper and magazine article mentions it. We even have sources saying that this specific scandal has increased sexologists' willingness to publicly defend other sexologists when they come under fire for saying something unpopular or offending conservative sensibilities.

As it happens, many of the self-published/non-expert sources also address the issue of free speech, and most think that there are at least some reasons for concerns. However, every one of very few sources that think that this sort of personal campaign won't have any significant negative effect on liberty is a self-published source by a person that has no claim to expertise in freedom of speech, self-censorship, or anything even remotely related. This means that WP:DUE has the article assert concerns about academic freedom -- citing newspaper articles and Dreger's peer-reviewed history -- and that's about it, because there really aren't any proper reliable sources that claim having your children publicly humiliated, or having to defend yourself against unfounded legal charges, or that requiring university professors to get federal permission before talking to people in a bar or inviting them to guest-lecture, is good for liberty.

In particular, Dick has been pushing for the inclusion of some of the twenty-three 'peer commentaries' on this issue, so that needs some explanation:

Arch Sex Behav has a recent tradition of dedicating an occasional issue to an article of their choice and responses to it. When the paper is ready for publication (which requires clearing peer-review), then they offer advance copies to anyone who's interested in commenting. Alice Dreger (medical historian/ethicist, also teaches at Northwestern) wrote such a paper about the Bailey scandal. If you requested an advance copy of Dreger's paper and wrote something (anything) about the paper, then they published your response. Those are the only requirements. In this instance, the respondents include a number of sexologists, and also several students, academics in unrelated fields, several trans activists that are mentioned in the paper, and one person writing under a pseudonym. These letters have been taken to WP:RSN twice now, and both times the conclusion has been that the letters are self-published, and therefore can only be used in compliance with the standard WP:SPS rules (and that means the pseudonymous letter can't be used at all, since the writer's expertise can't be determined).

Relevantly, this means that a letter is only useful if the person is an expert in the area that we're citing. So Charles Moser, a sexologist, writes that he disagrees with both the Blanchardian "two types" notion and the "feminine essence" story that underlies the current rules, and he's a sexologist, so his letter can be used on that point. But when he discusses issues outside his expertise, such as the ultimate effect on academic freedom (a point he's ambivalent on: he condemns the personal attacks on Bailey and his family, but he doubts, reasonably enough, that a single scandal will destroy liberty entirely), he's not an expert. His POV there is just as valid as yours, mine, or anyone else's. The same can be said about Seth Roberts, who roundly denounces McCloskey ("The big issue for me is free speech. Two professors (you and Conway) with great power tried to silence someone who said something they didn't like"): Roberts is not an expert on free speech. He's a research psychologist, and therefore could perhaps be cited about the conflicting charges related to scientific method (Roberts' letter focuses on the absurdity of simultaneously asserting that Blanchard's taxonomy is both disproven and impossible to disprove [unfalsifiable]) -- but not on the issue of liberty.

By contrast, the Gladue letter, which is about the application of IRB regulations, probably qualifies under WP:SPS. Gladue is both a behaviorial biologist (with a specialty in sex research) and the director of UNT's Office for the Protection of Human Subjects (which is the IRB office), and his comments are primarily directed towards IRB rules, which appears to be within his expertise.

Overall, I want the issue of liberty to be adequately represented in The Man Who Would Be Queen. I want the principal actors in the scandal to have their roles summarized in their bios, with an emphasis on what the independent, non-self-published sources say. I think that this is the best way to comply with Wikipedia's policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cerejota

Some of these things will be responses, but some are my statements.

1. I have a pedestrian, reader-level interest on these articles. If I ever edit them it would be as part of RC and somesuch wikignome stuff. Otherwise, not exactly my corner of wikipedia.
2. I do have an interest on the issues of systemic bias, relationship of academic information with wikipedia, and COI.
3. Reason I am here is because I was named in an ArbCom proposal, but it was clear ArbCom was not needed, but Dispute Resolution was.
4. I oppose quid pro quo "solutions", they are more like ceasefires bound to be broken than actual resolutions of a conflict. Oftentimes, situations are assymetrical, and warrant assymetrical solutions. We should arrive to solutions that are fair to the entire community, not just to the editors involved ina dispute.
5. I think the overriding issues here are of editing, not behavior - except for COI.
6. Editing issues have to do with how people understand policy, including various notability guidelines, reliable sourcing, and WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. As the moderator has suggested in the past, these are attribution issues. It is also a clash between the rigid academic structuring of knowledge, and the much more fluent encyclopedic style of wikipedia. This is not a classic narrative war but more like a clash between science and political activism - and what is considered as relevant, encyclopedic information by either camp - and as such it is not about "camps" speakign the same language, but about people speaking past each other. We should elaborate on this in the mediation.
7. COI issues - I will address them more thoroughly here because this is what got me involved.

I think COI is often misused and misunderstood. From what I have seen there are two types of COI in wikipedia - those related to BLP, in which people edit their own bios, or get sock/meat puppets to do it for them. Theother is the professional COI, were peopel edit articles directly related to their livelyhood, be them their organizations, their work, the supporting articles, or that of competitors or rivals.

In these articles, James Cantor is the only one with a COI, and it is a professional one. Why I say this? A political activist has no COI, they have biases, and biases do have an effect on editing, but are not a COI, unless they are actually paid officials of a partisan organization. If I am not mistaken, the other COIs mentioned are for political activism. I would advise those editors to read and understand WP:BATTLE, but that is not COI. Lynn COnway should also stop editing her own bio, and just request changes in the talk page, with sourcing.

James Cantor has an economic and professional incentive - besides whatever other incentives he has - to edit these topics. Now, I believe COI should always be narrowly construed: a stockbroker from Goldman Sachs should not edit Goldman Sachs at all, but could edit (according to content policies) in stockbroker. James Cantor could edit on the general topics of human sexuality, but should be careful to not include information that links to his COI points, and should steer clear of anything having to do with Transexuality, including publications, theories etc. Why? He is apparently one of the heir apparents to Blanchard (and I only recently learned abotu all these, so any mistakes are out of ignorance, not ill will). He is linked professionally and finacially to this research and pays his bills with this work. In a certain fashion, his editing of wikipedia in those article is an extension of this paid work. That is the basis of COI. Wikipedia should be edited by non-professionals using reliable sources: while expert knowledge is always welcome, it should be sufficient to provide expert advice on the talk page for community discussion. --Cerejota (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

James, as I already said, am a he. And yes, COI allows flexibility, etc. But this is within reason, and the fact that your edits prove controversial in many situations is a red flag. Your ongoing professional relationship with Blanchard is an important COI point, that you are not principally concerned with transsexualism in publications is irrelevant to that. COI is not topical per se, but about any activity that might be intepreted as bad faith because of the professional consequences: what I called editing of wikipedia in those article is an extension of this paid work. COI editors who edit controversially are different than those who edit uncontroversially - the spirit of WP:COI is not to punish those with a COI, but to establish a guide for the community in handling these issues: You have mixed loyalties in a concrete way: it is safe to pressume you would never risk your livelihood (nor are you expected to) in order to follow wikipedia's goals. You should cop to this, realize that you are not the best editor, and limit yourself to talk - regardless of what other editors engage in, or evne if they themselves have a COI. Its not about quid pro quos, its about transparency.

BTW, I think it has been established that Jokestress is Lynn Conway, or am I wrong?--Cerejota (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jokestress is Andrea James. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ProudAGP

I do not think that conflict of interest is the main concern here. Instead, conflict of interest is an explanation for the real concern, which is editing with extreme bias, leading in some cases to violations of Wikipedia policy and in others to exhausting and unnecessary battles.

Although I have a strongly-held point of view--I believe that Lynn Conway, Andrea James, and Deirdre McCloskey behaved dishonestly (and otherwise badly) in order to intimidate and silence those (especially Bailey) who wrote positively about the theory of autogynephilia--I do not attempt to have relevant WP pages convey only this idea. The WP page The Man Who Would Be Queen includes serious accusations against J. Michael Bailey and objections to the concept of autogynephilia, and I have never tried to insist that the page cannot have them or can only have them if, in the same sentence or paragraph the accusations are made, they are taken away. I understand that reliable sources regarding the accusations (such as The Chronicle of Higher Education should certainly be included (even though a reporter there who covered the accusations appears to have violated journalistic ethics in doing so). I do not think that everyone in this dispute has that same general understanding, though, and that is the problem.

I understand the obvious fact that in a dispute both sides feel aggrieved. Still, I think that a reasonable person looking carefully at the relevant pages will conclude that the following three editors have--recently, and for a long time--behaved unreasonably and impeded the progress toward good articles on Wikipedia: DarlieB, Dicklyon, and Jokestress.

