Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Conduct dispute involving gendered pronouns		3 March 2019	1/2/2

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	(orig. case)	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Conduct dispute involving gendered pronouns

Initiated by Leugen9001 at 04:15, 23 September 2024 UTC [refresh] (Talk) (he/him) at 20:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Leugen9001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Fæ
• diff of notification SMcCandlish
• diff of notification Guy Macon
• diff of notification Barbara (WVS)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Permalink to ANI

Statement by Leugen9001

Note that my initial judgment was based on publicly available information and I was not aware of private attempts at resolving this issue, so it looked unresolved to me. I reject accusations that I was intentionally trying to make the situation worse. Leugen9001 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS) wrote a humour article on gender pronoun issues in The Signpost. The piece offended some community members due to its message and tone. It is sarcastic in tone and has been called transphobic by some members of the community at the deletion discussion.

Fæ started a request for deletion of the Signpost article. They stated that the article "attacks and defames minority groups" and violates WP:Harassment as well as the terms of use. (3)

SMcCandlish claimed that Fæ engaged in WP:Canvassing and noted that they had been topic banned from gender issues until 2017.(4)

Barbara (WVS), who is topic banned from sexuality issues health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, was banned then unbanned blocked then unblocked due to her involvement in the article. The accusations are detailed on ANI.

Guy Macon accused Fæ of "casting aspersions". (5) The user further implied that Fae appears to be engaging in a "witch hunt", noting claiming that they tried to "get SMcCandlish removed as a WMF Tech Ambassador by private email instead of in a public discussion". (6) Update: I am personally not aware of any evidence for this accusation, which has been called hearsay.

I have made comments on the issue (1)(2) but I have not been implicated in accusations of conduct violations by other involved parties. My involvement has been somewhat limited, but I have sided with SMcCandlish in some comments. I believe that the most charged/uncivil diff I made regarding this was this, which I don't think directly violated policy. The person I replied to appears to not be very involved.

An uninvolved editor has closed the ANI discussion, noting that "ArbComm is a more structured environment if someone(s) want to pursue anything further. Over there interested parties can participate with word limits and uninterested parties can keep it off their watchlists".

I apologize for several errors that have been pointed out by other users and for starting an ArbComm without being sufficiently informed. To see the original filing please see history.

Reply to User:Softlavender the original filing was not removed, it was collapsed. I did indeed do something outside my purview as an inexperienced editor and I apologize. My opinion on the matter is I am unsure what actually happened; some allegations seem severe; I suggest that the community decide a reasonable solution.

@Cameron11598: I apologize for that error. @Cameron11598: I have reinstated the crossed-out portions.

@RickinBaltimore: I actually don't know whether or not to support decline anymore because Guy Macon has replied with new allegations. It's too complex for me. I no longer hold a specific opinion on this. I apologize for bungling this filing.Leugen9001 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fæ

Hours before this request, which we had no idea would be created, I have been in personal and good faith email contact with SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS). From those emails, it was completely clear that none of us had any interest in taking this matter further. The community is engaged in the MfD, and I believe that all of us will fully respect that community decision.

Please note that "they tried to get SMcCandlish removed as a WMF Tech Ambassador by private email instead of in a public discussion" (attributed to Guy Macon) is false. After closing the related public discussion about the Tech Ambassador role as an immediate way to reduce drama, I reviewed the process for raising a case with the CoCC and decided to take no further action myself, neither have I asked anyone else to contact the CoCC. I have sent no emails to petition/request a case with the CoCC.

I would like to speak up for Barbara. Based on my emails with Barbara, they are fully aware of the disruption and distress they may have caused others. Their forthcoming formal apology should be sufficient for everyone in the community. I do not see any benefit in pursuing them with sanctions for this one event, and I think it would be cruel to force them to pick over these regretful events in an Arbcom case.

+1 for a procedural close as withdrawn. --Fæ (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

With respect to Guy Macon's comments. WVS is an unpaid voluntary role and a WVS account was used for the Signpost article. I have no idea about Barbara's work, and I find it highly inappropriate for anyone to speculate in an Arbcom request about someone being "fired". I have not contacted any University in any fashion, or any representative of a University. At no point have I "tried to get her fired".

