Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people

Shortcut
Main case page (talk) — Preliminary statements (talk) — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Case clerks: SilverLocust (talk) & HouseBlaster (talk) Drafting arbitrators: Sdrqaz (talk) & Elli (talk) & Theleekycauldron (talk) & CaptainEek (talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 05:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Case closed on 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Case information

[edit]

Involved parties

[edit]

Changed from the proposed parties

Prior dispute resolution

[edit]

Copied verbatim from the case request

Examples of the AE cases of editors with pro-fringe/anti-trans views who have been sanctioned for their actions:

Special treatment of WP:UNBLOCKABLE's who are given leeway of endless warnings after warnings and then "offer to step back" to avoid the sanction that admins were discussing if it hadn't been for their offer to keep the "appearance of a clean record"

Further examples of AE cases with leeway given to users promoting pro-fringe/anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia:

Retaliatory filings by users promoting fringe theories and/or opposition to queer rights against users:

Preliminary statements

[edit]

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

[edit]

Clerk notes

[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (9/1/4)

[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Hello Raladic, you have provided a huge list of parties and dedicate a paragraph to Colin without pinging or notifying or adding them as a party; is this intentional? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Berchanhimez, regarding 'unblockables' on both sides that have escaped AE (or any) sanctions, if you have specific users in mind that are not currently on the party list, I think these should be added with an explanation as soon as possible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortuna imperatrix mundi, if there are specific users you'd like to propose adding to the parties list, perhaps ideally with an explanation beyond "endorsed or refused to endorse an essay against queerphobia", please do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to accept this case request. I personally don't view a huge parties list as necessarily problematic; I think it's much more problematic if problems in the area turn out to come from a non-party. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't plan on recusing or being a party to this case as my editing in the topic has been administrative and closing at least one RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept, there's clearly issues here the community has not been able to resolve and asking single admins or the few working AE at any given time the shoulder the burden of handling complex multiparty disputes and the likely backlash won't result in much headway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Parabolist, a single admin can take action, even if there's no consensus at AE. I can tell you from experience that sanctioning established editors and dealing with the fallout as an individual admin can often be more than a volunteer cares to volunteer for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Raladic: extension approved to 700 words. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, the party list is not an accurate reflection of what the party list should actually be if this case request is accepted (and comments to this effect have already started coming in above). I would contend that rather than being "carefully curated", it is in fact far too wide-reaching and captures people who have acted purely administratively, or are otherwise on the fringe of the issue and not core to it. The fact that SFR was listed as a party, later clarified by the filer to be largely based around the most recent Colin AE, speaks to this. I agree with LokiTheLiar here on that particular issue. Daniel (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Raladic: the key phrase being "important role in the dispute", as you identify. That phrase, "important role", is obviously up for interpretation but my view is that it currently captures people who don't meet that threshold. This can all be sorted out in the wash—but flagging to those who might have got pinged to here as parties that the current list, at least in this humble arbitrator's view, is far too wide-reaching. Daniel (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: I was the admin who implemented the GENSEX topic ban against YFNS (since lifted). I have significantly edited transgender, trans man, trans woman, and their talk pages, chiefly in the context of the their leads. However, those pages/issues do not appear to be the locus of this dispute, so I do not currently plan to recuse. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept With a much shortened party list, and a narrow scope. For better or worse, their are several AE threads involving editors in the topic area that were inconclusive, which seems to leave the issue for us. I admit that GENSEX already seems to apply broadly to the topic area, but if trans healthcare is a pressure point, then we can give that some targeted examination. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been watching AE cases pile up over 2025 and understand the call for a case on this topic. My opinion here generally is in agreement with comments expressed by Daniel. This case request was just posted today so it will naturally be undergoing some adjustments over coming weeks. But I think the list of parties should have a firmer basis even if the final list doesn't have unanimous consensus behind it. I think an editor listed as a party should have played a part in previous disputes and not be listed in a case requet for simply airing a strong opinion on the subject. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortuna imperatrix mundi, those two lists you linked to have a combined total of 41 editors. I'm sure there is an overlap between those lists and the list of suggested parties in this case request but if this request is accepted, we are trying to refine this list of proposed parties, not expand it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your comment, User:Tryptofish, I see that same hesitancy you refer to all over the project now, not just at AE but at ANI and even AFD. With the admin recall process and some desysoppings over the past two years, I think the message has gotten through to many admins that there can be severe consequences to being BOLD. There is a "Well, what do YOU think?" attitude present among admins before anyone decides to take action. I know this can be frustrating to many editors but it's a pendulum swing against the previous take-no-prisoners, "block 'em all!" perspective of admins who are now long gone or retired from the project. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was holding back on voicing an opinion about taking this case until the list of involved parties was whittled down and the focus more clearly defined. But I guess this will only happen after a case is accepted so I'll just voice Accept now. Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of those areas where disputes do happen, and are going to carry on happening. I'm not averse to a case, however, I will remind individuals that we need to focus on behaviour not content. What's more, the list of parties is excessive - as has been mentioned before. I do wonder if the case request was more focussed, it would become apparent quickly that it was something that could be handled by the community, and the scattergun nature of this request is making it appear that a case is needed more than it actually is. I'll do a bit more reading before deciding whether to accept. WormTT(talk) 10:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After careful consideration, I'm going decline without prejudice of another request in the near future. I will admit I am absolutely on the borderline here, and may flip-flop to accepting a case. My thinking is that on the one hand, I believe the community is still able to handled these issues, that both the case in question and the general area can still be managed by the community. I've said above that I'm not a fan of the scattergun nature of the request, which makes it appear that a case is more needed than it actually is - and focused on the scope in question, I'm confident we should be declining at this point. What gives me pause, is that I'm hearing AE admins saying they're struggling, saying they're unwilling to work in the area due to entrenched bad faith positions, and the feeling that they will be targeted in response to action - by either side. So, I wonder if a case in the area would help, albeit with a different scope. I will actively continue watching here, and would be interested in my colleagues opinion. WormTT(talk) 10:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recusing. - Aoidh (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept: I think the scattergun nature of the presentation speaks to what I've been seeing from watching this topic area from time to time at AE, RSN, FTN, and elsewhere – if it were anywhere near possible for one editor to summarize the waterfall of conduct and content disputes that have unfolded here, we probably wouldn't need to take this case. For just one example: the fact that multiple editors got fed up and went to AE to try and kick rivals out of the topic area, by really whatever means necessary, speaks to some entrenched battleground editing happening here – and if anyone would have been able to deal with that, it's AE. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The scope of the case should probably be "Transgender health care", although even that skates over some disputes in this area that have spilled into being about the social role of transgender people more broadly. The party list definitely needs to be workshopped. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parabolist: I don't think that's an accurate summary? Colin's case reached no consensus, and YFNS's case closed as "a consensus to act has not emerged", which sure doesn't sound like AE admins had their arms far enough around the case to reach a consensus not to act. Void if removed's case has been sitting with basically no comments on the merits from admins since it was filed two weeks ago. So no, that doesn't seem to me like AE has a handle on it. If admins aren't weighing in, maybe that's because it's not an issue that can be solved that way – AE admins aren't slacking or unimaginative, they're not resolving these cases well because AE isn't designed for that, nor should it be. If they all got together and looked at the threads and all of the evidence as a group and methodically resolved the conflict by considering every facet and party to this dispute, they'd of course be able to handle this, but then they'd just be reinventing the concept of an ArbCom case. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm torn here. I largely agree with Dave that the scattergun approach demonstrates the breadth of issues but not the depth that would normally be required for an ArbCom case and I would be tempted to decline. What pushes me the other way is that this is already closely connected to a designated contentious topic. It has been a recurring issue at AE and there is obviously a bubbling resentment under the surface, so maybe it's time for ArbCom to take a deeper look, so I'm weakly at accept. Nevertheless, the party list will need to be rationalised if there is to be any hope of achieving anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be heading towards an accepted case, so I will just say that I have been trying to decide which side of the fence to lean/fall; I share many of the same concerns as WTT but have yet to come to a firm conclusion, so I will abstain for this portion of the process. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I likewise see this as trending toward acceptance but I'm going to be inactive for most of the next two months, so I will abstain for now. Katietalk 22:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an update, the drafters and wider Committee are discussing how this case will be opened (parties, scope, and structure). Sorry for the delay, everyone. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse just to make this official: I am involved in the Rowling FARs. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept: clear that there's issues the community has been unable to resolve here. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, since the question is still open, though the matter needs to be significantly more closely defined. I've been unimpressed since noticing that one of the complaints is of retaliatory filings yet the user who mad that filing is not listed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cabayi (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

[edit]

Final decision

[edit]

All tallies are based on the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee

[edit]

2) The Arbitration Committee is a final binding decision-maker for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. It has jurisdiction over conduct on the English Wikipedia and retains jurisdiction over all matters previously heard, including associated enforcement processes. While the committee may take notice of behavior outside of the English Wikipedia, it cannot restrict behavior which occurs outside of the English Wikipedia. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated as contentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is not an editorial board

[edit]

3) The Committee rules on conduct, not content. It does not dictate the content of any article.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

[edit]

4) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Decorum

[edit]

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Partisanship

[edit]

6) All editors have opinions—this is expected and welcome. However, an editor's contributions on content and sourcing must be neutral and dispassionate, even when the results would paint their personal beliefs in a poor light or conflict with them outright. When editors cherry-pick sources or source text; selectively argue that friendly sources are reliable and unfriendly sources are unreliable without real consideration on the merits; control the portrayal of the debate by arguing over minutiae; misrepresent discussion, sourcing, or content; abuse conduct enforcement processes to target perceived rivals; or otherwise engage in intellectually dishonest behavior, they are treating Wikipedia as a battleground and as a vehicle for the advancement of their own ideology.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

[edit]

7) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Assume good faith

[edit]

8) "Assume good faith" is one of the central pillars of Wikipedia. While some editors do act in bad faith, or are here to POV-push—especially in contentious topic areas—merely because a person disagrees with you does not mean that they are here in bad faith, or that they are pushing an agenda. Editors must not let the fear of POV-pushers prevent them from substantively engaging with other editors to build the encyclopedia.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts

[edit]

9) Editors should contribute from a neutral point of view. Single-purpose accounts can create the impression that an editor is following their own agenda with a non-neutral focus on a single topic. Editors operating such an account should take care to ensure that their edits are compatible with the project's broader goal of writing an encyclopaedia.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

[edit]

10) Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy is meatpuppetry and is a form of gaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improper on its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

[edit]

11.1) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical and scientific interpretations, including significant minorities. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the record, as opposed to views considered fringe by the substantial consensus of reliable sources.

Passed 7 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Enough is enough

[edit]

12) When the community's extensive and reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Arbitration Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community.

Passed 9 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Conduct during arbitration cases

[edit]

13) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Findings of fact

[edit]

Locus of dispute

[edit]

1) The locus of the dispute is transgender healthcare, as well as the behavior of the named parties as related to transgender topics. Transgender healthcare and transgender topics generally are already covered by the contentious topics sanction scheme for gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people (GENSEX), but have been especially controversial within the broader GENSEX topic.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Abuse of close review

[edit]

2) Parties within the topic area habitually commented on the close reviews for discussions they had also participated in, often casting both a vote and making many comments (Pinguinn evidence).

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources

[edit]

3) Disputes over sourcing have been central to the topic area. Parties have used weak sources or tried to discredit or misrepresent generally reliable sources (Sean Waltz O'Connell evidence, Tryptofish evidence).

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Raladic

[edit]

4) Raladic (talk · contribs) changes her standards on whether allegations of misconduct are too contentious to include in an article based on whether the accused shares her beliefs. 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. 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—the filing was subsequently dismissed as a content dispute. In Raladic's own editing, however, she liberally labels living people, organizations, and their actions as "anti-trans" without corroborating sourcing (4 5 6 7 8 9 10; Sean Waltz O'Connell and Sweet6970's evidence).

Building on the evidence from the ANI thread, Raladic tried multiple times in this case to use conduct processes as a vehicle for winning disputes:

  • 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).
  • During the case, Raladic received harassment from IP editors; she forwarded them to the Arbitration Committee and the Trust and Safety team, claiming that they were death threats and blaming them on Sweet6970's above-cited evidence. She asked the Committee to summarily remove Sweet6970's evidence and enjoin her entirely from editing about living people "until they have familiarized themself with BLP policy". Both bodies declined to take action (private evidence).
  • During the workshop phase, Raladic edited comments by Samuelshraga (11 12) and immediately tried to get them blocked (13) for omitting the space in "trans women" and writing Statements like "trans women are not men" are WP:FRINGE. The former was a quote, the latter turned out to be a mistake. (Raladic's workshop talk page statement)

Raladic was warned for battleground editing in a December 2024 AE filing.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

[edit]

5) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs) ("YFNS") (previously TheTranarchist) was topic-banned from GENSEX by the community in March 2023, with a successful partial appeal in November 2023 and all restrictions lifted in January 2025. She was the subject of a June 2025 AE thread that did not result in sanctions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Void if removed

[edit]

6.1) Void if removed (talk · contribs) was privately reminded by an individual Committee member about off-wiki canvassing in March 2024. They have been the subject of two AE reports: one in September 2024 (closed as no action but with a gentle suggestion to follow advice given), and one in June 2025 ("warned for putting words in other editors' mouths instead of responding to what they actually said"). Void if removed has engaged in battleground and bludgeoning behavior (LokiTheLiar evidence, Pinguinn evidence):

  • On major discussions on Cass review Void if removed contributed ten or more comments in five discussions, and in one discussion contributed 23 of the 76 total comments. Overall, Void if removed commented 108 times in major discussions on Cass review, far more than any other party (LokiTheLiar evidence charts).
  • On major discussions on SEGM, Void if removed contributed ten or more comments in three discussions, and in one discussion contributed 21 of the 74 total comments. Overall, Void if removed commented 50 times in major discussion on SEGM, far more than any other party (LokiTheLiar evidence charts).
  • Void if removed tends to write long comments that can overwhelm discussions (1 2 3 4 5 6).
  • Void if removed has been a frequent participant in AEs in the topic area (Pinguinn evidence).
  • Raladic filed the September 2024 AE against Void if removed. Void if removed filed an AE against Raladic in December 2024.
  • Void if removed has authored several works offwiki demonstrating that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to discredit causes and positions supported by transgender rights activists. They and the LGB Alliance have favorably cited each other's work; Void if removed has edited that page 74 times and commented on the talk page 252 times. A COIVRT investigation determined that Void if removed's editing did not violate the conflict of interest guideline.
Passed 9 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Colin

[edit]

7) Colin (talk · contribs) withdrew voluntarily from this topic area during his third AE case in May 2025, after which administrators deadlocked on the appropriate remedy. The evidence in the AE thread points to a long span of one-against-many incivility and bludgeoning in strong defense of the Cass Review—a dispute that pitted him against, as he saw it, a large number of "activist" editors and sources looking to discredit the review. He also badgered and attacked the admins trying to moderate that dispute (Pinguinn evidence). His behavior continued in this case, where he proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies to curtail "activist editors" and rebuke admins in the topic area (Colin's workshop proposals).

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Sweet6970

[edit]

8) Sweet6970 (talk · contribs) has engaged in persistent battleground editing.

