Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Kudos

This was overdue, and I never thought it would happen, but it's great that it did. Much better this way. Thanks, and well done. Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

September 2023

@Dreamy Jazz: the third motion wikilink doesn't go anywhere. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I have fixed this. Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Amendment request: Gender and sexuality (March 2024)

Original request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Sideswipe9th at 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Gender and sexuality arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. WP:ARBGENDER#Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case (February 2021)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification to Daniel Case

Information about amendment request

• WP:ARBGENDER#Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case (February 2021)

• Add WP:ARBECR as an optional restriction that can be applied on a per-article basis.

Statement by Sideswipe9th

The GENSEX content area currently contains some of the most contentious articles on enwiki. There is an anti-LGBT culture war occurring in large parts of the Anglosphere, and some of our articles document the people, organisations, and events involved. As of 7 March 2024 there are 34 indef-ECPed articles, and 1 indef-fully protected article. Of those 34 indef-ECPed articles, 8 were articles whose first protection log entry was indef-ECP.

In September 2021 ArbCom enacted ARBECR for use in the WP:APL and WP:CT/A-I content areas, as a content area wide restriction due to widespread disruption. While GENSEX as a whole does not see the same level of disruption, individual articles within it do. Articles like Gays Against Groomers, Libs of TikTok, and Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine often see spikes in talk page activity whenever those groups tweet about Wikipedia. Articles like 2023 Nashville school shooting document crimes committed by trans or non-binary people, which are subject to intense off-wiki disinformation campaigns (NBC News, AP News). Occasionally we get articles that are subject to misinformation like Lakewood Church shooting, where groups like Libs of TikTok spread misinformation that the perpetrator was trans (Vice, Advocate, The Independent (UK)).

One area we see frequent disruption in are biographies of trans and non-binary people. This typically takes the form of deadnaming and/or misgendering of the subject. Because of the overlap with WP:CT/BLP many of the articles that see this type of disruption are often protected under the BLP CTOP, and where these articles are protected the disruption typically spills over to the talk page. Often revdelling and/or oversight is needed, for both articles and talk pages. Currently it is typical for protection requests to be escalated both in the severity of the sanction (ie semi -> ECP) and the duration (ie 72 hours -> 1 month -> 6 months, etc). It is also typical for the disruption to resume once a time limited sanction expires, forcing patrolling editors to return to RfPP. Because of the frequency of disruption to GENSEX bios, having ARBECR as an option in the standard set of sanctions would make long term protection of these articles much more straightforward, as it would provide an avenue to long-term protection outside of an WP:IAR based indef protection as a first action. My sandbox evidence has 5 examples of bios in this content area where indef-semi or indef-ECP were the first protection action.

While drafting this request, an example of where this restriction would be helpful has occurred; Sweet Baby Inc. As evidenced in the recent GamerGate ARCA there are some sources describing this as GamerGate 2, and this has been reflected in the volume and quality of the talk page discussions about the article. There are currently several non-extended-confirmed editors who I would describe as POV pushing and advocating for content changes that go against multiple policies and guidelines. On 12 March 2024, several high follower Twitter accounts began tweeting their displeasure about the article's content, with one canvassing Twitter users to the article talk page (evidence can be emailed to the committee if required). ARBECR would be extremely helpful for this talk page and article, in the same way that it is helpful for combatting disruption on Talk:Israel–Hamas war.

The selective nature of this proposal could put a higher burden on new and patrolling editors than the content area wide version. However this is also something that already affects those editors, where ARBECR is applied to an article whose CT/A-I content is secondary to the primary topic of the article.

To sum up, I think we're pretty far from requiring ARBECR across the entire GENSEX content area. However I think it would be useful for ARBECR to be available as a per-article page restriction as part of the standard set of restrictions available to uninvolved admins in this content area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

To Barkeep: ARBECR confers one additional restriction that standard article protection does not; non-extended-confirmed editors are only allowed to make non-disruptive edit requests (WP:ARBECR#A1). Since I opened this request, 12 revisions on Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. were RD2ed, and the talk page has now been semi-protected for a week (page log). While ARBECR would not prevent talk page BLP violations, it would significantly reduce the potential for them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

To Barkeep: To clarify, are you suggesting an article talk page only variant of ARBECR#A1, with non-EC editors only being permitted to make edit requests on the talk page, while still allowing non-EC editors to participate in discussions about the article at other venues? Would the article also still be extended-confirmed protected? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