DarlieB is the easiest case. She has repeatedly removed passages that made her angry, passages that are clearly WP-acceptable. Back when we were making progress on TMWWBQ, she even made destructive changes on material that was agonizingly constructed in negotiations between the two sides in this controversy (along with neutral parties such as Whatamidoing and Hfarmer). All one needs to do is read DarlieB's justification for her edits to wonder about her ... rationality. She should not be on these pages. Period.

Dicklyon appears to be sane, but he periodically acts crazy like a fox. This occurs whenever someone adds anything to Lynn Conway's page that makes her look less than admirable. Then he initiates edit wars, demands administrator input (even about previously-vetted issues), and accuses others of bad things. It is as if he causes trouble until WP administrators (who don't really know the particulars of these issues and who don't have lots of time to get into them) give him his way. He is unlike me, then (and he is in violation of Wikipedia policies and goals), because he does not want both sides presented, even if sources are reliable. Oh, he has repeatedly insisted that Alice Dreger's important peer-reviewed article, in the preeminent sex research journal Archives of Sex Research doesn't qualify as a reliable source because Dreger is "a principal." The fact that she is not in fact a principal is irrelevant, because "not a principal" is not a part of the definition WP:RS. He would like to use the commentaries on Dreger (See WhatamIdoing's statement) despite the fact that this has twice been vetted with the same answer ("no"). He broke an agreement with James Cantor not to edit relevant pages, and a review of his behavior will generate the obvious conclusion that as long as he can edit Lynn Conway freely, he will remove any mention of her role in the controversy regarding TMWWBQ that is unflattering to her. (I do not think the page needs to come to the conclusion that her behavior was abominable, but it should include quotes/paraphrases of the reliable sources saying that it was.) Finally, regarding Dicklyon I will say that he has little expertise in the relevant issues. His only motivation appears to be to prop up Conway and allies and to attack her foes or anyone wanting to include negative information in her page.

Jokestress has quite a bit of knowledge about the relevant issues and pages, in part because she has been a principal, by any standard or definition. She obviously has the time and motivation to read widely to find sources. However, her suggested edits are as often as not unacceptable because they violate various tenets of WP, such as WP:Due or even the actual meaning of a source she wants to quote/cite. I have learned that I have to carefully check anything Jokestress wants to cite, because it will so often be unacceptable. This is exhausting and frustrating, and I have taken to calling her on this in the talk pages. I have told her that she is "wasting our time" (because she is). Recently I told her that she has an "unwaivering level of intellectual integrity." She took offense to this. Oh well. I waste far more time on Jokestress' intellectually dishonest edit attempts than I do on either Dicklyon (who is a bull in a china shop) or DarlyB (who is an earthquake in a china shop). It would be easy to provide a mediator with a list of Jokestress' bad edits or bad edit attempts, if this would make any difference at all. I note that WhatamIdoing thinks that she can work with Jokestress. I am not sure I can, but I will try if necessary. I also previously offered to remove myself from the relevant pages if Dicklyon and Jokestress did. This doesn't seem like it's going to happen, but I will not remove myself if WhatamIdoing and HFarmer do (as Jokestress wishes).

One more word, about James Cantor, since COI has been mentioned. Again, I think that being a good editor is far more important than whether one has some kind of COI. I guess that when he first started, James Cantor made some edits that were not WP-kosher. But I think that ever since I've been here, he's been a terrific editor: fair and (more importantly) accurate and play-by-the-rules. Far less cantankerous and biased than Dicklyon. I feel pretty certain that someone bothering to look would conclude that. (Dicklyon may protest that James Cantor's recent "Feminine Essence" page is a counterexample, but Dicklyon was outvoted by uninvolved editors.)ProudAGP (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, it was unanimous...except for Jokestress.[7] — James Cantor (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, my work on the Lynn Conway article has always been toward balance; I have no problem with presenting Dreger's view if the balancing views are presented with about equal weight. I also would prefer that this aspect not dominate the bio. I don't recall objecting to citing Dreger based on her being a principal; I just object to treating her findings as objective or fact, as opposed to her own view. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is the balancing views have to be from reliable sources. The source you got so angry about was something I found on Conway's very own personal website.I added this. practically plagarized from this. Then Dicklyon withdrew from the refered to agreement because I added information from Conway's own website to her BLP. Which he says was spun. Read the website, read what I wrote, judge for yourself if I spun anything.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I explained my revert on the talk page. I wasn't so much angry as diasppointed that the truce with Cantor couldn't really stand now that you had decided to start up with the undiscussed biased additions to the Conway article. Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)