Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simonm223 (talk | contribs) at 19:27, 13 December 2024 (→What to do about TERF CPUSH: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"And while I'm alive, I'll make tiny changes to earth." Frightened Rabbit

Black Kite Hi, I'm an administrator here, and have been since 2007. I'll try to answer any questions here as soon as I can, though I do have periods where I'm not available. For admins: if you think I've done something really f***ing stupid and I don't respond to a question about it, please feel free to reverse it ... we can work it out later on.

For Talk Page Archives, click here.

If you email me via Misplaced Pages, please leave me a note here (unless there's a good reason you do not want that fact to be public). I do check my Misplaced Pages email fairly regularly, but not that regularly.

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You are mentioned at a WP:ANI discussion

I have mentioned you at WP:ANI#User:WhatamIdoing, sexism and racism. Fram (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

AE post

Please will you retract/strike your comment here. It serves no purpose in determining whether Raladic's editing behaviour is problematic wrt a contentious topic. None whatsoever. But it does indicate to all that you are prejudiced and have already put editors into two boxes: pro-trans and anti-trans. Which is awful. You may think it is harmless to be prejudiced on the side of the angels but all that shows is a simplistic view of Good-Correct people vs Bad-Incorrect people. And the real world is complicated, and I sincerely hope you are wiser and more intelligent than that would indicate.

My interest in topics like Cass review lies in holding up WP:MEDRS, which I'm keen on since I created it. During that review's gestation and around its publication and aftermath we have seen countless examples of misinformation mostly from those lobbying on behalf of trans people. I have absolutely no doubt that if the Cass Review had found evidence in the opposite direction, such as that puberty blockers were great and should be given away like smarties, then we'd have seen countless examples of misinformation from the gender critical and conservative bigot side. And medical editors would be fighting their posts instead. Neither side is capable of arguing with integrity and that seems to be the state of activism in 2024. Our job is to write an encyclopaedia, not to be a platform for either side to promote their misinformation.

That topic has a tiny number of what I would regard as neutral editors who's main focus is policy and guideline and MEDRS. They mostly don't edit the articles and just make occasional comments on talk. The rest are all quite obviously activists in the lower case sense. Most of them IMO are also WP:ACTIVIST in the problematic sense. That our rules are inconvenient and to be weaponised and twisted in whatever way suits their goal, which is not a neutral encyclopaedic article. In my view, it is fairly easy to spot on a medical article if an editor is following MEDRS and going with what the best reliable sources say, vs what they read on their blogs and magazines and what gets published as commentary or opinion pieces on lesser journals. As it turns out, the findings of the systematic reviews behind the Cass Review were not seen as helpful to the trans side of the American culture war. It could equally have gone the other way. That's how science works. Sometimes your wonder anti-cancer drug is a breakthrough and sometimes it is a dud. So because of this, right now, the misinformation and WP:ACTIVIST problem on those articles is largely on those fighting American culture wars against conservative bigots. I wish them well but Misplaced Pages isn't their tool for making shit up in the hope it helps their cause.

It is quite possible that after the UK medical trial of puberty blockers is complete, it finds utility in them for trans children. The research at the moment is at the "not enough evidence" stage, not at the "clear evidence of harm" stage. So that outcome may arise. And if it does, we'll have the opposite scenario where medical editors are fighting those who oppose their use as they attempt to abuse Misplaced Pages for misinformation.

Your post effectively says to any medical editor that they should avoid fighting misinformation from activists because they will get some admin labelling them "anti-trans POV pusher". And it says you are happy with problematic WP:ACTIVIST editor behaviour, provided their values align with yours. Please strike it.

Colin° 10:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• I will not be striking it, because I believe it to be completely accurate as regards what is happening here at Misplaced Pages, as opposed to in the real world. And I have not put editors into two "boxes", even though some may fit neatly into one or the other. And if I can be really honest, You may think it is harmless to be prejudiced on the side of the angels but all that shows is a simplistic view of Good-Correct people vs Bad-Incorrect people probably sums my comment up better than I did. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, since you have openly declared a prejudice, I ask you to refrain from commenting on sanctions for any editor in this topic. Let's leave that to admins who can comment on the edits in a fair manner. Jytdog was a classic example of an editor who was given way too much slack for editing on the side of the angels, supposedly. We need admins to judge edits, not personal politics. -- Colin° 14:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I find it very enlightening that you refer to my opinion as "prejudiced"; it explains why this topic area is as toxic as it is. I think it's actually quite ironic that I write my opinion that certain editors are trying to get others removed from a topic area, and one of those editors then runs to my talk page to try to stop me from commenting on it as well. It's almost like certain opinions are verboten. Black Kite (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

