Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive357

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Enforcement
Arbitration enforcement archives:

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Flavor of the Month

edit

Thedarkknightli

edit

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Göycen

edit

Anywikiuser

edit

Between_work

edit

MjolnirPants

edit

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning MjolnirPants

edit
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Samuelshraga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
MjolnirPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
American Politics (Also intersects with WP:GENSEX and WP:CT/BLP)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 25.6.2025 MjolnirPants asserts that six sources Slate, the CJR, The Economist, the Social Market Foundation, The Atlantic... GLAAD described a BLP as 'anti-LGBT'.
  2. 28.6.2025 MP reiterates I've already given you a whole list of sources. Additionally and relating to a second issue, flagrantly goes after another editor, explicitly casting aspersions on their motivations.
  3. 29.6.2025 After being asked twice to substantiate the claim with links to the articles, says Every example I mentioned was used as a source in Jesse Singal, and I had every expectation that anyone who disagreed with me would go there, first. Apparently, my expectations were too high.
  4. 8.7.2025 After I did go and check the sources there and didn't find the descriptions MP claimed, MP replies If you're trying to ensure I stop taking you seriously, that's a damn good tact to take. I dunno what to tell you. Maybe read the sources?
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

#21.2.2019 I don't know how much of this user's block log is relevant and I don't understand all of it, but this indefinite block for personal attacks I would think is relevant.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. This notice with reference to American politics. I don't know if MjolnirPants is specifically aware of the other CTOPs
Additional comments by editor filing complaint


The key fact is that the sources listed by MP don't carry the claimed description 'anti-LGBT' (with the sort-of but not really exception of GLAAD, which as discussed in the talk page section includes 'anti-transgender' in an article tag). Given this was a discussion about whether to retain a description of a BLP as 'anti-trans', this claim was important to the discussion.

MP claimed another editor was ignoring this evidence (diff 2), and when I asked for the specific citations doubled down (diff 3 and diff 4). They since stopped responding on this issue, while continuing to engage in other parts of the discussion.

There's a separate issue of MP's tone and behaviour throughout the talk page section, of which diff 2 includes a fairly blatant example.

If MjolnirPants can substantiate the claim quoted in diff 1, that Slate, the CJR, The Economist, the Social Market Foundation, The Atlantic... GLAAD described [Jesse Singal] as 'anti-LGBTQ', I will of course withdraw this complaint. I have asked them to already of course. Otherwise I'd like them to answer for misrepresenting the sources.

Re: Parabolist’s point about the ellipsis and simple misreading of the sentence, the effect is that Mjolnir is saying the sources describe Singal as transphobic/anti-trans rather than 'anti-LGBTQ'. It makes no difference, as the sources say neither. Especially in the context of a discussion on MOS:LABEL and describing a BLP as "anti-trans" in an article.
The main thing I asked MP to substantiate [31][32][33] and where they doubled down (diffs 3 & 4) were the references to the Atlantic and Economist. If those outlets described Singal as transphobic or anti-trans (or any synonym), I'll withdraw the complaint. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector I wasn't familiar with the context of the block. I simply looked at MP's block log when filling out the filing, and saw a reference to personal attacks in the description - personal attacks form part of this filing. I'll strike that if it's definitely not relevant here. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to Loki's comment about Mjolnir's behaviour being bad but not AE-worthy, I'll just say this - Mjolnir was clearly not amenable to polite correction on the behavioural side, and doubled down repeatedly on claims about the sources that are simply untrue. Misrepresenting reliable sources is listed as an example of disruptive editing. Assuming bad faith is against behavioural guidleines.
What I want out of this filing is for Mjolnir to accept that their claims about the sources and their attitude to other editors fell short on these - especially in CTOPs - and to change their behaviour. I support the minimal administrative action required to achieve this. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade you say I should be topic banned at least in part because I am being (at best) obtuse regarding what sources say. Please can you explain what the sources say that differs from what I’ve claimed? My reading of what the sources say is mostly the same as Loki’s below. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth please read "If MjolnirPants can substantiate the claim ... I will of course withdraw this complaint" as a reference to the fact that Mjolnir had never specified which articles they were referring to when making their claims, so I couldn't be 100% sure that I had read the right ones. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[34]


Discussion concerning MjolnirPants

edit

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by MjolnirPants

edit

Samuel is upset that I refuse to engage with their sealioning and wants to punish me for it.

This filing is laughably dishonest. Look at the diff cited above, where I very explicitly (looking at you, Void if removed) said one thing about several sources and something different about the GLAAD source, yet Samuel deliberately cut off half of the first sentence to make it look like I said one thing about all of those sources. I mean, I literally used quotes to indicate the label GLAAD applied to him, did not use quotes when referring to the others, and I said the others "...described him or his works as anti-trans or transphobic..." Samuel is literally and obviously misrepresenting what I said.

