Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Statement by LokiTheLiar: respond mainly to Tamzin
Line 144: Line 144:
=== Statement by Tamzin ===
=== Statement by Tamzin ===


ArbCom should accept a case here, although not quite as Raladic has framed it. Fundamentally, this is a dispute about a topic on which there is not a global scientific consensus, in which two groups of editors are trying to claim the existence of such a scientific consensus, in two different directions. That is not to say that there is equal misconduct on both sides, but the plain truth is that we have an entire topic area where almost all editors are pushing an activist agenda in one direction or the other. [[Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Transgender_health_care_misinformation/1#c-Void_if_removed-20250301231600-WhatamIdoing-20250301223100|This exchange]] between VIR and RelmC, and the previous discussions linked from it, is representative: A review found "Quantitative studies [regarding desistence from transition] were all poor quality, with 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting". VIR has repeatedly tried to emphasize the 83% figure. RelmC has repeatedly tried to emphasize the "poor quality" aspect. Both are trying to skew that finding to fit an agenda. Similarly, there's the [[Cass Review]], a non-peer-reviewed report based on several academic systematic reviews: Look on the talkpage and you'll find editors downplaying either half of that sentence.
ArbCom should accept a case here, although not quite as Raladic has framed it. The core of this dispute is about pediatric transgender healthcare, a topic on which there is not a global scientific consensus, which two groups of editors are trying to claim the existence of such a scientific consensus on, in two different directions. That is not to say that there is equal misconduct on both sides, but the plain truth is that we have an entire topic area where almost all editors are pushing an activist agenda in one direction or the other. [[Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Transgender_health_care_misinformation/1#c-Void_if_removed-20250301231600-WhatamIdoing-20250301223100|This exchange]] between VIR and RelmC, and the previous discussions linked from it, is representative: A review found "Quantitative studies [regarding desistence from transition] were all poor quality, with 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting". VIR has repeatedly tried to emphasize the 83% figure. RelmC has repeatedly tried to emphasize the "poor quality" aspect. Both are trying to skew that finding to fit an agenda. Similarly, there's the [[Cass Review]], a non-peer-reviewed report based on several academic systematic reviews: Look on the talkpage and you'll find editors downplaying either half of that sentence.


Both sides acknowledge partisan motivations: To one side, this is about trans rights and fighting trans healthcare misinformation. (This is true <em>in some cases</em>, as we often do need to remove editors from the topic area for pushing transphobic rhetoric. However, in many cases editors like Raladic seem to [[beg the question]], saying that arguments are incorrect because they're transphobic, and transphobic because they're incorrect.) To the other side, this is about protecting children from being turned trans, something VIR more-or-less acknowledges in the aforelinked thread. Neither is a good motivation for contributing to Wikipedia. Accurately reflecting the consensus of sources (or lack thereof) is what should motivate us.
Both sides acknowledge partisan motivations: To one side, this is about trans rights and fighting trans healthcare misinformation. (This is true <em>in some cases</em>, as we often do need to remove editors from the topic area for pushing transphobic rhetoric. However, in many cases editors like Raladic seem to [[beg the question]], saying that arguments are incorrect because they're transphobic, and transphobic because they're incorrect.) To the other side, this is about protecting children from being turned trans, something VIR more-or-less acknowledges in the aforelinked thread. Neither is a good motivation for contributing to Wikipedia. Accurately reflecting the consensus of sources (or lack thereof) is what should motivate us.


The two-party rule basically makes it impossible for AE to handle these cases, as in each filing we wind up with disputes over the conduct of third parties. That's not to say ArbCom was wrong to impose the two-party rule, but the logical upshot is that in a complex multi-party case like this there is now no suitable venue other than ArbCom. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 00:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The two-party rule basically makes it impossible for AE to handle these cases, as in each filing we wind up with disputes over the conduct of third parties. That's not to say ArbCom was wrong to impose the two-party rule, but the logical upshot is that in a complex multi-party case like this there is now no suitable venue other than ArbCom. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 00:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{re|LokiTheLiar}} Clarified that I am referring to pediatric trans healthcare. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 01:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Black Kite ===
=== Statement by Black Kite ===

Revision as of 01:30, 15 June 2025

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia   14 June 2025 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due


Indian military history (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 08 Jun 2025 22 Jun 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Venezuelan politics none (orig. case) 12 June 2025
Amendment request: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones none (orig. case) 16 June 2025