On my user talk page, in their role as administrator, I was given a warning by Guy Macon. When I asked for clarification, their reply included that they were "scared" and "intimidated" by me, which they later confirmed as a fact when I asked if this might be some sort of joke. I do not understand what the motivations are for these statements, or why Guy Macon stated they feel strong emotions about me personally, or why these highly inappropriate allegations are being made publicly which are private matters for Barbara. I believe these allegations should be ignored as unnecessary gossip and treated as potentially harmful.

There is zero evidence for any "Fæ-and-entourage". This is unsourced, conspiracy theory nonsense. --Fæ (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

Here are the links where Fæ tried to get SMcCandlish removed as a WMF Tech Ambassador:[1], [2]

The "by private email instead of in a public discussion"[3] bit came from the statement by Fæ I was replying to:

"I shall shortly be changing the discussion so that it is instead raised as an email to the Code of Conduct committee. This will have the benefit of removing any possible appearance of being any sort of witch hunt."[4]

In my opinion, Fæ trying to get SMcCandlish removed as a WMF Tech Ambassador is something the committee should look into.

I would also like the committee to look into the following claim (which I have not personally verified):

"...Barbara_(WVS) who has not commented here, was wrongly pilloried at ANI (since undone), pressured by Fæ-and-entourage into resigning from a GLAM position at her university, and has basically felt compelled to cave to everything you're all saying about her. That in itself is a wrong, since much of what's been posted here is outright fabrication. She's not doubled down on a damned thing, but been doubled over by a verbal and contact-your-employer beating into submission"[5]

I have not personally verified the claim that Barbara resigned her GLAM position or the implication that Fæ contacted the university, but I can verify that Fæ tried to get her fired on the Wikimedia side:[6] In my opinion this is also is something the committee should look into. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is confused by what Fæ wrote, I am not an administrator, have no desire ever to become one, and do not understand why anyone would ever want to be one. Sometimes people get confused because there is an admin who signs his comments "Guy" (actual user name JzG). We tend to refer to each other as "The Other Guy" when we are on the same talk page, and other editors typically use my first and last name on pages where we are both active. Plus of course even if I was an administrator I would be prevented from using admin tools in the case of Fæ by our WP:INVOLVED policy.

I would ask the RTG either provide diffs backing up his accusation of canvassing or to retract the claim. I believe it to be without merit. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Barbara (WVS)

Thank you for the time you all are putting in to resolving what has happened in the publication of a piece in the most recent issue of the Signpost. I am crafting a formal and sincere public apology and admit my wrongdoing. As of this date and time it is still a draft. "Behind the scenes" with WikiEd I have submitted my resignation from the Visiting Scholars Program. I will be contacting the University of Pittsburgh asap after my apology. As for being a part of GLAM, that was in name only and I was never integrated into or contacted by the program and even had a grant denied to make it a paid position. All edits I've made with any of my two accounts have been without pay or compensation. I do not teach or work at the University. I did much training-at least 75 librarians and staff. I participated in edit-a-thons throughout the city of Pittsburgh. What happened with the publication of the piece in the Signpost has nothing to do with the University of Pittsburgh or WikiEd. I have been inactive as a Visiting Scholar with the University of Pittsburgh since about a year ago. You could say that I was still on the books in this position but inactive. The reasoning behind creating the Barbara (WVS) account was to make my edits easier to find for my supervisor at the University. I will go back to my original account as soon as possible. I deeply regret the damage I have caused by publishing the piece that led to this case(?) Forgive me, I am very unfamiliar with the goings-on and formalities that seem to be in place here. I trust that my admission of wrong-doing and the publication of my apology will bring the issue to an end. I am not sure what else can happen beyond what has been done already. I have resigned from the Signpost. If I have any input at all, I would like the 'case' here declined.

Fae, thank you for your graciousness with me. Because of you I more fully understand the power of words. I will be reading up more on articles related to transgendered topics here on Wikipedia. That you even communicated with me privately was a good thing and I think will heal some of the damage I had a part in. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Boing said Zebedee!