Samuel's logic is so fundamentally warped that it's literally the same as taking the quote He was taller than any of the others and he outweighed any two of them combined, and concluding that quote does not, in fact, describe the subject as being 'large' because the word 'large' doesn't appear in it. This is logic that's not worth engaging with, let alone entertaining as if it stands on its own.

That's not the extent of the dishonesty here, either. The entire argument is about whether to quote a reliable source, not whether to go around calling Singal 'anti-trans' in wikivoice, yet every single bit of the pearl-clutching happening here is about whether it's okay to 'label' him. Nobody's suggested labeling anyone as anything, only reporting on what a reliable source said. And this is information that's unarguably relevant to the subject at hand, not some POV-push to use this as a coatrack to call poor wittle Singal a nasty name.

As if that weren't enough, the argument against it (including some of the arguing down below among the admins) is blatantly ignorant of the basics of the English language and basic verbal or written communications. Since when is "anti-X" a pejorative statement? I'm proudly anti-Nazi. Everyone on this project who's ever fixed a spelling error is anti-misspellings. The whole purpose of this project is anti-ignorance. The assumption (upon which all the bickering here rests) that saying someone is anti-trans is actually some kind of slur, instead of a simple statement of easily-verifiable fact is wildly stupid. Whether that stupidity is assumed or inherent is not something I'll speculate about. But make no mistake: It's a profoundly stupid assumption, with no basis in fact.

Or perhaps you don't want to argue that it's a slur. Do you want to call it 'controversial' to preserve your precious BLP argument? Fine, find me some sources saying that he's pro-trans. Shit, find me some sources that say he's not anti-trans. Show me the actual controversy. (Hint: there is no controversy. Because it's neither a pejorative nor a controversial statement. It's a neutral, factual summary of his views.)

Anyone who takes this seriously is either ideologically motivated or too blinded by their pearl-clutching about the possibility of the Sacred Rules (hallowed be their invocation, and glory be upon their initialisms) being violated in letter, if not in spirit, (and by the big meanie, MjolnirPants no less!) to actually have any business editing this project. Yes, I'm looking at you, Guerillero. I know you've been around for a while, but if you're trying to make sure you lose the respect of any rational person who doesn't want WP to be an ideological battleground, you're on the right track below.

Don't ping me here again. (All of you are capable of typing my username without making it a ping.) I could not care less what happens here. And the reason I didn't respond sooner is, frankly, because I can't be bothered to check WP every day. I actually have a life outside of WP.

Here's a fun fact: I spent this past weekend hanging out with trans women, doing my little side-gig. Some of y'all know what kind of work I do as a side gig. I'll give the rest a hint: It ain't drag. The world is simply not ready to meet Scarlett O'Hairy yet.

This right here is the reason WP is constantly dealing with arbcom cases about POV pushing. Because most of y'all are bound and determined to turn AGF into the very suicide pact Jimbo said it was never meant to be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LokiTheLiar From the Slate source:
  • But as the piece goes on—notably without a single happy, well-adjusted trans teen among its host of central characters for the first 9,000-plus words—it becomes apparent that certain voices and fears are privileged over others. This, unfortunately, is a trend that can be seen throughout Singal’s history of biased reporting on trans lives. - First paragraph
  • This is not the first time he has disregarded inconvenient accounts from trans people—and in the absence of these voices, he is responding to a strawman - Sixth paragraph
  • Implicit in Singal’s body of work on trans children is the sense that he is telling a difficult but essential truth that others are unwilling to acknowledge, but neither the media landscape (which is littered with pieces exactly like this one, down to the same subjects) nor the medical one reflects this. - Ninth paragraph
  • That this was instead the story the Atlantic chose to tell, and that it was entrusted to a man whose own neuroses leave him so unqualified to tell it, is a loss for cis and trans people alike. - Literally the last sentence of the article
I guess my advice to Samuel to actually read sources should have been spread a little more liberally. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Loki: Also, the things you're saying should have been said at the original discussion. MP's refusal to discuss prevented any kind of convincing or compromise. Alas! You've caught me in the act of committing the grave and unforgivable sin of [checks notes] failing to handhold other editors through such arduous tasks as [double checks notes] reading the sources before arguing about what the sources say. How dastardly! How despicable! My mustache shall be twirled like no mustache has ever been before in the wake of this villainy... MUAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Valeree: And of course anti-trans is a pejorative; it's not true that it's the same as anti-Nazi. I don't even know how to respond to this beyond asking what in all of god's green earth you think would be a neutral word to describe someone who insists upon writing misinformation in opposition to a topic with no connection to that topic themselves, if not anti-whatever. Why don't you read MOS:LABEL and show me where the prefix (and it does, in fact, explicitly discuss prefixes and suffixes) 'anti-' is mentioned. I can't find it.
Clearly the writer thinks he's anti-trans, but they stop short of calling him that Reading comprehension is a well-written article we have which explains in detail why your whole argument is wrong. I mean, you stated yourself that the authors of the articles clearly believe Singal is anti-trans (and I'll remind you that some of those sources did, in fact, explicitly call him that), so you clearly have some reading comprehension. Why, then, would you choose an argument which not only assumes we collectively lack it, but actively rejects the practice?
I mean, I haven't explicitly stated a premise in an essay longer than a single paragraph since I was in middle school, because doing so is generally just bad writing. The only times when you would do so is when the passage in question is part of a larger work, and you need to convey the premise quickly and succinctly. But when your entire 2000 word (or more) article is about that premise... Well, anyone with any competence in writing will tell you that explicitly stating your premise is generally not very useful. Indeed, it's often counter-productive, because most such articles are argumentative in nature. They're trying to convince the reader. Telling someone what to believe is usually entirely ineffective, whereas telling them why they should believe something is widely understood to be far more effective.
The example I gave which you find 'unconvincing' used actual, competent literary devices to convey an idea without spelling it out the way I would if I were writing for literal children. That's exactly the same thing the authors of the various sources raised here did. This whole side of the discussion -which you've clearly now placed yourself down into- is premised on the notion that anything not obvious to a moron -whether or not it's obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills- is verboten. You might want to raise your standards a bit. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sweet6970

edit

Regarding MjolnirPants and notifications for Contentious Topics: On 11 June 2025 I started a new section on his Talk page headed Gensex, saying: I see that at the top of this page you say that you are aware of all D/S topics related to politics. Presumably this means there is no need to serve you with a Contentious Topics alert for gensex. [35] His response was to revert this, with the edit summary: No room for creeping on my talk page.[36] I’ve no idea what he meant by this. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, this diff of 23:52 11 June 2025 by MP [37]cited by Void if removed is a response to this diff of 21:52 11 June 2025[38] by me. We had previously come into contact on the Talk page of the essay Wikipedia:No Nazis. [39] I find the tone of MP’s comments objectionable, but I am much more concerned about the impossibility of engaging in reasoned argument with this editor. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parabolist

edit

This seems like a simple misreading of the sentence? The only source he's saying uses the term "anti-LGBT" exactly is the GLAAD source. That's why the ellipsis is there. It's two separate sentences. And having only read the Slate article, I think you would be hard pressed to not say that the article paints Singal as anti-trans broadly. Parabolist (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

edit

I'll start by stipulating that I consider myself to be a wiki-friend of MPants, and I am not objective here.

That said, I've looked at everything in the complaint, and what I am seeing is a content dispute in a very sensitive area, where tensions are high, and nothing that the complaint attributes to MPants rises to the level of disruptive conduct. This is indeed a sensitive area (by which I mean GENSEX, although in this case it hits the jackpot by being intertwined with AMPOL and Trump), one where ArbCom is in the process of starting a case, so I can sympathize with editors on either side who feel slighted by comments. If you read the linked talk page section from the beginning, editors on both sides are to some extent talking past one another. Here is MPants' first comment there: [40]. Aside from the last sentence, which in context is a fairly mild request to read before posting, the comment is entirely one that is about sources and content, and that seeks to identify areas of agreement while arguing against disregarding reliable sources. As the discussion goes along, there's ongoing WP:IDHT from other editors, and MPants becomes increasingly blunt, it also looks to me like MPants is taking a position that looks like the consensus in the discussion, with Samuelshraga taking a partially different content position than MPants, and, as I said, MPants is not being disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: What Black Kite said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside my personal feelings, I think that Seraphimblade has summarized the situation accurately. I admit that MPants didn't help his case with the tone of his statement here. I would just ask that this be dealt with via mutual topic bans or mutual logged warnings rather than site bans, so that editors can still do work in other, less heated, topic areas. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note for transparency: I posted this: [41]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone very carefully through the talk page discussion that led to this filing, and I struck some of what I said above. Damn, this is difficult, and I don't blame any admins for finding it difficult. I could write a lot more to substantiate what I'm going to say now, but I would need a word extension, so here is the tl;dr, and admins can ask me for more if they want.
  • Nowhere in the discussion did MPants advocate for calling Singal "anti-trans" in Wikipedia's voice. Nowhere! MPants supported including that term with attribution to a source, and there is a ton of discussion about whether the source was WP:DUE for including that way in a BLP. I'm seeing admins saying that MPants did otherwise, but you need to get the facts right.
  • There's another editor in that discussion, who is not Samuel, who kept engaging with MPants in what looks to me like a seriously WP:IDHT way, arguing in effect that no sourcing should be cited, even with attribution, and disparaging reliable sources as advocacy etc. That editor has commented here at AE. But with the 2-parties rule, AE shouldn't act on that without a new thread. MPants became increasingly heated in replying to that other editor, and it's understandable. Samuel agreed with some of the things that the other editor was saying, and got caught in the middle. But it's really that third editor who was the problem. Go through the discussion, and you can see it.
  • You should close this without action against either the accused or the filer. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Void if removed

edit

I can't agree with Parabolists' reading at all, and even if we could stretch charity to that interpretation, it could have been cleared up in one reply - but it wasn't. If asked to source specific wording, editors should do so, yet every reply doubles down. This sort of behaviour in a CTOP is exhausting and serves only to raise the temperature.