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia

Initiated by Raladic (talk) at 23:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Examples of the AE cases of editors with pro-fringe/anti-trans views who have been sanctioned for their actions:

Special treatment of WP:UNBLOCKABLE's who are given leeway of endless warnings after warnings and then "offer to step back" to avoid the sanction that admins were discussing if it hadn't been for their offer to keep the "appearance of a clean record" Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive323#Colin Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive341#Colin Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive354#Colin

Further examples of AE cases with leeway given to users promoting pro-fringe/anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia:

Retaliatory filings by users promoting fringe theories and/or opposition to queer rights against users:

Statement by Raladic

I retired from Wikipedia back in December 2024 due to the negative mental toll it took on me after having repeatedly experienced the systemic bias on the editing experience as a female editor trying to improve underrepresented areas of Wikipedia, such as WiR and LGBTQ+. Even prior to my retirement, the area was fraught with misinformation pushed by a very small, but extremely outspoken group of editors (emphatically echoing each other's fringe views) who have used and abused Wikipedia's processes to promote the fringe agenda of people and organizations that are spreading Transgender healthcare misinformation. I have been watching the area from the sidelines over the past six months, but see no improvement in its treatment, if anything, it appears more entrenched. Some of this is even despite the organizations having been positively marked generally unreliable in 2022 (1, 2) and more recently fringe (1) by the wider community - these editors continue to perpetuate the lies of these organizations and attempt to whitewash articles of these organizations' proponents and actors, removing content and endless arguing against it. The area has become an inextricable field of strife and other dispute resolutions appear to have failed (as AE's current board shows) and/or wasted hundreds/thousands of editors hours having to argue and re-litigate. I thus implore ArbCom to take on this case to establish a new CTOP split off from GENSEX for Transgender health care misinformation (or curtailment thereof) and impose sanctions on editors who's primary purpose on Wikipedia appears to be the promotion of misinformation and organizations and people involved in the spread this misinformation in the area. I believe this case may require a treatment similar to ARBSCI to put an end to the mushroom-popping of SPA's coming to disrupt Wikipedia by trying to legitimize their fringe ideas and in some cases outright transphobic hatespeech. This has included literal sockpuppets (such as in the MfD of the WP:NQP essay, which got one user tbanned and another above soon thereafter). The above collection of relevant discussions showcases the endless amount of time that many editors across Wikipedia had to spend (and honestly waste) arguing with these pro-fringe editors. ArbCom is primarily concerned with conduct over content, this case here presents a nuance where content and the ardent pro-fringe advocacy by certain editors overlap with the problematic conduct these editors exhibit. Some editors who come into this area as SPA's are very quickly found out and censured, some editors have managed to thread the line with successful wikilawyering, but ultimately, to the detriment of the project and as such, I make the appeal for ArbCom to take this case and provide relief. Above links provide a sampling of some of the cases that have shown the inextricable nature and listed parties involved in the case, both editors who have helped shape the area, several admins who have helped mediate the area over the months/years and the actors in question that are subject of this appeal.

Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

Statement by LokiTheLiar

I'd like to push back on Tamzin's implication that there is no scientific consensus in the topic area. There is a scientific consensus represented by many big mainstream WP:MEDORGs, especially WPATH and the Endocrine Society but also regularly supported by (for instance) both APAs and plenty of other large national and international WP:MEDORGs.

There also is, genuinely, a relatively serious challenge to some parts of that scientific consensus, represented especially by the Cass Review and the NHS reaction to it, but not one that has so far overtaken it. And even that challenge is more skeptical of the existing consensus than outright anti-trans. For instance, when asked directly Dr. Cass appears to basically agree with many of the trans-affirmative side's views, namely: that adult transition should be supported, that conversion therapy is not scientifically supported, and that being trans is not pathological.

