Login
Login

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by El C (is annoying)

{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}}

{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}}

= Requests for arbitration ={{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}

{{NOINDEX}}

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header|width=auto}}

{{-}}

Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia

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

= Proposed parties =

  • {{userlinks|Raladic}}, filing party
  • {{userlinks|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}}
  • {{userlinks|LokiTheLiar}}
  • {{userlinks|Aquillion}}
  • {{userlinks|Snokalok}}
  • {{admin|Tamzin}}
  • {{admin|Black Kite}}
  • {{userlinks|DanielRigal}}
  • {{userlinks|LunaHasArrived}}
  • {{userlinks|Aaron Liu}}
  • {{userlinks|Licks-rocks}}
  • {{userlinks|Simonm223}}
  • {{userlinks|RoxySaunders}}
  • {{userlinks|OwenBlacker}}
  • {{userlinks|HenrikHolen}}
  • {{userlinks|MilesVorkosigan}}
  • {{userlinks|OsFish}}
  • {{admin|Dr vulpes}}
  • {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
  • {{admin|Barkeep49}}
  • {{userlinks|Void if removed}}
  • {{userlinks|Sean Waltz O'Connell}}
  • {{userlinks|Sweet6970}}
  • {{userlinks|berchanhimez}}
  • {{userlinks|springee}}
  • {{userlinks|JonJ937}}
  • {{userlinks|Samuelshraga}}
  • {{userlinks|Golikom}}
  • {{userlinks|FirstPrimeOfApophis}}
  • {{userlinks|Barnards.tar.gz}}
  • {{userlinks|Colin}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1295632288 diff of notification Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LokiTheLiar&diff=prev&oldid=1295632334 diff of notification LokiTheLiar]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aquillion&diff=prev&oldid=1295632364 diff of notification Aquillion]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snokalok&diff=prev&oldid=1295632598 diff of notification Snokalok]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tamzin&diff=prev&oldid=1295632676 diff of notification Tamzin]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite&diff=prev&oldid=1295632811 diff of notification Black Kite]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DanielRigal&diff=prev&oldid=1295632825 diff of notification DanielRigal]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LunaHasArrived&diff=prev&oldid=1295632861 diff of notification LunaHasArrived]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron_Liu&diff=prev&oldid=1295632875 diff of notification Aaron Liu]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Licks-rocks&diff=prev&oldid=1295632901 diff of notification Licks-rocks]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simonm223&diff=prev&oldid=1295632926 diff of notification Simonm223]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoxySaunders&diff=prev&oldid=1295632975 diff of notification RoxySaunders]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OwenBlacker&diff=prev&oldid=1295633002 diff of notification OwenBlacker]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HenrikHolen&diff=prev&oldid=1295633023 diff of notification HenrikHolen]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MilesVorkosigan&diff=prev&oldid=1295633043 diff of notification MilesVorkosigan]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OsFish&diff=prev&oldid=1295633064 diff of notification OsFish]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr_vulpes&diff=prev&oldid=1295633100 diff of notification Dr vulpes]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&diff=prev&oldid=1295633125 diff of notification ScottishFinnishRadish]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barkeep49&diff=prev&oldid=1295633141 diff of notification Barkeep49]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Void_if_removed&diff=prev&oldid=1295633203 diff of notification Void if removed]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sean_Waltz_O%27Connell&diff=prev&oldid=1295633272 diff of notification Sean Waltz O'Connell]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sweet6970&diff=prev&oldid=1295633318 diff of notification Sweet6970]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berchanhimez&diff=prev&oldid=1295633338 diff of notification berchanhimez]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=prev&oldid=1295633353 diff of notification springee]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JonJ937&diff=prev&oldid=1295633365 diff of notification JonJ937]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samuelshraga&diff=prev&oldid=1295633402 diff of notification Samuelshraga]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Golikom&diff=prev&oldid=1295633415 diff of notification Golikom]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FirstPrimeOfApophis&diff=prev&oldid=1295633441 diff of notification FirstPrimeOfApophis]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barnards.tar.gz&diff=prev&oldid=1295633455 diff of notification Barnards.tar.gz]
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colin&diff=prev&oldid=1295638845 diff of notification Colin]

;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"

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 =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Raladic}}

{{ApprovedWordLimit|words=700}}

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. Raladic (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:@{{u|asilvering}}-The party list is carefully curated from the users that have been at the core of transgender related articles and the arguments of disputes over the past months/years. The editor's privy to the area will recognize the user list in its entirety. The bloodofox ANI is linked as a tangential symptom of what minority editors have to endure on Wikipedia, but not core to the dispute, hence no extra parties (that aren't already).

:I do believe @{{u|ScottishFinnishRadish|SFR}} has been too involved not to be party to the case, or else be recused as an arbiter. Of particular note is the reprimand that @{{u|Guerillero}} had to issue here to that effect. Raladic (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:@{{u|Daniel}} I carefully selected the people as party based on the definition of Arbguide glossary as having an important role in this dispute and believe this to be fully true of those listed. Specifically regarding SFR, I actually messaged them earlier to expand on why I believe they should be a party.Raladic (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::@{{u|Daniel}}, I agree, this list currently doesn't provide nuance on level (my spreadsheet I made to prepare the case does). The list that @{{u|Tamzin}} just made largely matches my center list (+DanielRigal, SilverSeren). Then some that appear less often, but do play a role in this and then there's parties that have insight (SFR,BK49). Since I stuck to the 500 word limit for the case, I couldn't elaborate on each persons role, but can do so if the case is accepted. I might need another 100 words if there's more questions. Raladic (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

= Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}}

= Statement by LokiTheLiar =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=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 [https://thekitetrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Cass-Review-Mythbusting-Q-and-A.pdf 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)

:@Tamzin I think that limited to pediatric trans healthcare your statement is much closer to true. However that's not the only thing that is under dispute here: you can find editors listed as parties arguing on the talk page of ROGD, trans health care misinformation and even at totally non-medical pages like For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.

:If editors A, B, and C are supporting the scientific consensus everywhere, and editors D, E, and F are opposing the scientific consensus everywhere (but in one specific subarea they may have a point), these aren't two equally balanced and similarly activist sides. You can't just carve out that specific subarea without looking at the whole picture. Loki (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

FWIW while I think Guerillero's comments linked by Raladic are relevant to this case, I disagree that they mean SFR is WP:INVOLVED here. SFR made only two very short comments, and one was extremely general while the other was literally just refusing to comment. Loki (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

= Statement by Aquillion =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Aquillion}}

= Statement by Snokalok =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Snokalok}}

= Statement by Tamzin =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=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)

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

::The parties that seem logical based on recent AE threads are YFNS, Loki, Snokalok, Miles, VIR, Sean, Sweet, Springee, Samuelshraga, Berchanhimez, and Colin, plus Raladic now that she's returned. Not necessarily an exhaustive list, but those are the obvious ones. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Berchanhimez: I put that list together based on people who've been involved in the recent merry-go-round at AE. I included you based on this comment, but I'll acknowledge that that's not as strong a case for party status as with some of the people I listed. My goal here is just to give ArbCom a plausible list to add/subtract to/from, more than something definitive. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh, I would also include RelmC, who I apologize for not pinging above; I'd just sort of assumed she was a party. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

= Statement by Black Kite =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Black Kite}}

= Statement by DanielRigal =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=DanielRigal}}

= Statement by LunaHasArrived =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=LunaHasArrived}}

= Statement by Aaron Liu =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Aaron Liu}}

= Statement by Licks-rocks =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Licks-rocks}}

= Statement by Simonm223 =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Simonm223}}

= Statement by RoxySaunders =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=RoxySaunders}}

= Statement by OwenBlacker =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=OwenBlacker}}

= Statement by HenrikHolen =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=HenrikHolen}}

= Statement by MilesVorkosigan =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=MilesVorkosigan}}

= Statement by OsFish =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=OsFish}}

= Statement by Dr vulpes =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Dr vulpes}}

= Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=ScottishFinnishRadish}}

= Statement by Barkeep49 =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Barkeep49}}

= Statement by Void if removed =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Void if removed}}

= Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Sean Waltz O'Connell}}

= Statement by Sweet6970 =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Sweet6970}}

= Statement by berchanhimez =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=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)

: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)

:{{ping|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)

:I fully support SFR being able to act as an arbitrator on this case rather than a party - FWIW. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Tamzin}} I understand how you got that list, but my participation in the topic area has been minimal aside from commenting on threads I see recently, and I don't think any of those comments have been anywhere near sanctionable. Can you clarify why you think I deserve to be a party to this case for my own benefit? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Tamzin - I understand that - see my original comment regarding that - thanks for clarifying. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

= Statement by springee =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=springee}}

= Statement by JonJ937 =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=JonJ937}}

= Statement by Samuelshraga =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Samuelshraga}}

= Statement by Golikom =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Golikom}}

= Statement by FirstPrimeOfApophis =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=FirstPrimeOfApophis}}

= Statement by Barnards.tar.gz =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Barnards.tar.gz}}

= Statement by Colin =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Colin}}

= Statement by AirshipJungleman29 =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=AirshipJungleman29}}

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

= Statement by asilvering =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Asilvering}}

I can't say I understand how this list of parties was drawn up. There is, for example, a link to an ANI thread about bloodofox in the list of "other steps in dispute resolution", but neither bloodofox nor the editor who started that posting at ANI are listed as parties. -- asilvering (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

=Statement by Robert McClenon (Transgender)=

I don't have an opinion on whether ArbCom should accept this case, but a suggestion that if ArbCom accepts this case, they should take the large number of parties into account, and consider whether they need to make any changes to their usual procedures to reflect the large number of parties. Some dispute resolution procedures are ill-suited to a large number of parties. I have declined case requests at DRN involving large numbers of parties. ArbCom has recently limited Arbitration Enforcement to one defendant in each case. ArbCom has highly structured proceedings that have handled large numbers of parties in the past, but I cannot recall seeing a case with 30 parties. Extending the deadlines is my first thought.

My first thought on seeing this case request was: That's a lot of parties. My second thought was: That's really a lot of parties. My third thought was: ArbCom has a very structured process and can probably handle it. But my fourth thought was: ArbCom should review their procedures because there are a lot of parties in this case.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

= Statement by Relm =

I was not added as a party, but called out directly by Tamzin. I filed the most recent Arbcom case against Colin so I would understand if I were added but I want to briefly respond to the accusation by Tamzin ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#c-Tamzin-20250615005900-Statement_by_Tamzin here]). Void if Removed has a lengthy history of promoting a very specific belief that the majority of trans people desist. They then added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender_health_care_misinformation&diff=prev&oldid=1271623421] this to the article which I viewed as not a sufficient explanation of what the source claimed. I removed it and made a talk page topic to discuss why I did so, VIR responded, and a third party came in, made a compromise edit that no one disagreed with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transgender_health_care_misinformation/Archive_1#Unnecessary_addition]. The source explicitly makes clear that because the studies involved used a wide array of definitions that the desistance rate calculated would not be applicable to trans people working under DSM V criteria. The link Tamzin gives is to when VIR brought that same argument back up in the GAR to say, and I quote, "The only MEDRS in the 'desistance myth' section is a systematic review that says best quantitative estimates are that 83% desist - which means it isn't a myth." repeating the claim. YFNS explained what the source states well in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Transgender_health_care_misinformation/1#c-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250304040300-WhatamIdoing-20250304024300] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Transgender_health_care_misinformation/1#c-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250304224800-WhatamIdoing-20250304222000]. I never tried to introduce a slanted activist view, the diffs will show that I only ever tried to report what the source stated in as much context as is WP:DUE. Relm (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

= Statement by Jclemens =

The scientific consensus regarding care in this area could not possibly be more contentious or unsettled. The legal, scientific, medical, and counseling landscapes are in states of upheaval and statements representing prior consensus are now subject to an ongoing, multi-venue tug-of-war, of which I believe Wikipedia to be one venue. I believe it will be difficult for the committee to assess conduct without making decisions on content--that is, which sources represent appropriate medical bases for statements made in articles. That's not to say you shouldn't take the case--but realize that the underlying evidence base is contentious in ways that make assessing good faith of participants with differing perspectives challenging. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

= Statement by Chess =

{{ACWordStatus|page=ARC|section=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia|user=Chess}}

Arbs should take this case because of endemic WP:BATTLEGROUND issues relating to excluding sources for their ideological viewpoints (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH), rather than actual reliability. This is an attack on our content policies to push a POV. I'm familiar with this through the Daily WP:TELEGRAPH (a British newspaper of record, see The Daily Telegraph) at the WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_392#RfC%3A_The_Telegraph][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_441#The_Telegraph_and_trans_issues][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_444#RFC:_The_Telegraph_on_trans_issues]

In 2022, editors argued at Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People that, despite British newspapers covering a popular backlash to the guidelines mentioning eunuchs, they should not be covered in the article because "the British media landscape is generally hostile to trans coverage and therefore generally British media reporting on transgender issues is questionable".[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standards_of_Care_for_the_Health_of_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse_People/Archive_1#c-LokiTheLiar-20221102173800-Opinions] This wouldn't be acceptable in most WP:CTOPS: I would be taken to WP:Arbitration Enforcement if I started !voting to remove Arab perspectives on the Israel-Palestine conflict because "Arab media hates Jews".

After one failed RfC,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_392#RfC%3A_The_Telegraph] we got an WP:RFCBEFORE discussion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_441#The_Telegraph_and_trans_issues] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist quoted the song Glad to Be Gay's anti-Telegraph verse as proving {{tq|this non-exhaustive historical context is to drive the point home: The Telegraph has been recognizably anti-LGBT for over 4 decades now.}} Propaganda songs aren't a reason to declare a source unreliable.

The real RfC was worse.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_444#RFC:_The_Telegraph_on_trans_issues] Leaving aside the source distortion (I'd need too many words to dig into that), here are two arguments I want to call out:

  • {{xt|They've multiple times alleged directly that trans women are men or trans men are women, which is not in keeping with the opinions of most sources on this topic.}}
  • {{xt|Similarly see this article, which appears to just be anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like.}}

These attacks are because something is "anti-transgender", not because of policy reasons. Note that WP:RSN says in the edit notice "bias is not a reason for unreliability". Other !votes based on it being anti-trans:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1233096734#c-Black_Kite-20240603183700-Survey_(Telegraph_on_trans_issues)][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1233096734#c-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20240603210000-Chess-20240603215200] {{tq|a healthy majority of participants here are getting better in real time at advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1233096734#c-City_of_Silver-20240612030200-Chess-20240603215200]

These editors have also targeted WP:FTN. One goal is to describe anti-trans groups as WP:FRINGE, so Wikipedia can ignore articles written by members or fellow travellers of those groups. As an example, LokiTheLiar said that a peer-reviewed British Medical Journal article was unreliable because it relied on anti-trans activists.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1274014996] I brought up that [https://www.bmj.com/content/387/bmj.q2227 the article] was "externally peer reviewed"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#c-Chess-20250205165700-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250205163300], and Loki denied that this was possible.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#c-LokiTheLiar-20250205173300-Chess-20250205165700] Multiple editors proceeded to gaslight me that an article containing the words "peer reviewed" was not peer-reviewed,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#c-FactOrOpinion-20250205181300-Chess-20250205175000] accusing me of being tendentious and not WP:assuming good faith.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#c-Simonm223-20250205175400-Chess-20250205175000] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

= 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> =

{{anchor|1=Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Hello {{u|Raladic}}, you have provided a huge list of parties and dedicate a paragraph to {{u|Colin}} without pinging or notifying or adding them as a party; is this intentional? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • :Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • :{{u|Berchanhimez}}, regarding {{tqq|'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)
  • ::All right, thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't plan on recusing or being a party to this case as my editing in the topic has been administrative and closing at least one RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • {{ping|Raladic}} extension approved to 700 words. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the party list is not an accurate reflection of what the party list should actually be if this case request is accepted (and comments to this effect have already started coming in above). I would contend that rather than being "carefully curated", it is in fact far too wide-reaching and captures people who have acted purely administratively, or are otherwise on the fringe of the issue and not core to it. The fact that SFR was listed as a party, later clarified by the filer to be largely based around the most recent Colin AE, speaks to this. I agree with LokiTheLiar [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1295662154 here] on that particular issue. Daniel (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • {{ping|Raladic}} the key phrase being "important role in the dispute", as you identify. That phrase, "important role", is obviously up for interpretation but my view is that it currently captures people who don't meet that threshold. This can all be sorted out in the wash—but flagging to those who might have got pinged to here as parties that the current list, at least in this humble arbitrator's view, is far too wide-reaching. Daniel (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Disclosure: I was the admin who implemented the GENSEX topic ban against YFNS (since lifted). I have significantly edited transgender, trans man, trans woman, and their talk pages, chiefly in the context of the their leads. However, those pages/issues do not appear to be the locus of this dispute, so I do not currently plan to recuse. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I have been watching AE cases pile up over 2025 and understand the call for a case on this topic. My opinion here generally is in agreement comments expressed by Daniel. This case request was just posted today so it will naturally be undergoing some adjustments over coming weeks. But I think the list of parties should have a firmer basis even if the final list doesn't have unanimous consensus behind it. I think an editor listed as a party should have played a part in previous disputes and not be listed in a case requet for simply airing a strong opinion on the subject. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)