Sweet6970 shows up regularly at AE (and occasionally other venues), uniformly defending ideological allies and attempting to sanction opponents:

  • Sweet6970 shows up at AE to defend regulars in the topic area she agrees with, including Void if removed (1 2) and Colin (3).
  • Sweet6970 defended an editor calling trans women male as plainly in good faith. This editor was indefinitely blocked as a result of the AE thread.
  • Sweet6970 defended an editor saying Transwomen are male by arguing that Wikipedia is not the Thought Police. The editor was topic banned as a result of the AE thread.
  • At ANI, Sweet6970 defended an SPA focused on pushing an anti-trans POV, arguing that the filer should be “trouted”. The editor was indeffed as a result of the ANI thread.
  • Sweet6970 argued for sanctions against YFNS by repeatedly claiming their edits are trying to “smear” someone. This AE thread resulted in no sanctions.
  • Sweet6970 assumed Raladic was acting in bad faith when they edited an article to say someone was “known for founding” an organization while also nominating that article for deletion on the grounds of BLP1E. The AfD resulted in the article being changed in scope to be about the event and the AE thread closed in a warning for Raladic.
Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Samuelshraga

[edit]

9) Samuelshraga (talk · contribs) has repeatedly accused other editors of intentionally misrepresenting themselves or sources. In doing so, he also frequently misrepresents others' claims, without retraction.

  • Samuelshraga claimed that OsFish referred to editors who raised the author affiliation question in the SEGM RfC as "strawmanning", and then argue[d] that a BMJ article is not usable for claims in its own voice because it also quotes SEGM members, and that a discussion needs to be had at RSN about a review article ... because one of the 5 authors is affiliated to SEGM. OsFish did make the "strawmanning" comment, but the other two claims are false (1 2).
  • He also claimed that LokiTheLiar lied several times during the Daily Telegraph RfC; he later retracted the claim of intentionality at ANI.
  • Samuelshraga and Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist repeatedly misrepresented past comments of each other's and their own while accusing each other of the same, including on her talk page and in a June 2025 AE thread he filed against her, which resulted in no action.
    • YFNS objected (3 4) to a source based on its poor quality and substantial connections to SEGM. Samuelshraga then exaggerated her reliance on the SEGM connection in another discussion, and when she said "that wasn't the argument... even if SEGM was not involved at all, it would still not be a MEDRS", he switched to arguing on her talk page that she lied by saying she'd never brought it up, even after she disclaimed that interpretation. He brought it up again at AE, where she quoted the exaggerated comment and claimed that "he keeps saying my only opposition is SEGM", which he never did.
    • YFNS claimed that there was "a longstanding consensus ... that ROGD is indeed FRINGE", linking to a discussion that resulted in no consensus on whether ROGD should be described as "fringe" in mainspace. Samuel brought it up at her talk page, claiming she misrepresented the discussion because it resulted in no consensus; she pointed to the separate closer finding that ROGD is broadly discredited by editor consensus, comparing that to the wording of FRINGE. Samuel acknowledges that difference, but at AE, he still cites the episode against her, saying the discussion "closed with a decision not to call it (lower-case) 'fringe' in an article talk page", which again misses the point of her comment and misstates the meaning of "no consensus". Still, YFNS's initial claim about the discussion was exaggerated.
    • YFNS objected to a source because of the qualifications of the authors, including one connection to SEGM. Samuelshraga, in trying to catch her contradicting herself, pointed out that she said a week later that she had never seen SEGM produce a reliable source, blatantly ignoring her comment stating that said source was unreliable for other reasons.

Samuelshraga was warned for personal attacks in a different June 2025 AE filing (Samuelshraga, Pinguinn, and Aquillion's evidence).

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Aaron Liu

[edit]

10) Aaron Liu (talk · contribs) has bludgeoned discussions.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

JonJ937

[edit]

11) JonJ937 (talk · contribs) was topic-banned from GENSEX in August 2025 by Moneytrees based on evidence of coordination and gaming presented at SPI.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Sean Waltz O'Connell

[edit]

12) Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk · contribs) was topic-banned from GENSEX in August 2025 by Moneytrees based on evidence of coordination and gaming presented at SPI.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Springee

[edit]

13) Springee (talk · contribs) is a regular participant in user-conduct processes; they oppose sanctions on most editors, including editors on both sides of this dispute. However, this leads them to frequently defend editors engaging in blatant disruption in the form of bigotry – sometimes directed at other editors – and BLP violations (RelmC's evidence, Springee's comments):