Similarly I find this edit and the accompanying talk page comment concerning.

The citation is a philosophical essay arguing the opposite of what it was given in support. The other two citations on talk are:

  • An article about a film which had been alleged as constituting hate speech, not the phrase
  • A link described as from The UK Parliament which is actually not at all, but an unvetted consultation submission by a single-sex prison campaigner which complains that some people have described it as hate speech

And then handwaving that literally countless others exist. The general tone of comments on talk is unnecessarily inflammatory and provocative too. Eg. this. And this after failing to acknowledge WP:RSEDITORIAL concerns over sourcing a statement of fact. And this WP:BATTLEGROUND comment.

A CTOP is the last place to make unsourced and badly sourced assertions while insisting they are just very obviously true, nor to misrepresent sources, nor to make WP:POINTy comments and demand other editors do their homework instead of simply responding to questions civilly. An instruction to be WP:CIVIL and stick to what sources say would not go amiss. Void if removed (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, in this precipitating comment MP did not provide a single citation for their claims. I can't actually see a single RS given by MP in the entire thread. SS bent over backwards to WP:AGF with someone who was uncivil, did not back up their claims, and expected others to put in legwork to try and find the actual sources MP may have referred to. The accusation of being obtuse about what sources say is surprising when MP has at no point provided one. SS had to go dig them up themselves, and other editors agreed with SS' reading of those sources. Void if removed (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Protestations about wikivoice are beside the point, since the exchanges with Samuelshrega are whether the label is DUE with attribution. The merits of the label are irrelevant - the behavioural issues are: claiming to have provided sources while not actually providing sources, and responding with WP:BATTLEGROUND when questioned on it - behaviour which has unfortunately continued here. Void if removed (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielRigal

edit

Hold on. All of the diffs offered in the initial report are edits to Talk pages? This isn't about BLP violations in an article at all? Am I missing something? Oh, and we are digging up an unrelated block from 2019? This looks like an attempt to shut down discussions. All I see here is MjolnirPants getting slightly frustrated at people trying to use the "Card says 'Moops'" type of argument. Is there any actual substance here? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snokalok

edit

I'd say some of this perhaps strays into a degree of rudeness, but as for BLP, MP is making a reasonable argument based on extensive sourcing in thread about a figure who is more or less entirely notable for his journalistic and social media advocacy against trans rights. To me, trying to deny or reduce that when it is so central to his personal brand, reads at best as grasping at straws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snokalok (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that, Samuelshraga previously filed a thread against YFNS that was described by admins at the time as throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks and was closed with action.[42] Before it was formally closed but after it became clear no action would be taken, SS then crashed out about YFNS in another thread.[43]
This debacle was shortly followed by an arbcom case proposal on GENSEX (which has the votes to be picked up but which has not formally been picked up yet) where editors trying to remove other editors with opposing POVs became a major topic of discusion.[44].
While I make no statements on the character of this filing, it is worth noting that - extensive crashout aside - Mjolnir is worth hearing out in this light. Snokalok (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

edit

While I think Samuelshraga is correct about the sourcing here, this feels like going to AE to get MjolnirPants to produce sources in a content dispute to me. I don't really feel like this is AE-worthy.

(Just for context of why I think Samuelshraga is correct about the sourcing: based on the state of Jesse Singal's article at the time of the comment, the sources in question are probably: Slate, CJR, The Economist, the Social Market Foundation (yes, this is the same source), The Atlantic, GLAAD. Most of these say that one specific article written by Singal was incorrect, and usually also say that it was stigmatizing or transphobic. Only the GLAAD source directly calls Singal himself "anti-trans", though Slate does call him biased in general. Especially because of the duplicate source I think MjolnirPants was not properly checking whether the sources said what he needed them to say, and this is bad and troutworthy, but IMO not AE-worthy.) Loki (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarek: Not to pile on here, but the sources don't support even the first statement. The sources are very critical of that one specific article by Singal, but even when you get to "his works" in general there just isn't a lot of reliable sourcing. Loki (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MP: Initial objection withdrawn (I did not originally parse any of those as meaning what you said they mean, but now you point it out I'll grant it), but it's replaced with a new one, which is: Why not just say that during the original discussion? Why did you have to be dragged to AE to explain what you meant? Loki (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait no. Those are all from one source, that I already said says Singal is biased generally. What about the other sources? Loki (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MilesVorkosigan: CJR/The Economist is still about one article Singal wrote: saying the story was transphobic and wrong is not the same as saying that Singal is transphobic generally. And the Atlantic is saying that Singal is biased against the kids in his article transitioning, which is not the same as saying he's anti-trans generally. I realize these are somewhat nitpicky distinctions, but they're important: Singal's a living person and to say something about him that he'd dispute, we need to have it sourced clearly and unambiguously.
(Like, to be clear: I believe Singal is anti-trans generally, because I've read his tweets. But tweets aren't reliable sources. A fact can be true but not verifiable because it hasn't had good sources written about it, and I believe that's happening here.)
Also, the things you're saying should have been said at the original discussion. MP's refusal to discuss prevented any kind of convincing or compromise. Loki (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector/Valereee: "in Wikivoice" are the operative words there, MP was very much arguing for labeling Singal with attribution, which per MOS:LABEL still requires strong sourcing. Loki (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell

edit

I agree that MjolnirPants' behavior is concerning. He has been persistently uncivil throughout the discussion, made personal comments about other users, and failed to provide sources to support the claim that reliable sources widely or commonly refer to certain individuals and organizations as "anti-trans", as required by MOS:LABEL and WP:BLPSTYLE. Instead, he advised other users to check the sources he mentioned by name, without providing any links. This may also be a WP:CIR issue. After other users conducted research to identify the sources MjolnirPants was apparently referring to, none were found to explicitly use the label, except for the advocacy group GLAAD, which alone is not sufficient to justify the use of such a contentious label about a living person. Telling other users to "do better," "spend a tad bit more time on self-reflection", etc. while failing to explicitly cite any sources to support his position is not acceptable. The diffs have already been provided by other users, so I will not repost them. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that compliance with the rules is important, and WP:BLPSTYLE advises us not to "label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." Similarly, MOS:LABEL cautions against using value-laden labels for any individual or group unless such labels are widely used by reliable sources, and only then use in-text attribution. To quote: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. In my understanding, the use of a contentious label such as anti-trans by one or two sources, especially opinionated or advocacy-oriented ones, is not sufficient to justify its usage. "Common" implies widespread usage by top quality sources. I don't believe Samuelshraga was wrong to demand compliance with the rules, as they are in place for a reason. It is up to those who seek to use such labels, even with attribution, to demonstrate common and widespread usage in reliable sources. Jesse Singal is a journalist who has written for highly respected and reliable publications such as The New York Times and The Atlantic, neither of which considers him a transphobe. While some may disagree with his reporting, his perspective remains a legitimate one in a deeply polarizing debate, and we should not dismiss it by applying contentious labels. Generally, I don't think labels add any useful information beyond carrying implicit value judgments and oversimplifying complex issues where no scholarly consensus exists. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

edit

Removed as a violation of WP:BLPTALK. Please do not comment in this thread further. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

edit

You would have thought that with an ArbCom case about to start on transgender-related disruption, the usual suspects would have stopped trying to remove people that they feel are their ideological enemies from the topic area, but clearly this appears not to be the case. It is certainly something I wouldn't have done in the circumstances. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Guerillero: MP has not edited at all since this AE was filed, and if you look at their contribs they regularly have long gaps between activity. It would be incredibly harsh to sanction them on the basis of this, barely 48 hours later. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

edit

A block I made is being referenced here, and so I feel the need to point out that the block occurred in the context of MjolnirPants being harassed by a vicious racist troll, who later admitted (bragged, really) that they were only here to get MjolnirPants blocked, and abandoned their account immediately after leaving an "own the libs" style parting shot. Much more happened behind the scenes via oversight and arbcom, and from what little of it I was privy to (I've never been an oversighter nor an arbitrator) there was a general consensus that they would be unblocked immediately if they just asked, and in fact that's what happened even though it was two years later. I was pushing to lift the block symbolically without a request, and would have unilaterally if oversight hadn't already taken it over. Still, if we were able to scrub entries from block logs, this one would be top of my list to purge, per WP:NONAZIS.