No, Barbara (WVS), is not topic banned from "sexuality issues", she is topic banned from "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed". And she did not co-write the piece in question. Oh, and Barbara was not "banned and then unbanned", she was blocked and then unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Iridescent, below. There was no consensus developing for any sanctions against anyone, and there was a lot of hyperbolic escalation by people who should know better. I also think this should be declined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Considering the filer's "I suggest closing this issue and rescind the arbitration request", perhaps someone (maybe an Arb clark) can close this as withdrawn? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

Unless both Fae and SMcCandlish indicate that they want this, please just decline it. We don't need a full arbcom case every time two people disagree, no matter how many people try to goad the arguing parties on; we certainly don't need a third party trying to stir the pot by dragging the arguing parties into a case just as the situation calms down. ‑ Iridescent 20:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@AGK, while you're not bound to follow the wishes of the parties as to whether a case should be opened, you are obliged to take into account the views of the parties to the request and other interested users as to whether a case should be opened. Since neither Fae nor SMcCandlish want a case (BFPage's supposed involvement seems to be a case of mistaken identity based on her name being added in error to the Signpost page) and it appears they're both resolving the matter among themselves, I can't see what we're doing here. The formal scope of Arbcom is To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve (my emphasis), and so far nobody's provided the slightest evidence that we're at that stage yet given that the MFD is still ongoing and both parties are talking to each other. ‑ Iridescent 21:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

To start with, the incident in my opinion has been resolved: Barbara apologized and clearly understood what was wrong, Fae apologized, the essay has been hidden, MfD uis running its course, and the ANI thread was closed at the time nothing more could be added to it. I think the best course of action is to decline. However, as an admin who blocked Barbara first I might be named a party at some point if the case gets accepted. To make it clear, I do think that she violated her topic ban, and I am clearly in minority. Even if I was right in thinking she violated the topic ban, the later development (after she was unblocked and made a statement on her talk page) shows that at this point she does not need to be blocked as she understands what is going on, and repetition is unlikely.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment by SN54129

(edit conflict) I assumed—I think it's likely—that a case will be brought over the recent Signpost article shenanigans, if only because it covered—indeed, still covers—multiple venues which at some time will all either have to be closed with no real closure or be subsumed into something all-encompassing. However: I also assumed that if that were to occur, it would be by a party central, or at least close, to the case, and probably with some investment in it. It seems rather rare, in recent history, for it to be otherwise.

This filing, though, is from an account with—although few years' tenure—not much more than 500 edits (and that's not counting the "reformed vandal" userbox on their page!). I'm not saying that it's deliberate, more that, perhaps, if one wants to publicly flaunt one's reformedness, an arbcom case with a possible potential for beating ARB:GGTF at its own game is not the approach one is looking for. Even so, as Boing! hints at (but does not say, being too polite!) the filer does not understand the basic procedures that have/have not been breached.

Even more so if, as suggested by a very actually involved party above, the protagonists have reached agreement among themselves because that's what we do here: this equates, surely, to a local consensus formed while a bigger discussion (the RfC) takes place. Which is what happens every day, fully inline with process.

I also urge the committee not to accept; I'm also very tempted to quote Herbert Morrison if they do...enough damage has been done, which might have had to have been dealt with if the parties had not disengaged. But not as they have. ——SerialNumber54129 20:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen 328

Please decline this request. We should all be gratified that the parties at the center of the dispute seem to have made great progress resolving it among themselves. There were a lot of angry words written, and I wrote a few myself. It is time to move on and I am very happy that reconciliation is taking place. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by OID

I'm going to disagree with Iridescent for once and echo Guy Macon here, Fæ attempted to have SMcCandlish removed from a completely unrelated position and weaponised the WMF's trust and safety team in a dispute in an attempt to chill and intimidate other editors. I also saw the comment about Barbara_(WVS) and her GLAM involvement. The community is more than equal to the task of deciding one way or the other at MFD if an essay should be deleted. It is not equipped to handle deliberate activism designed to adversely affect editors off-wiki (see Fæ's mailing list contributions). You exited Jytdog from the project for far less than this, and without anything approaching the level of previous bad behaviour. Handle the case in private if you must due to the large amount of off-wiki behaviour. But doing nothing is just rewarding off-wiki bullying and harrasment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pldx1

When seeing Fae writing I regret ... It was stupid. I apologize about the call for getting SMcCandlish and Barbara(WVS) fired from their WMF positions... and immediately after writing However... by stating that the authors have views directly antithetical to the WMF CoC, this is correct and a matter of fact, a slight doubt comes to my mind: should I trust Fae1 or Fae2 about Fae's future behavior? Anyway, waiting for SMcCandlish's and Barbara(WVS)'s statements before going further. Pldx1 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky caldron

The offending material was delivered via the Signpost in-house magazine. This is clearly not an ordinary content dispute therefore it is relevant to consider the mechanism whereby potentially harmful, damaging or offensive material is published. The editorial governance structure of Signpost is highly informal and the community, possibly Arbcom, should examine whether the existing editorial controls are fit for purpose. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

The genie is well out of the bottle.