To Barkeep: When you're saying admin should ECR talk pages, are you meaning admins should ECP talk pages? WP:ECR as currently written doesn't have a provision for just talk page restriction, nor can admins apply it outside of content areas authorised by the committee. As Aquillion notes for ECP, anything other than short-term semi-protection for article talk pages is prohibited by WP:ATPROT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

To Barkeep: No worries. In that case, please see mine and Aquillion's points about ECPing talk pages being prohibited by WP:ATPROT. Extending ARBECR on a per-article basis however can be done without breaching ATPROT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

To Barkeep: I suspect extending ARBECR on a per-article basis would be an overall less controversial move to the wider community, than establishing a new ArbCom/CTOP exemption of ATPROT via ARCA. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

To Barkeep: On evidence for disruption at other noticeboards, an IP editor just made a comment at a RSN discussion on a source publication they wanted added to the Sweet Baby Inc article. That comment has the same type of bad faith accusations and threats for administrative action that were being made on the article talk page prior to it being semi-protected. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

To Barkeep: Just to note, the issues at Sweet Baby Inc briefly spilled over to WikiProject Reliability earlier today, and Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. was semi-protected second time yesterday for much of the same reasons as the first semi-protection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

To Barkeep: Yeah, maybe. But I think two clarifications are needed if we're not enabling ARBECR on a per-article basis; That long-term or indefinite protection (semi or XC) of a talk page is allowable under CTOP if the circumstances indicate it (eg, prolonged off-wiki disruption or canvassing attempts). And that indefinite protection (semi or XC) of an article, as the first logged protection action, is allowable under CTOP if the circumstances indicate it (eg, article is about a highly contentious topic, see my sandbox evidence for examples where this has already happened).

The first clarification is necessary because I suspect there are admins at RFPP who will say that ATPROT prevents this. The second because there are admins at RFPP who require escalating durations before a page can be long-term protected against disruption, despite the need being advocated for by those requesting protection. With those two clarifications about the current processes, the need for per-article ARBECR is potentially non-existent at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

To clerks, I'm currently at 715/1000 words. Could I request an additional 250-500 words for back and forth with the committee if it's required? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

To Primefac: I don't think we're at the tipping point for the entire content area, but we are for specific articles and their talk pages within it. This is why I'm asking for it on a per-article basis, rather than topic wide. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

To Nil Einne: I would envisage it the same way you have. If Elliot Page was ECRed, it would apply to any venue that specific article is discussed (eg AfD, BLPN, NPOVN, etc). It would not cascade to sub-articles like List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page or any other article/page where Page is mentioned as part of the content. Those other pages would need to have their own ECR protection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel Case

In the time that I've been reguarly reviewing the admin noticeboards, RFPP has seen regular requests to protect BLP articles about trans or non-binary people who prefer that standard pronouns not be used. Invariably these do not come out of disputes over the subject's birthplace or nationality—they are, as Sideswipe documents, deliberate misgenderings and deadnamings. Since these biographical issues are unique to this topic area, I have protected them (and tagged the article talk pages) under GENSEX rather than BLP. I have of late taken to RevDel'ing these edits as we would do with edits that use slurs or defamatory language to describe people, and I would also suggest to ArbCom that it encourage this as well.

Sometimes these have spilled over into articles only incidentally related to GENSEX issues, like Cheshire home invasion murders (one perpetrator, convicted of rape in the case, has subsequently transitioned in prison) and more recently Music of Minecraft (one of the two composers is trans) along with the aforementioned Sweet Baby article. I doubt these will be the only ones.

When I protect articles, I generally prefer to start with semi for the shortest duration possible. And that is how I have generally tried to protect these articles. It's good to assume good faith on the community's part, that once the little break is over, everyone will be grown up.

But with these articles, enough of them have worked their way up to indef semi or ECP, or been put there by admins less willing to give the community the benefit of the doubt than I am (and looking back at the AE logs, I too have reached the point of long-term and indefinite protection like I recently made to Hannah Gadsby and India Willoughby. Even I will admit that it seems like a mere formality with many of these articles to not start with longer-term protection, because almost every time we get there eventually anyway.

Look at 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships ... we thought last year that since the event was long over we could unprotect it. Instead we had to put two years worth of semi.