      A normal user speculating that the motive for "trying to get others removed from a topic area" was because they have opposite activist viewpoints, would find themselves criticised from admins for making a personal attack. Could it be perhaps that they wish the other user sanctioned at some level up to and including removal because their editing behaviour is unacceptable and disruptive. That is what we are expecting admins to judge. Not speculating with open prejudice about whether editors are bringing culture wars onto Misplaced Pages and playing games. Honestly, this is just adding further to my growing view you have no place judging contentious topics. -- Colin° 16:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

      Perhaps if people don't want to be accused of bringing culture wars into Misplaced Pages, maybe they shouldn't actually be bringing culture wars into Misplaced Pages. If you look at my editing history I have been very active in preventing previous iterations of this, whether it be racism, misogynism, homophobia or even pseudoscience. I don't see that "gender-critical" editing should be treated any differently, even if it has more support amongst so-called "reliable" sources. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

      I'm not going to defend a "gender critical" viewpoint, that's not my battle. But you'll be aware that in the UK the other things you mention are potentially sackable issues, and GC is very much not. Whether that's right or wrong isn't the point. The point is other views exist. Editors who don't get that shouldn't be editing or admining contentious topics.

      But regardless of GC, not everyone fighting activist misinformation is GC or anti-trans, and your post labelled everyone fighting activist misinformation and edit-warring behaviour as anti-trans. That sort of vocal labelling of your fellow users, and specific fellow users, is the path to a topic ban on a contentious topic. It discourages ALL editors from that topic. It is deeply unhelpful. If you want to admin in that area, keep those opinions to yourself. -- Colin° 08:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

      I absolutely did not label "everyone fighting activist misinformation" as GC or anti-trans, especially as empirical evidence shows us that those disseminating misinformation in this area are just as likely, if not more likely, to be on the anti-trans side themselves (ten minutes looking at relevant hashtags on X will soon prove that one). The phrase "anti-trans POV pushers" meant exactly, and only, that - it referred to those anti-trans editors who are pushing their POV, because they are the easiest to identify. I am sure there are dozens more editors who stand on that side of opinion but do not feel the need to agitate for their POV in the relevant Misplaced Pages articles. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

      I feel like there’s such a “Don’t think it don’t say it” dynamic too with anti-trans pov pushing, because I’ve seen editors flat out say that we can’t call something anti-trans because it’s not anti-trans to be against transgender rights and in favor of conversion therapy for trans people; hell, one of the most common interactions I’ve seen is that someone will say something that implicitly or explicitly calls terfism a hate movement (say, “we do X on articles about white supremacy and homophobia, why not do it here?”) and another editor will come in guns blazing about how dare you compare terfism to those two, a UK court ruled that terfism is a belief worthy of respect and you will treat it as such now strike your comment! And it’s like, at what point are we allowed to call this behavior what it is? Snokalok (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

What to do about TERF CPUSH

You recently mentioned that you feel like Misplaced Pages has failed to handle transphobia as well as it handles racism, misogyny and other bigotries in part because the people who tend to POV push anti-trans content are often adept at maintaining a facade of civility. There's another factor which is that they have the bludgeon of the second-largest English language print publication market just stock-full of transphobic material that is all from "generally reliable" sources.

I'm honestly feeling like it's going to be very hard to stop Misplaced Pages from maintaining these bigotries between the cudgel of "the guardian is generally reliable" and the just exhausting multi-day debates over even the smallest changes to the most insignificant transphobe articles. Except, haha, no named person in the world is a transphobe - it's "a BLP violation" to suggest otherwise.

Honestly, there's days I think the right approach might just be to just walk away and let the transphobes run the show while warning everyone I know that Misplaced Pages is a source of active and harmful disinformation about trans rights - because the likelihood of removing this bigotry from Misplaced Pages seems minimal.

I guess my question is: is it all hopeless? Is there anything we can actually do to fix this glaring problem? Because I'm honestly afraid of even being this direct, despite mentioning exactly zero users, like I'm going to be the next one up in front of AE for having the temerity to say that there is a problem with anti-trans bigotry on Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)