An actual set of decisions by a competent authority is absolutely called for, including whether, for example, the question of whether actions beyond the competence of a consensus-seeking discussion involving "real life" employment of any other editor are ever proper, whether "excessive umbrage-taking" should be a precedent in future areas of Wikipedia discussions, and whether the stated opinions of editors, clearly stated as their own opinions, are something the community should be encouraged to condemn. A slew of issues have emerged, of which the very least is "can humor be so regulated on Wikipedia as to only allow approved humor and 'deprecate' all un-approved humor?"

This goes far beyond any personalities thus far presented, and goes to the very core of the "Five Pillars" of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

I will note that the GamerGate discretionary sanctions cover this Signpost article. I quite wonder why someone hasn't just blanked the thing as an AE action. I have declined to do so, because my own sexual orientation may lead one to construe me as somehow involved I have already voted in the MfD on the Signpost article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

As I write this, there is no statement by the filing party, Leugen9001. The original case filing is here: [7]. Why Leugen9001 was allowed to completely remove his filing is beyond me. Clerks, can you please remedy this?

In any case, absent a coherent filing, I see no reason for ArbCom to accept this case, so I urge decline. I will also observe that it was quite inappropriate for a non-admin, Legacypac, to close a very long, very contentious, and multi-subthread ANI case [8], apparently because he didn't want it popping up on his watchlist. A non-consensus "Kick it to ArbCom" and "I don't want this popping up on my watchlist" are never good reasons to close an ANI case, and only an experienced administrator should have closed such a lengthy and contentious case.

So we have two very sub-par actions by two people who should never have taken those actions. I recommend declining this case and I hope those two individuals learn not to take actions that are beyond their experience or purview. Softlavender (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dlthewave

I find it strange that this is being construed a dispute between the named "involved parties", primarily SMcCandlish and Fæ. I see it as a community issue that cannot be resolved through private discussion between a few individuals. The surrounding discussions involve many editors who expressed various views about the Signpost piece, and many questions remain which should be discussed at the community level. The piece in question is just the latest in a series of questionable items which have been published in the Signpost.

I support Leaky caldron's position that Signpost's editorial controls should be evaluated by the community. This may be within the scope of Arbcom, and perhaps the editorial team can be added as a party, but it could also be done at a non-disciplinary venue such as Village Pump as long as the discussion is well-structured and leads to a conclusive outcome. –dlthewave ☎ 23:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by DuncanHill

I hope ArbCom will also look at the behaviour of those in the deletion discussion. Comments such as this from an admin do not contribute to a collegial atmosphere. DuncanHill (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dave

This should be declined - Both parties are currently resolving this (or have done) so there's no need for an Arbcom case, As someone said above there's no need to file a case everytime people disagree with each other, Given emotions are running here right now this case is simply adding petrol to the fire!. –Davey2010^Talk 01:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by RTG

The supposed humour article was so funny it used the idea of transgender people being suicidal as a joke[9] (see the text on the picture, the piped link trans). As the point of the article was to express negativity at the onset of Transgender values in modern society, it is difficult to put a positive spin on that sort of humour in a public report.

It stayed up for two or three days, though it was complained a lot, before user Fae nominated for deletion. It was experiencing a SNOWish type complaint on the comments. I picked up the story when User:Guy Macon canvassed it. The first comments I remember were User:McCandlish claiming to User:Fae near the outset, to be an experienced free speech professional(). User:McCandlish has gamed through the whole debacle, bitterly provoking User:Fae on a personal level from their motivations on using WP, to diagnosing User:Fae with psychological disorders, and completely shunning the idea, at enormous bitter defensive length, that anyone might get offended by the article.

I have no stake in transgenderism or know anything much about it. What I know is that it is about people who find it difficult to live with themselves. Suicide jokes are a nono. Writing humour about social groupings, particularly deafeningly without genuine good faith, in an arena like Wikipedia where civility is a pillar of importance is a nono. Twisting it around on one accuser, such that the write-up is a lesser issue, is a nono and abuse of the dispute systems.