I would defy anyone, actually, to find an example of a relatively decent-length article about a trans or non-standard-pronoun person that we've had for some time which hasn't had to be protected like this. Looking at last year's log for this topic area, I see articles whose protections will expire sometime soon and will likely have to be reprotected (some of which, like Maia arson crimew and Bridget (Guilty Gear), already have been so far this year). Go back another year, and you'll see the pattern continuing.

I really believe it's time that we include at least misgendering and deadnaming as behavior covered by ARBECR. Maybe it doesn't have to be imposed as soon as the article's created like we have been doing with PIA (at least for articles in that area closely related to the current conflict), but we can definitely give admins the OK to impose it at the first sign of that disruption. It will definitely cut down on admin work down the line, and it seems like it already has been the default posture of some of the reviewing admins for some time now. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Nil Einne

I have no objection to any of these proposals although I definitely agree with User:Sideswipe9th that it's better if we allow admins to apply ARBECR as needed rather than apply it to the entire topic area.

BTW, User:Daniel Case, perhaps this is WP:BEANS but I think the risk is low. Georgina Beyer passed away just over a year ago, but this was well after a lot of the craziness and unless I'm missing something apart from a 7 day semi protection [1] about 2 weeks after her death due to some misgendering, the article seems to have survived relatively without problem despite this lack of protection and being of decent size [2]. (I mean there early problem reoccured but was resolved via blocking. The problem AFAICT seems to be mostly from editors insisting on removing female and calling her male in edit summaries, although I think at least most of these have stayed away from inserting male into the article.) I think it helped that she was significantly out of the public eye in recent years although I also think her pioneering role is still fairly well recognised within NZ.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(There's another example I can't discuss here for various reasons but could email if anyone is interested which while it is ECP protected, which I don't object to, looking at the circumstances I don't think it really fits into the pattern either.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: and arbs: think we need clarity how per-article ARBECR applies to other pages. For topic level, as I understand ARBECR, it applies everywhere. So editors cannot bring up such issues at BLP/N or other noticeboard nor can they participate in AFDs etc as they can only make edit requests. I feel when disruption moves to another article admins can deal with it as required so isn't an issue but trickier for noticeboards. IMO if article-level ARBECR is applied it should apply not just to the article talk page but to all pages when discussing changes or concerns over that article like with standard ARBECR. Importantly, as I understand it, this technically allows any EC editor to close or revert any discussion by non-EC editors. However it doesn't apply to other articles so ARBECR on Elliot Page would not apply to List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page (but an admin can apply it to both). And it's fine for editors to mention something of relevance at Elliot Page in discussion about the list but suggestions for changing Elliot Page would generally be off-topic on the list talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Courcelles

• I don't think really anything more is needed here than something like the community said about the Armenia-Azerbaijan general sanctions, where the liberal use of ECP to combat disruption was explicitly encouraged. As someone who had his name all over the AELOG over the last year about this case, I think de facto we already are using protection pretty liberally to stop bigotry, but an explicit instruction to do so would still be good guidance. Courcelles (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Regarding the advantages ARBECR offers traditional protection - it is of course extremely rare for a talk page to be protected, per WP:ATPROT, and indefinite semi-protection (let alone ECR protection) for talk pages is almost unheard of; but much of the disruption is currently on talk, as the redactions of BLP violations on Sweet Baby Inc. show. And more generally, prior to semi-protection the talk page was a mess of WP:FORUM stuff, WP:ASPERSIONS, general complaints about Wikipedia as a whole, and requests that were obviously not compatible with policy, repeated in every single section to the point of disrupting all other discussion there. ARBECR would let admins place slightly looser but more persistent restrictions on talk pages that would still allow new and unregistered users to make edit requests while limiting the scope of disruption; I don't think that extended-protecting a talk page, by comparison, is a viable long-term solution even if policy allowed it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Do admins realize that they can apply ECR to pages in WP:CTOPs, though? I'm not opposed to just "they're already allowed to do it and they probably only need to do it occasionally" - I definitely don't think we need it for the entire topic area, just a few pages that have been the target of persistent off-wiki canvassing that has spilled over onto talk - but I'm not sure admins realize they can (has it ever been done?) So it might require a clarification. --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Also see this just-now opened WP:AE request where an editor is appealing indefinite ECP on an a page done under AE (in a different topic area), which may be relevant to discussions of whether, when, and how admins can apply ECR. --Aquillion (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

