Wikipedia subtoot. 

Grrr. Angry now. There's this editor, won't name who but if you know my activity on enwiki, you can probably guess, who I wish I could topic ban from multiple controversial areas.

They are an anti-trans conservative activist, who wields policy and guidance in an incredibly selective manner. If the edit is in favour of their agenda, they will ignore key points that they will happily point out when the edit is not in their favour.

Wikipedia subtoot. 

Any editor they disagree with is an activist, pushing an agenda. But of course they aren't, no they're just sticking to the (biased selection) of sources that just happen to coincide with their view.

Any discussion with them is always angry. If it were a face to face thing, I'm sure it would be a shouting match from them, from the start. They are a major contributor to the hostile environment when editing trans and medical articles, especially where those two topics collide.

Follow

Wikipedia subtoot. 

Frustratingly though, there's nothing I can do about it for now bar collect evidence. Any attempt at bringing this editors conduct to the correct noticeboard inevitably becomes a shitshow, because his defenders (who all naturally share the same POV) will show up with accusations that "you're just trying to get rid of an opponent in the content area".

It would take someone new in the content area to bring a case against him, but this has two major problems.

Wikipedia subtoot. 

1) Completely new editors don't know how to bring this sort of issue to the relevant noticeboard. By the time that they do know, they will either have been chased out of the content area, or be seen as trying to remove an opponent from the topic.

2) Experienced editors generally avoid these two topics like the plague, in no small part because of editors like the one I'm subtooting about.

Wikipedia subtoot. 

So for now, nothing can be done. And by extension, this editor is allowed to continue their anti-trans crusade. Medical content that could be written in gender neutral terms is deliberately written in binary gendered terms. Anti-trans viewpoints are given prominence, and trans positive viewpoints have to be fought tooth and nail for inclusion. And good editors are chased out of the topic, because they actually follow the sources and not the biased selection this editor prefers.

Wikipedia subtoot. 

There will eventually be a case brought to ArbCom, enwiki's last dispute resolution mechanism. That case is going to be brutal, its going to result in multiple good editors, who have been antagonised by the editor I'm subtooting about, being topic banned because of the environment created by this editor and their friends. I can only hope this will also result in their being topic banned too, but recent arb actions have me worried that nothing will be done.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
NI Tech

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!