| Revision as of 14:26, 12 December 2024 editColin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,958 edits →AE post: example← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:45, 9 January 2025 edit undoMalcolmxl5 (talk | contribs)Administrators149,230 edits →Thomas Partey: Thanks.Tag: Reply |
| (31 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 30K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 30K |
|
|counter = 96 |
|
|counter = 97 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Block == |
|
== '']'' arbitration case opened == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Block with. All project ] (]) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. ] 11:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
<!-- Message sent by User:SilverLocust@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260341982 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Thomas Partey == |
|
== ] updates == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you have a look at the antics at ] please? The short story is that the police have been investigating allegations made about a Premier League player and a file has been passed to the CPS but neither have named the individual (and they can’t due to privacy rules regarding the identification of suspects) meaning any sources naming anyone are conjecture. We have a young editor persisting adding the accusations to the article and talk page who will not stop. They have a CTOP notification. — ] (]) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
You are receiving this message because you are on ] for ]. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is {{tqq|The interaction of named parties in the ] topic area and examination of the ] process that led to ] ] to ]}}. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made: |
|
|
|
* {{u|Malcolmxl5}} Indefinitely blocked and every edit revision deleted. I've also semi-protected the article. Thanks, ] 21:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*:Thanks. — ] (]) 21:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
First, '''the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days''', until '''23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)'''. Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on ], providing a reason with ] as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective. |
|
|
|
|
|
Second, the ] '''has been extended by a week''', and will now close at '''23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)'''. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:HouseBlaster@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260342644 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== You are mentioned at a ] discussion == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have mentioned you at ]. ] (]) 11:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
== AE post == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please will you retract/strike your comment . It serves no purpose in determining whether Raladic's editing behaviour is problematic wrt a contentious topic. None whatsoever. But it does indicate to all that you are prejudiced and have already put editors into two boxes: pro-trans and anti-trans. Which is awful. You may think it is harmless to be prejudiced on the side of the angels but all that shows is a simplistic view of Good-Correct people vs Bad-Incorrect people. And the real world is complicated, and I sincerely hope you are wiser and more intelligent than that would indicate. |
|
|
|
|
|
My interest in topics like ] lies in holding up ], which I'm keen on since I created it. During that review's gestation and around its publication and aftermath we have seen countless examples of misinformation mostly from those lobbying on behalf of trans people. I have absolutely no doubt that if the Cass Review had found evidence in the opposite direction, such as that puberty blockers were great and should be given away like smarties, then we'd have seen countless examples of misinformation from the gender critical and conservative bigot side. And medical editors would be fighting their posts instead. Neither side is capable of arguing with integrity and that seems to be the state of activism in 2024. Our job is to write an encyclopaedia, not to be a platform for either side to promote their misinformation. |
|
|
|
|
|
That topic has a tiny number of what I would regard as neutral editors who's main focus is policy and guideline and MEDRS. They mostly don't edit the articles and just make occasional comments on talk. The rest are all quite obviously activists in the lower case sense. Most of them IMO are also ] in the problematic sense. That our rules are inconvenient and to be weaponised and twisted in whatever way suits their goal, which is not a neutral encyclopaedic article. In my view, it is fairly easy to spot on a medical article if an editor is following MEDRS and going with what the best reliable sources say, vs what they read on their blogs and magazines and what gets published as commentary or opinion pieces on lesser journals. As it turns out, the findings of the systematic reviews behind the Cass Review were not seen as helpful to the trans side of the American culture war. It could '''equally''' have gone the other way. That's how science works. Sometimes your wonder anti-cancer drug is a breakthrough and sometimes it is a dud. So because of this, right now, the misinformation and ] problem on those articles is largely on those fighting American culture wars against conservative bigots. I wish them well but Misplaced Pages isn't their tool for making shit up in the hope it helps their cause. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is quite possible that after the UK medical trial of puberty blockers is complete, it finds utility in them for trans children. The research at the moment is at the "not enough evidence" stage, not at the "clear evidence of harm" stage. So that outcome may arise. And if it does, we'll have the opposite scenario where medical editors are fighting those who oppose their use as they attempt to abuse Misplaced Pages for misinformation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Your post effectively says to any medical editor that they should avoid fighting misinformation from activists because they will get some admin labelling them "anti-trans POV pusher". And it says you are happy with problematic ] editor behaviour, provided their values align with yours. Please strike it. |
|
|
|
|
|
]°] 10:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* I will not be striking it, because I believe it to be completely accurate as regards what is happening ''here at Misplaced Pages'', as opposed to in the real world. And I have not put editors into two "boxes", even though some ''may'' fit neatly into one or the other. And if I can be really honest, {{tq|You may think it is harmless to be prejudiced on the side of the angels but all that shows is a simplistic view of Good-Correct people vs Bad-Incorrect people}} probably sums my comment up better than I did. ] 12:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
**Well, since you have openly declared a prejudice, I ask you to refrain from commenting on sanctions for any editor in this topic. Let's leave that to admins who can comment on the edits in a fair manner. Jytdog was a classic example of an editor who was given way too much slack for editing on the side of the angels, supposedly. We need admins to judge edits, not personal politics. -- ]°] 14:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