As has been discussed, WP:GENSEX is a massive topic area with plenty of fuzzy borders. There are plenty of good contributions from non-EC editors, and many of Wikipedia's efforts to reduce the gender gap intersect with this topic area and include encouraging new editors to work on articles. Applying WP:ARBECR as the default would have too much collateral damage. Applying 500/30 to individual articles and other pages is already available as part of the standard set, so I don't think there is any change that needs to be made here. If the current protection expires and disruption resumes, admins can impose more long-term protection. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Swatjester

I am generally in favor of giving more tools to administrators trying to address disruption on contentious topics. So I'm aligned with the proposal. In terms of what the language looks like, personally, I agree with Sideswipe in that I'd like to see it as an expansion to the already-authorized list of standard restrictions. This has the benefit of 1) not requiring any change in process to implement, and 2) achieves the "as-needed basis" element without hindering any administrator's ability to escalate straight to it it, if they believe that's necessary. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by SWinxy

RE: Primefac. Yes, there would be a negative impact by preemptively locking GENSEX articles under ECP. Small but helpful edits by non-extended confirmed users (and all IPs) at Death of Tyra Hunter would have been prevented from positive changes. This article also has never received protection in the two decades it has been there. But I don't know the extent of the negative implications that a preemptive protection would bring, and how to weigh that against the harm of the status quo. But I do know it would be some hinderance in the pursuit to collaborative encyclopedia building. I prefer having it be the norm that things can go straight to indef ECP if determined necessary. SWinxy (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Gender and sexuality: Clerk notes

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

Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I would like to ask the opposite question: would there be a significant and/or negative impact if we restricted all pages in this topic area to extended-confirmed editors? As a corollary, if I come across a page with Pending Changes enabled but every IP edit has been reverted, I will often switch it to semiprotection. If PC seems to be keeping out the worst of it but there are productive edits, I generally leave things be. This request seems to be indicating we have a tipping point of a similar nature.
  In other words, are we at this point with the entire topic area, broadly construed, where it is more practical to just prohibit everything, or would we lose out on enough not-bad contributions that we might turn folk away from the area entirely? Primefac (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• re:PF As we just established in the last clarification, this is a large topic area and one whose scope is not always immediately obvious. Both of these would be concerns for me to making ECR default and the evidence we have so far of disruption is not sufficient to overcome those concerns. As for the original request, page protection is already part of the standard set and per the request is being used by admins. I'm not sure how that differs from adding ECR to the standard set for the topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  That is why I asked the question. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Sideswipe9th, @Nil Einne I understand the need to ECR the talk page but any time we do ECR in wider ways we get lots of requests for clarifications. So "You can't discuss this article at a noticeboard but can discuss a related article" is bound to create more of these requests and so I'm still back to "let admins use the authority they already have" or making clear, perhaps just through clarification here or perhaps through motion, that talk page ECR is definitely appropriate in this topic area before trying some kind of more sweeping solution. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sideswipe: I'm suggesting "admin should ECR talk pages when they have been disrupted". Is there evidence of noticeboard disruption from non-ECR editors? If so I don't think that evidence has been presented yet. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sideswipe: Yes I'm admittedly using ECP and ECR interchangeably and I shouldn't. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Conceptually it's important to remember that Contentious Topic procedures are a delegated grant of ArbCom's authority, in this case to To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This is why we ArbCom can act in ways that are an exemption to consensus. For instance there is a consensus, codified through policy, that says when an editor may be blocked. Contentious topic overrules that consensus and provides other criteria. There is a consensus against protecting article talk pages. As shown with ECR, ArbCom can overrule that consensus and provide other criteria. So WP:ATPROT doesn't strike me as some special barrier. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  The exception already exists. Nothing new is being established. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  @‌Sideswipe9th thanks for the update. My read of this reinforces the idea, for me, that our current processes can work here. Do you have a different read? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Aquillion good news is that this very discussion can lead to that clarification. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Speaking for myself: I encourage admin to use ARBECR tools liberally, and on a case-by-case basis, when acting upon concerns of misgendering and deadnaming within articles. I don't support an automatic ECP for these articles as it would prevent other information from being added to the articles and would affect a much larger set of articles than is necessary. I don't think a formal motion is necessary at this time, but if someone thinks it is please ping me and we can figure something out. Thank you Sideswipe9th for bringing this clarification to our attention. Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.