This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them They should not be given alerts for those areas.

I'm not very experienced at Wikipedia and disputes, and CorbieVreccan appears to be a Wikipedia admin, but I'm concerned about their behavior on the Fred Sargent page. They have been supporting their position with some obvious falsehoods. For instance, they just told me that "most would probably not even know" that Sargeant's accusations about the Vermont Pride Parade were part of the video they linked if it wasn't in the description. Every frame of the video says, in enormous block capital letters, that it is about the Vermont Pride Assault.

They also jumped on my talk page to scold me for blanking the section that they had been fighting to keep in, even though as several other editors besides me have pointed out, it is almost entirely lacking external sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Mwphil&diff=prev&oldid=1123799188

Do you think there is anything that should and can be done about what they are doing on this page? Mwphil ( talk) 12:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Mwphil It appears that there's consensus on wikipedia that the External Links section is a valid loophole around wikipedia's pesky insistence on reliable sources. These 2021 discussions [1] [2] sum up the arguments for and against including links to hate groups. The first is about whether or not to include the official link to the white supremacist website tied to over 100 murders, Stormfront. The second is about whether to exclude Links to recruitment and propaganda sites for extremist group more generally. It's different than the interview with Sargeant, but the arguments are similar. One side thinks including such links might have consequences in the real world. The other side thinks that they need to include links to hate group propaganda, or else wikipedia would be censoring.

Of course the include side won out in the 2021 RfC, and wikipedia proudly displays stormfront's URL in the infobox today. It's worth noting nobody brought up how these links help with Search Engine Optimization, making wikipedia even more morally culpable. When I google "stormfront", google helpfully scrapes wikipedia for the official URL and makes it a little higher on the page than the actual results, which have the official results at #4. Thanks, wikipedia! Otherwise, I would've have to scroll the results to get to stormfront's oficial website.

IMO it's like wikipedia still hasn't really learned what facebook learned in 2018. That is, pages on the internet can have real world consequences. The manual of style for Biographies of Living Persons shows an awareness that wikipedia exists in the real world, and precautions should be taken to not cause harm. You can't put someone's telephone number, just because WP:UNCENSORED. When a BLP is written, the potential consequences to living, breathing people is considered. This policy was probably just a response to US libel laws, which wikipedia has to follow.

I'm also pretty new to wikipedia, and I might be wrong about the Sargeant interview! Maybe there is some wikipedia policy that would exclude the link. But when there's a site-wide consensus to include Links to recruitment and propaganda sites for extremist groups, I'm not sure there's much to be done about this interview.

oof. Sorry for all the cynicism. If you haven't already, be sure to check out WP:Wikiproject LGBT. They have a lot of experienced editors, and really do a lot to improve articles on wikipedia. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 16:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I think if this interview is within the usual bounds of External links, I can let it drop; I'm reasonably content with the unreliable sources having been stripped from the main article, and also not having to do with this editor any more if possible.

I had wondered if there was material for a "Criticism" section for this article, but although I know a lot of people don't like Sargeant for obvious reasons, it doesn't look like he's significant enough for much of it to have gotten reliable sources. There is https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny-jk-rowling-likes-another-anti-transgender-tweet-fred-sargeant-20200519-lhuw2tiynfe6flx6jrrp6srgua-story.html about Rowling liking a transphobic tweet of Sargeant's, which describes him as "a fierce advocate for the exclusion of transgenders from the LGBTQ community," but while I think the New York Daily News is generally considered a reliable source, I'm not sure that that vertical would be? It seems to be "celebrity, entertainment news, gossip." Mwphil ( talk) 17:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi! I realize that we have not interacted before. While I do not assume the assumption of bad faith, I want to make it clear to you in case you had any doubts that I am not seeking to use an RFC in order to publish a tabloid-style, libelous, transphobic rumor. I had previously closed a related discussion and was disappointed to see editors going over and over the same issue, so I thought an RFC would be a good way to settle the discussion for the foreseeable future. I see you are a new editor so hope you'll stick around and help the wiki cover the topic area :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 17:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Ixtal: Sorry, I genuinely didn't mean to imply that you were pushing for those things. I saw your previous comments, and thought the RfC was an appropriate response to a ridiculous situation. It's unfortunate that we need an RfC to determine whether or not to publish such accusations, but I understand that's how the totally-not-a-bureaucracy works. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 23:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Glad to know you didn't mean to imply that. I totally agree that it's unfortunate, but it's something I've come to expect out of contentious topics. In case no one has shown you the page before, you can read more about how we handle contentious topics (which are formally listed here) on Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

BTW, I stopped watching many LGBT+ pages to take care of my mental health but if you ever want an experienced editor to help resolve a dispute in any CT feel free to ping me or get help at WP:DRN. I found it super helpful when I was first starting out. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply