Jump to content

User:Raladic/ArbtransErrors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding FoF focussing on me

There is a strangely large amount of mistakes/errors in this section.

  • Regarding "When it comes to entities that align with her beliefs, like Benjamin Cohen or WPATH, she argues that allegations of misconduct cannot be included without sustained coverage (1 2 3), a very high bar that has no application to those disputes." - It appears the drafters must have accidentally conflated something here:
    • (1) - BLPVIO at Pinknews (the omission of Pinknews from the FoF above appear to have led to a wrong inference) & Benjamin Cohen -
      • I cited WP:BLPCRIME at ANI - the BLP content policy and raised the issue at ANI
      • WP:BLPCRIME hat note links to WP:Notability (events)#Criminal acts, and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators
      • It also points at WP:NPF to determine whether a person is a public figure.
      • Which in turn explains how to evaluate whether someone is or isn't a public figure, or a WP:LOWPROFILE individual (by pointing to the supplemental low-profile). I had gone through this and landing on the determination that Anthony James (who doesn't even have an article) and Benjamin Cohen did not satisfy the bar that NPF sets in conjunction with LOWPROFILE. For James that was unequivocally so, and for Cohen after looking at the sources, it also was so.
      • NPF in turn is extremely explicit on care not to include potentially harmful content on an BLP unless it is related to the persons notability - "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." and "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."
      • WP:BLP at the very top is also very explicit that "must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
      • Now why did I take it to ANI?
        • An editor pointed out the WP:RSBREAKING news on 10 Dec 2024, saying that it's likely too-soon to know if this was due or not for inclusion, but gave a heads up at the talk page.
        • Another editor however immediately went and added it an hour later to the article
        • Some other British sources reported same day and then there was one addition on Dec 18, 2024 of a response. No one at this point had checked whether adding the allegation of two people, to which WP:BLP applies to are due or not.
        • 2025 Mar - a brand new SPA account makes a bold change to the article, removing most of the lead, but adding the allegations to the lead
        • Sweet6970 amends the addition to the lead
        • 2025 Apr - Golikom (since banned sock of Orchomen) removes it again from the lead
        • Sweet6970 reverts Golikom's edit ("this is significant and should be in the lead")
        • Snokalok reverts Sweet6970
        • 2025 June - An IP re-adds it
        • Snokalok again reverts it
        • Here's where I come across it in July 2025 - seeing that there has been no coverage other than the original WP:RSBREAKING and remove the entire piece Remove event failing WP:BLPCRIME of low-profile individual that fails WP:SUSTAINED
          • This is the time where I accidentally mentioned WP:SUSTAINED instead of WP:NOTNEWS in addition to BLPCRIME in the edit summary. Mea culpa. It doesn't invalidate the BLPCRIME part.
          • Now the FoF say In July 2025, Raladic removed allegations of misconduct from Cohen's page; when Sweet6970 reverted once, Raladic went straight to ANI, skipping the talk page entirely
          • This actually has the order wrong (it doesn't even mention that I removed it from the org, which is where I found it and where the entire prior history is) - I removed the section from the organization PinkNews article at 11:42, after I spent several hours going over the NPF/LOWPROFILE details and ending up determining that the article about the organization should not have a BLP (people) allegation of a crime against two people associated with the organization. Anthony James isn't even mentioned in the article, so not only did this content introduce an allegation of a BLP, but it also added him. So, after I did the whole analysis, I removed it from the PinkNews article and then realized, it was also present at Cohen's individual article and removed it there a few minutes after with the same edit summary.
          • Here's where the earlier mention of the FoF missing PinkNews comes in - the ommission from the FoF indicates that the drafter of the section did not realize that Sweet6970's revert of my removal came on the heels of her having been previously reverted by Snokalok, after Sweet6970 herself reverted Golikom's removal of part of the content, because the FoF wrongly only mentions Cohen's BLP article and states when Sweet6970 reverted once, Raladic went straight to ANI, skipping the talk page entirely.
          • This means that the fact that the PinkNews article has long been a target was missed as well, and that this latest incident of throwing shade at them was one in a series at this article that began in 2022 - Talk:PinkNews/Archive 1#Libel sections which Sweet6970 has engaged in and argued at great lengths with Sideswipe9th and Colin, who both took a look of effort to try to explain the policies around ONUS on contentious topic and it's exclusion from articles and Colin pointing out a potentially tendentious editing pattern from Sweet6970 and then once more making it unequivocally clear that re-instating contested content was not how we do things - Editors wanting to include content have to reach consensus for it to be included. That is true whether the text was added yesterday or last year. After that, the matter appeared settled. Another editor LilySophie made a brief appearance a few days later and was blocked for EW.
          • Followed by the Talk thread about the allegations in which she doubled down
          • As I had read the threads and prior edits at the talk page and the article history, and Sweet6070's awareness that the content's due-ness was already questioned (at least for the lead), and came on the heels of her arguing three years before on another CRITS piece on the same article, which similarly was removed and the principles of content staying out until affirmative consensus having been very clearly explained. This is why this was a conduct issue. Not only did she ignore that I cited WP:BLPCRIME on the two articles I removed the content from. She also followed her previous past patterns, hence ANI was the correct venue to halt further disruption of a pattern, since serious BLP violations do tell us to get immediate, not slow, attention and it followed Sweet6970's prior pattern at the article where Colin raised points of tendentious editing, as well as the prior reverts.
          • Springee also summarized this well at the talk page after being alerted to it by the ANI thread.
          • The BLPN thread affirmed that the BLP policy on exclusion of contested content applies as SFR affirmed together with Nil Einne in the thread, which ended the matter as expected with the exclusion of the content since NPF was not overcome, which the FoF conveniently leave out as well, instead only referencing the ANI thread - "the filing was subsequently dismissed as a content dispute."
      • BLPCRIME is a constant cause of confusion for editors. We patched one hole just a few weeks ago. With another discussion on the inconsistent application of BLPCRIME right next to it
        • This patch was a result of the recent high profile shooting incident
          • A similar ANI thread on BLPCRIME violation was filed by VPP for the violations that happened at the shooting article, just as I did for the BLPCRIME violation at the Cohen incident, as it required admin intervention to halt the violation.
          • I spent a most of my of time over 3 days in the weekend of Sep. 12-14 addressing various BLP and other violations at that article.
          • In this ANI thread, editors similarly to the ANI report I had filed tried to point to making a threat at BLPN - but in this case Star Mississippi pointed out that splitting discussions was not necessarily helpful. Obviously the case was a bit more high-profile, but nonetheless, I'm not the first editor that raised a good-faith BLPCRIME issue at ANI, and I won't be the last.
      • WPATH allegations (from a year ago, though the history as you will see is actual many years longer):
  • re "In Raladic's own editing, however, she liberally labels living people, organizations, and their actions as "anti-trans" without corroborating sourcing"
  • Re "In her initial case request, she disparages her ideological opposites, without evidence, as users promoting pro-fringe/anti-trans misinformation, while AE threads against people she agrees with are retaliatory filings by users promoting fringe theories and/or opposition to queer rights (Raladic's case request)."
    • I assume that Transgender health care misinformation and WP:NQP on common fringe editing patterns are known and were read, given that both were submitted in the initial filing as evidence and are part of the cornerstone of why a lot of the editing behavior that led to this case filing to begin with. The AE threads are basically a showcase of the misinformation article (which stands at WP:GA), so it isn't like YFNS invented that these patterns happen, scholars and other experts and human rights watchdogs, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights among them, have made these findings and we have simply documented them.
    • AE Mr Miles 1 - evidence is obviously in the AE thread itself - Is the drafter arguing that the established consensus of Wikipedia as can be read at Trans women, and intentional violations of MOS:GENDERID such as [2], [3],[4]... are somehow not spreading pro-fringe or anti-trans misinformation?
    • AE Mr Miles 2 - again, obviously the evidence is in the AE thread and the user was topic banned.
    • AE Zilch nada - same thing, evidence is obviously in the AE thread [5] leave very little room for interpretation
    • AE VIR 1 & AE VIR 2 again, the evidence is in the AE threads. [6] and [7] can very clearly be described as pro-fringe and spreading of misinformation (whether it's by adding, or removing sourced content - again, the scientific article of the evolution of TERF-GCF above explains the rationale), the additional evidence by YFNS added many more examples of such.
    • AE Loki - SFR literally summarized why this was retaliatory in nature in the closure - BilledMammal, when you're frequently the target of accusations that you're weaponizing AE maybe don't weaponize AE in this way. You're more than aware of the community consensus around these notifications, as you've been involved in some of the discussions where it has come up. - this came in response to BM's arguing with Loki at the MfD for WP:NQP on alleging canvassing. This was settled in there that notifications were appropriately made and Loki made a follow-up thread at VPP afterwards seeking further clarification/confirmation and yet, despite the affirmation in the MfD, as well as VPP, BM took another notification by Loki as some kind of sign and decided to open the AE thread. It's textbook retaliation.
    • AE Raladic - Response to AE VIR 1 obviously. Following of that, VIR was tracking my moves even more closely. And as I further elaborated in the Evidence Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Evidence#AE_reports submission details how the report is not only extremely moot, but now with the extra details of the more recent sock and meatpuppetry, just basically empty. Which is why I asked that in light of the recent new evidence, it be struck.
    • AE MilesVorkosigan - again, I literally pointed out the retaliatory usage of CTOP alerts by Sweet6970 in my statement and how Miles' reaction to receiving it precipitated Sweet6970's filing of the report against them.
  • Re Samuelshraga's accidental (in the context of this case, you can see the momentary befuddlement) mistake.
    • After SFR helped move it to the talk page (The arbitration guide is very fuzzy on where users should or shouldn't reply as exhibited by several editors accidentally commenting in other people's sections), it was cleared up quickly and politely between all involved. Samuelshraga apologized for the accidental mistake I had pointed out and corrected it, as well as pointing out the other was a quote from Adam Cuerden that they didn't WP:SIC, and the issue was resolved (my comments, Samuelshraga's comments, Adam Cuerden's comment (exhibiting the fuzzy where we should/shouldn't reply thing)).
    • And while the drafter of this section appears to not consider what amounts to misgendering (by accident as it turned out) a big deal and instead focusing on "Raladic edited comments by Samuelshraga", and then even worse making up things - "immediately tried to get them blocked" - which is not quite what I said - "But I thusly would like to request ArbCom’s attention, of what would typically lead to a summary block and revdel for being grossly insulting.", as that is the factual statement of how misgendering or deadnaming is otherwise typically handled by admins and the AR from last month showed that the community by and large also doesn't take it lightly.
    • I simply raised it at the case page here to look at it, since all involved editors and admins are already here and opening a thread at the editors page or AN about something that happened in the middle of an active ArbCom case would be counterproductive.

Overall, I am somewhat puzzled by the mistakes/errors of the facts of the section, and why it reads a little bit like an intentional framing.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Raladic/ArbtransErrors&oldid=1315268992"