The Signpost is relying on slapstick and abuse. The Signpost is relying on slapstick and abuse, and extending, in this case anyway, that abuse to complainers. The humour section of Signpost has no mission statement or meaningful guidelines that I can see. This is a Wikipedia sociopolitical issue, not just a squabble between Users:Fae and :McCandlish.

Users:Macon and McCandlish are being horrible to defend this suicide abuse. McCandlish is literally trying to establish that, if others do not receive his humour attempt, as it was in his mind before writing, that they have a perception problem, and that is the root here. In this circumstance, a recent current event about suicidal children, it is appalling.

So many transgender inclined children are suicidal with themselves. Wikipedia needs to be a haven for those as much or more than for Roy Chubby Browns heroes. Some people think as long as they never say fuck or shit or piss that they have a way around gross incivility. That has to be separated out and made clear.

Please, in light of the provocations and lack of initial complaints or canvassing, be light on User:Fae, who hasn't really stepped outside the effort of trying to oppose the offending item, and just warn about canvassing.

Please, in light of being totally unaccountable and adversarial under scrutiny, topic ban User:McCandlish from the Signpost, from others motivations on editing Wikipedia, and topic ban Users:Macon and McCandlish from challenging others right to make suggestions or complain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RTG (talk • contribs)

User:Guy Macon has previously claimed, not that I was pinging him, but to have been able to pre-empively block me from pinging him because he couldn't stop following me around looking for trouble one day, to which I extensively acquiesced. However, I will ping him, @Guy Macon:, I refer you to canvassing. Oh, did that take a little wind out of your accusations on Faes behaviour? I do apologise for being so very difficult to understand, and let be. ~ R.T.G 04:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Conduct dispute involving gendered pronouns: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• @Leugen9001: Please do not edit any section of this arbitration request other than your section. This includes the Arbitrators' section. Please leave that to clerks and committee members. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Leugen9001: (fixing ping) --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Leugen9001: On another note, please do not refactor your statements after someone has responded to them you can strike out sections but do not go back and delete material. You can strike out using <s> text to strike here </s> as needed. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Leugen9001: Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• As a reminder to everyone, threaded discussion is not allowed on case requests, I'll be cleaning this up shortly. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Barbara (WVS): I've moved your statement out of Fae's section and into your own. Please check to make sure no formatting or content was inadvertently left behind or lost. In the future please be aware that threaded discussion is not allowed in case requests. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Recuse – Bradv🍁 00:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Conduct dispute involving gendered pronouns: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/2/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• I see some references, above, that parties must want a case before we will contemplate acceptance. We accept cases whenever our community mission would be best served by involuntarily imposing a binding decision. Arbitrators are elected to use their judgment as to whether such circumstances exist; parties are to some extent just along for the ride. Reviewing these circumstances, I see a sufficient number of issues here that warrant a closer examination. Whether the problems rise to a level requiring further action, I do not know yet. However, I would prefer having not to take those decisions on the hoof in a case request. Accept to examine the conduct of all parties. AGK ■ 21:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Recuse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• The filer is a relatively new editor who is inexperienced with Wikipedia dispute resolution and understandably took a suggestion they saw at ANI. Since they've now withdrawn the request, it hardly seems right to accept it over their objections. I think we should let community processes continue on this issue and if they do eventually require arbitration, we can revisit it then. (Since this seems like the sort of issue that might attract broader attention, and might be difficult to interpret if you're not closely familiar with wiki-processes, I think we should be very clear here: declining the case does not mean endorsement of any specific behavior by anyone involved in the dispute, and does not mean that the underlying issue isn't worth discussing. It just means we haven't yet reached the point where we need to use our "last resort" method of addressing a dispute, because other community processes are still ongoing.) My mother always told me that there's no such thing as a get-out-of-an-apology-free card - if you make a mistake, or accidentally hurt or offend someone, or overreact, or get angry when you should have talked things out, or otherwise behave ungracefully, you need to apologize and fix the problem even if the other person is still angry and even if they don't reciprocate. (Of course, if everyone took my mother's advice, there wouldn't be a need for that last clause.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• With the initial flier stating they want to withdraw this request, I would on their behalf decline. I do not feel we are to the point where ArbCom has to step in to rule on this, the community can still (and should) handle this issue accordingly. Discussion should continue within the community to resolve this dispute. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Recuse, since I !voted in the MfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)