It's absolutely not relevant here, other than that having picked this particular block out of all the entries in MPants' log calls into question the motivation of the filer. I suppose we'll have to take them at their word that they simply aren't familiar with the context. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't familiar with the dispute nor with the BLP subject before coming here, but I did have a look at the discussion from which the complainant provided diffs, and I personally don't see the problem. I see an experienced editor trying to discuss the proper framing of a BLP subject known for their transphobic writings and becoming frustrated at being stonewalled with repetitive WP:GREENCHEESE arguments, and then being tone policed. And now having an enforcement process weaponized against them. This should be dismissed with no action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: here are all the times I could find in the linked discussion where MjolnirPants said something to the effect of "nobody is arguing for Singal to be described as anti-trans in wikivoice":
  • [45] "Nobody has suggested the use of the word 'transphobic' in this discussion [...] Nobody curently involved is advocating for labeling any individual or group in wikivoice as 'transphobic' or even 'anti-trans'."
  • [46] (you'll have to read this one for context)
  • [47] "Once again, Wikipedia is not labeling anyone as "anti-trans"."
  • [48] "You are continuing to argue against labeling him that in Wikivoice which nobody is endorsing here." (emphasis in original)
The complainants here repeatedly accused MjolnirPants (and others) of wanting to call Singal disparaging terms in wikivoice despite MPants having literally argued against that exact point at least four times. If this is not sealioning I don't know what is. How embarrassing that you're now repeating the same sealioning arguments; you should recuse from this discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee and LokiTheLiar: there is a difference between discussing a subject's controversial views on a talk page in the interest of improving an article (see WP:BLPTALK) versus writing those views into an article without proper sourcing. MjolnirPants was trying to do the former, but was repeatedly shouted down by editors who misinterpreted their comments (whether willfully or not) or just didn't read them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I presume to have been granted an extension, having been invited to clarify when I'm already over the limit. I meant to partly address your comment about MPants' statement dealing with labelling Singal, and partly Loki's comment that labelling with attribution requires sourcing, as both comments seemed to be calling out malfeasance on MjolnirPants' part. The point I intended to make, and my interpretation of BLPTALK, is that discussing contentious information about a BLP subject on a talk page in the interest of improving our coverage of the subject (within reason) is fair comment, and does not require inline citation (though WP:MINREF probably disagrees). Thus, having engaged in such a discussion on a talk page or on this page should not be held against MjolnirPants. This does not appear to be a point on which we disagree, however. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223 (mpants)

edit

I've been watching this listing with some alarm but, after seeing yesterday's developments I decided to post a brief comment.

First, regarding MPants' reply above. When I look at the diffs that led to this filing what I see is an editor dealing with WP:CPUSH. Civil POV pushing turns Wikipedia into a game of who can make their opponent lose their cool first. It is a method of argumentation designed to frustrate and antagonize. Having admins at AE look at obvious civil POV pushing and suggest that MPants needed to defend themselves was likely an additional irritant. With that in mind, it's somewhat unsurprising they came in and said some angry things. They had been provoked to anger.

Second, regarding calling Singal anti-trans, there are sources. In fact there are peer reviewed sources such as: The Politics of Transgender Health Misinformation. By: Billard, Thomas J, Political Communication, 10584609, 2024, Vol. 41, Issue 2 which says of Singal much of this misinformation enters public discourse via "mainstream" media sources that are "invested with various forms of social, cultural, political, and economic power" (p. 237). Misinformational claims such as those listed above appear frequently in feature articles and op-eds in The New York Times and The Atlantic, with a consistent stable of misinformation-peddling authors including, among others, Jesse Singal and Abigail Schrier; moving into media and we have pieces like NY Times hires anti-LGBTQ columnist in appalling move: Newspaper continues to platform harmful voices. By: ELLIS, SARAH KATE, Washington Blade, 02789892, 1/20/2023, Vol. 54, Issue 3 which says of Singal writer Jesse Singal, who is not transgender or LGBTQ but who has built a career inaccurately writing about trans issues and targeting trans people, reviewed and supported his friend's inaccurate anti-transgender book. It also says of Singal that he makes false and harmful exclusionary innuendo about transgender women and safety.

I could easily burn through my 500 words with such examples. The point is that it is easy to find reliable sources that call Singal a misinformation peddler on trans issues, that say he writes inaccurately on trans issues and that he targets trans people, that he engages in false and harmful exclusionary statements, etc.

Civil POV pushers like to demand a very high specificity of language that goes against Wikipedia's summary style. And so they will point to the fact these articles describe Singal's anti-trans activities rather than summarizing them and then claim they are not evidence he is anti-trans. But we do have a summary style. And the clearest and most accurate possible summary of Singal's career is to call him anti-trans.

We should not be removing editors from the topic area for losing their cool in the face of such antics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee if we are to treat ourselves as not permitted to summarize the unpleasant views of people who hold them because those summaries are treated as pejorative then the best case scenario for BLP articles will be a preponderance of terrible prose. The more likely scenario will be hagiography of people with unpleasant views. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

edit

It seems there are several issues here. One seems to be a bit of talking past each other. That is an unfortunate thing that sometimes happens in these long discussions. Editors misinterpret a comment/statement or confuse the claim of editor A with editor B who is saying something similar. That isn't an indication of bad faith or incivility. In fact, civility is one of the best ways to undo such a situation. Certainly that could have been helpful here. CPUSH seems to be one of those things that is thrown out when editors can't convince someone else that they are "Wrong(tm)" But why bother proving they are Wrong(tm)? No one is required to reply to someone on a talk page. If the Wrong(tm) editor isn't changing the article, what's the problem? If they are stonewalling a change then a RfC is a clear way to establish that consensus isn't with them. Above it's argued that CPUSH results in otherwise good editors loosing their cool and becoming uncivil. Yes, that is an issue, with the editor who fails to follow civil. Again, there is no rule that says we have to reply to someone who is Wrong(tm). Civil, unlike CPUSH, is a policy for good reason. When an editor uses language that, even it not a direct insult, is clearly rude, inflammatory etc they make it harder to reach an amicable consensus, discourage other editors from being willing to engage in the discussion and potentially start an escalation that can lead to good editors being blocked. Clear incivility is not something that good faith editors, even ones who are Wrong(tm) should have to tolerate. I suspect, absent the incivility, the content disagreement in question would resolve itself either via continued discussion or a civil RfC on the topic. Springee (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by YFNS (MjolnirPants)

edit

Jesse Singal, who is widely considered to have created the blueprint for anti-trans activism today[49] - starting with this academic article to drive home who we're talking about.

Others have already noted: 1) SamuelShraga's past history of weaponizing AE and reading things in the worst possible light 2) Mjolnir supported attribution, not putting "anti-trans" in wikivoice. I am disappointed admins fell for the strawman he wanted it in wikivoice.

Now, the source we have in the article is an RS (Condé Nast's LGBT magazine Them (magazine)), which calls him anti-trans[50]. It says

  • the report cited debunked and discredited anti-transgender sources and
  • the document cites notoriously anti-trans sources throughout its “analysis,” including the U.K.’s widely disputed Cass Review, the “Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine” (SEGM), and long-discredited writer Jesse Singal.

The Trump administration HHS gender dysphoria report is widely agreed in MEDRS and RS to be chock-ful of WP:FRINGE bullshit. Some editors have crusaded to try and remove the fact, reported in RS, that the report cited a bunch of WP:FRINGE anti-trans activists. WP:PARITY applies.

MP said . Slate, the CJR, The Economist, the Social Market Foundation, The Atlantic, apart from the Economist/Social Market Foundation (same source), each of these was indeed heavily critical of his bias against trans people. Which indeed makes an attributed description along those lines more due.

@MjolnirPants: is not a GENSEX regular, generally focusing on FRINGE[51]. I think he should have just linked the sources instead of referencing them and his reply here was too confrontational (MP, I would advice you strike/tone down your AE statement). But I have some sympathy for not knowing how to handle GENSEX WP:PROFRINGE activism - frankly this is a topic area where admins never deal with WP:PROFRINGE editors who've learned to WP:CPUSH. I think a warning might be called for.

SamuelShraga, on the other hand, absolutely has been attempting to weaponize AE (and consistently advocate citing SEGM...). I'd describe his behavior at the talk page as baiting and willful ignorance. I think a GENSEX TBAN or at least AE post ban would be helpful. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GENSEX cases will continue to wind up at AE until ARBCOM or even AE admins do something about WP:PROFRINGE GENSEX editing poisoning the topic area.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

edit

Clerical notes

edit
  • @MilesVorkosigan: I have removed your section as a violation of WP:BLP. Since your commentary so far has not been helpful, I am advising you to not post again in this thread. This isn't just a matter of you being wrong on policy; per WP:BLPTALK, your edits themselves violate the policy. Nor does it matter whether maybe some source could be found to support your view; your insistence that this is so obvious as to not need sources is part of the BLP violation. Please also take this as a warning that future statements like this—about any living or recently deceased person, about any alleged hateful viewpoint, without clear sourcing explicitly making the same claim—will result in a block or TBAN under WP:CT/BLP (of which you should consider yourself aware). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning MjolnirPants

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Agree, clearly indicates awareness. Valereee (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants, if there's any chance you're just up against it right now IRL and need time, we can suspend this for a bit. Just let us know how much time you need. Valereee (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of a statement by MjolnirPants makes me think a vacation from the topic area is needed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I would sanction just for failure to respond; no one's required to. That said, we can't wait indefinitely either, so at this point I think we should just evaluate the complaint as it stands. Of course, should MjolnirPants want to add their input at any point, they're still welcome to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. BLP doesn't let us SKYBLUE negative information about a living person, especially when the sources brought up to support that negative fact fact don't actually day that, see Lokitheliar's statement. People need to start with what Reliable Sources actually say and work from there rather than starting with a truth and trying to justify it. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As MP points out above, those were two separate sentences saying different things, so it's inaccurate to say that he's misleading when a statement about GLAAD doesn't apply to the first five. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think that they're both right. MjolnirPants' attitude, even as demonstrated here, is certainly not one conducive to keeping things calm in a very controversial area, and Samuelshraga is being, even at the most charitable, rather obtuse regarding what sources say and seems to engage in I didn't hear you and similar disruptive behavior. I don't really see a good reason that either of them should continue editing in this highly contentious area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sensitive to issues of sealioning, but I don't think that's what I'm seeing here from Samuelshraga. I don't find Mpants' analogy or assertion ("quote He was taller than any of the others and he outweighed any two of them combined, and concluding that quote does not, in fact, describe the subject as being 'large' because the word 'large' doesn't appear in it") convincing. Calling someone anti-trans in Wikivoice is not the same as saying the person has been described as having anti-trans bias, and asking for RS calling the person anti-trans is reasonable.
And of course anti-trans is a pejorative; it's not true that it's the same as anti-Nazi. Unless a person is calling themselves anti-trans, or the label is widely being used in RS (and in the case of GENSEX, I'd agree we need those RS not to be biased) we shouldn't use the label. Mpants, all of the passages you quote are saying his writings about trans subjects are biased. Clearly the writer thinks he's anti-trans, but they stop short of calling him that, so WP would need to also if that's what we're basing our description of him on. Valereee (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MilesVorkosigan, Everyone already *knows* that Singal is (at best) anti-trans, that's the basis of most of his notability is not good enough for calling someone anti-trans in Wikivoice. When it comes to negative labels, it is seldom BLUE that "everyone knows" this about a living person. We need a reliable source, preferably multiple and of very high quality. Valereee (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector, I was responding directly to Mpant's statement. I actually considered adding, "I know early in your statement you said this wasn't about the label, but your entire statement following that dealt with whether or not labelling Singal as anti-trans was fair based on their writings being described as biased, and whether anti-trans was even a pejorative, and then in your reply to Loki, all of your examples are in support of Singal being anti-trans." I didn't because I felt like was I was saying was long enough, but I guess it's necessary here to have made that clear. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MJP, what would be a neutral word to describe someone who insists upon writing misinformation in opposition to a topic with no connection to that topic themselves, if not anti-whatever. Generally, we see arguments to call them someone who has done X, Y, and Z, and leave it at that until RS are calling them the pejorative term.
It doesn't really matter that by my reading and yours and everyone who read that Slate/Outward piece, the author of that piece clearly thinks Singal is anti-trans. You're of course right that in a lengthy opinion piece criticizing another article, he's unlikely to start out with "Jesse Singal is a big fat anti-trans, and here are all my reasons for thinking so." But when we're talking about a pejorative label at a BLP, unless the highest quality RS are calling him that -- often it's done in passing, like the Them piece -- it's reasonable to object to labelling a BLP with a pejorative term. Valereee (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223, re: summary style. It's a reasonable argument to say that if RS aren't using the pejorative term, our summary style doesn't justify it either. It's not sealioning to demand RS who are using that pejorative term. I am aware that puts editors at an article in a position where it's hard to find consensus. I'm also aware that there are editors at any number of GENSEX articles who would not be arguing nearly so hard about that if their own opinions weren't in the mix. That's what makes GENSEX so difficult. Valereee (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223, of course you can summarize their unpleasant views. "X has argued X, Y, and Z." <---summary of what the source says at greater length. "X is anti-trans." <---conclusion drawn from the fact you know anti-trans people often make similar arguments. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to side with Valeree here about BLP. Sourcing for calling a BLP "anti-trans" in wikivoice needs to be ironclad, not a "everyone knows it" sourcing situation. I'm very unimpressed with the line of reasoning that "anti-trans" isn't a pejorative and so thus it doesn't need sources that explicitly state a BLP is "anti-trans". I'm also not impressed with the amount of aspersions/battlegrounding being used here: "Samuel's logic is so fundamentally warped" "blatantly ignorant of the basics of the English language and basic verbal or written communications" "stupidity is assumed or inherent is not something I'll speculate about". None of this is necessary or helpful at all. It's possible to make arguments without this sort of ... I'm struggling to find a word that isn't "invective" to describe it, so I'll just re-use "battleground behavoir."
This isn't to say I'm not unimpressed with Samuelshraga bringing this to AE - the way I'm reading their "If MjolnirPants can substantiate the claim ... I will of course withdraw this complaint" is that they are using AE as a step in the underlying content dispute, and that's not what AE is for - it very much feels like they brought this here not so much because of what MJP is doing is wrong but as an attempt to "win" also.
Frankly, I find this whole filing an excellent example of how this CTOP is toxic. The fact that we have editors willing to overlook BLP policy or blatant battleground behavior (from all sides) is not good at all. Not sure what we here at AE can do to solve either the micro or the macro problem though. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it's getting worse, too. Even with an active ArbCom case request, it seems like nearly everything we're seeing is GENSEX. This is at least the second one in recent memory (For Ivan: that at least one side is characterizing as) over the use of the label anti-trans, alone. Valereee (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, MJP wasn't arguing at article talk to call Singal anti-trans in Wikivoice. They were, by my reading, arguing that quoting with attribution a source that other editors are saying is biased was okay if RS who weren't using the term nevertheless were saying things that would tend to support the idea that using that content wasn't undue. MJP, if you need more space to respond to that, please take up to 100 words. (Or anyone else can feel free to correct me, please ping to make sure I see it, I'm traveling and busy but want to be clear on this.) Valereee (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector, could you clarify the point you're making with there is a difference between discussing a subject's controversial views on a talk page in the interest of improving an article versus writing those views into an article without proper sourcing. To me that's an "of course", but maybe you have some nuance you're thinking of? Valereee (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, sorry, should have clarified that extra words = okay. Thanks, I understand your point. Valereee (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive357&oldid=1307591836"