If I had to locate the deepest point of actual contention here it's whether or not we have strong evidence that allowing kids or teenagers to transition is medically beneficial. But a lot of the stuff the people Raladic is worried about are pushing is not just that, it's all sorts of anti-trans stuff including clearly scientifically unsupported things like ROGD. Loki (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Statement by Snokalok

Statement by Tamzin

ArbCom should accept a case here, although not quite as Raladic has framed it. The core of this dispute is about pediatric transgender healthcare, a topic on which there is not a global scientific consensus, which two groups of editors are trying to claim the existence of such a scientific consensus on, in two different directions. That is not to say that there is equal misconduct on both sides, but the plain truth is that we have an entire topic area where almost all editors are pushing an activist agenda in one direction or the other. This exchange between VIR and RelmC, and the previous discussions linked from it, is representative: A review found "Quantitative studies [regarding desistence from transition] were all poor quality, with 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting". VIR has repeatedly tried to emphasize the 83% figure. RelmC has repeatedly tried to emphasize the "poor quality" aspect. Both are trying to skew that finding to fit an agenda. Similarly, there's the Cass Review, a non-peer-reviewed report based on several academic systematic reviews: Look on the talkpage and you'll find editors downplaying either half of that sentence.

Both sides acknowledge partisan motivations: To one side, this is about trans rights and fighting trans healthcare misinformation. (This is true in some cases, as we often do need to remove editors from the topic area for pushing transphobic rhetoric. However, in many cases editors like Raladic seem to beg the question, saying that arguments are incorrect because they're transphobic, and transphobic because they're incorrect.) To the other side, this is about protecting children from being turned trans, something VIR more-or-less acknowledges in the aforelinked thread. Neither is a good motivation for contributing to Wikipedia. Accurately reflecting the consensus of sources (or lack thereof) is what should motivate us.

The two-party rule basically makes it impossible for AE to handle these cases, as in each filing we wind up with disputes over the conduct of third parties. That's not to say ArbCom was wrong to impose the two-party rule, but the logical upshot is that in a complex multi-party case like this there is now no suitable venue other than ArbCom. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: Clarified that I am referring to pediatric trans healthcare. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Statement by DanielRigal

Statement by LunaHasArrived

Statement by Aaron Liu

Statement by Licks-rocks

Statement by Simonm223

Statement by RoxySaunders

Statement by OwenBlacker

Statement by HenrikHolen

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

Statement by OsFish

Statement by Dr vulpes

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Statement by Barkeep49

Statement by Void if removed

Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell

Statement by Sweet6970

Statement by berchanhimez

TLDR: I support a case for this topic area, but the party list needs fixing.

I agree that a case is necessary, similar to WP:ARBPIA5. The issues here are too in depth for administrators to have any desire to delve through all of them, and they typically involve many people making AE difficult to handle (with the new two party restriction). There are multiple people in the side that appears to have a majority that are clearly only here to push their POV. And since it has been difficult to get sanctions against those in the majority at AE (see the current thread regarding YFNS and past threads against them and others) even when they are clearly engaging in POV pushing behavior... a case is really the only solution.

I understand the broadness in proposed parties here, but I don't think this indiscriminate "anyone who's contributed to a discussion in this topic area" is helpful. I also think there may need to be time to add or remove parties after the case starts (similar to the ongoing case, and for similar reasons). I seem to be included just because my viewpoints tend to be in the center or on the side of "misinformation" (according to the opener). The opener makes a good comment about unblockables, but I would like to remind them that there's "unblockables" on both sides that have escaped AE (or any) sanctions.

I trust an ArbCom case is the best place to resolve the longstanding issues in the topic area. I would ask that anyone who wants me as a party present specific evidence of behavior from me in the topic area. Else I ask I be removed from the named parties and allowed to participate as a non-party. If arbitrators feel it would be helpful I should be able to find time in the next few days to collect diffs that show the problems (CIVILPOV and the inability of AE to take effective action) I reference above - but I feel that other proposed parties will likely also present them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For full transparency, I agree with Tamzin above - the two party rule is good, but it means ArbCom will necessarily need to accept more cases like this that AE can't handle. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: The most egregious one (and the other one I have in mind) are both on the party list already. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by springee

Statement by JonJ937

Statement by Samuelshraga

Statement by Golikom

Statement by FirstPrimeOfApophis

Statement by Barnards.tar.gz

Statement by Colin

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Can we have the word limit restriction from PIA? Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Hello Raladic, you have provided a huge list of parties and dedicate a paragraph to Colin without pinging or notifying or adding them as a party; is this intentional? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Berchanhimez, regarding 'unblockables' on both sides that have escaped AE (or any) sanctions, if you have specific users in mind that are not currently on the party list, I think these should be added with an explanation as soon as possible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1295644592"