  • One user was reported in a December 2024 ANI thread for following the filer here from sister projects, hounding them about their work covering a trans child; the user repeatedly accused the mother, without merit, of forcibly controlling the child's gender identity. Editors discussed imposing a topic ban from GENSEX and a one-way interaction ban with the filer; the user withdrew from the topic area, at which point Springee opposed the topic ban. The thread closed with consensus for the topic ban and interaction ban, citing the editor's "conduct and lack of contrition".
  • Another user was reported in a March 2025 AE thread because they, among other things, accused others of bias based on their stated gender identity on their user pages. Springee opposed sanctions, saying, "I also don't think it's unreasonable for an editor to presume a bias based on things an editor posts on their user pages". They also disputed that the conduct was related to GENSEX, the CTOP under which the thread was filed. The thread closed with consensus for a topic ban from GENSEX.
  • A third user was reported in an April 2025 ANI thread because they repeatedly argued for misgendering a living trans child in mainspace; as they said, "children cannot reliably identify their own gender so MOS:GENDERID does not apply. The entire concept of 'trans children', especially when they are pre-pubescent does not jive with reality". Springee opposed the siteban, supporting only a warning:

    [The filer's] actions come off as more trying to punish an editor for wrong think rather than for some sort of wide spread disruption. Additionally, the transphobia accusation is less than ideal given the context and absent some sort of additional evidence. Certainly the gender of the child is a core part of the dispute and it's understandable that some would question if Wikipedia should be using stated vs biological gender in a case like this one. As a matter of course Wikipedia goes with stated gender but it should also be understood that isn't a universally held view and reasonable people can disagree here.

    When it became clear the editor had accused others of supporting child abuse, Springee then supported a topic ban. The thread closed with "clear consensus for a community ban" after three days.
Passed 9 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Remedies

[edit]

Special rules for close challenges

[edit]

2) In any challenge to the closure of a formal discussion within the WP:GENSEX topic area (e.g. an RfC or AfD), users who participated in the underlying discussion are limited to at most two comments, not exceeding a combined total of 250 words. Uninvolved administrators may remove violating comments, in whole or in part, as an Arbitration enforcement action, and may use repeated violations as the basis for other sanctions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

AE participation may be restricted by an administrator

[edit]

3.4) An uninvolved administrator may impose the "AE participation restriction" (AEPR) on any AE thread. Comments in threads restricted in this manner are limited to:

  1. The filer
  2. The subject
  3. Uninvolved administrators
  4. Users invited by an uninvolved administrator
  5. Users providing links to relevant past discussions or administrative actions, without any editorialization
  6. Users who any participant has named, or whose actions any participant has referenced, but only to comment on the context in which they were mentioned

Administrators are reminded that they have broad discretion in moderating AE threads, including removing users' sections, instructing users not to participate, and imposing AE sanctions against those who misuse the noticeboard.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Raladic indefinite topic ban

[edit]

5.2) Raladic is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Raladic banned

[edit]

6) Raladic is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 6 to 3 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban

[edit]

8.2) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 6 to 3 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Void if removed indefinite topic ban

[edit]

10.2) Void if removed is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Void if removed banned

[edit]

11) Void if removed is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Colin admonished

[edit]

12) Colin is admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.

Passed 9 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Colin indefinite topic ban (healthcare)

[edit]

13.1) Colin is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of transgender healthcare, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 6 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Sweet6970 indefinite topic ban

[edit]

15.2) Sweet6970 is indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Sweet6970 banned

[edit]

16) Sweet6970 is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Samuelshraga admonished

[edit]

17) Samuelshraga is admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.

Passed 6 to 3 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Samuelshraga indefinite topic ban (healthcare)

[edit]

17.1) Samuelshraga is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of transgender healthcare, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Aaron Liu reminded

[edit]

19.1) Aaron Liu is reminded to avoid bludgeoning discussions.

Passed 9 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Springee admonished

[edit]

21.2) Springee is admonished for their conduct in transgender topics, broadly construed.

Passed 7 to 1 with 1 abstention at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Springee indefinite topic ban (user-conduct enforcement)

[edit]

22.2) Springee is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 0 at 02:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.