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	3/5/2

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Conduct dispute involving gendered pronouns

Initiated by Leugen9001 at 18:10, 13 May 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

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)

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)

I currently believe that this case should indeed go to arbitration. Several ArbCom members have voted against going to arbitration on the grounds that the parties involved are resolving the issue privately. This information is now outdated: significantly involved people like Guy Macon and SMcCandlish have raised new concerns that relate to Fæ. I am uncertain about the validity of the allegations against Fæ because I am not the one making them. They seem somewhat serious so they should be dealt with transparently rather than privately for the sake of consistency in future incidents and to set solid precedents given the fact that similar issues are likely to reappear. --Leugen9001 (talk) 18:28, 4 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)

@SilkTork: Not having seen them before, I looked for a way to ask how "WVS" accounts are authorized or used, and whether the role of the account in publishing this essay was within scope. After searching about, there's no project Wikipedia talk page to questions, no other way of contacting someone who approves these accounts. Visiting Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars, leads you to email contacts only (unexpected for an organization that represents Wikipedia). Not harassment, nor "getting someone fired", those allegations are disruptive and potentially damaging hearsay. A good faith request to clarify this situation and so hopefully understand what the accounts mean and whether that affected the MfD created. I wanted to contact "WVS" directly, giving them a channel for less public, and as it turned out, confidential discussion, which helps to reduce the attention and shouty drama. Until long after reaching out, I had no idea they were a separate organization of some kind, rather a WikiProject with emails going via OTRS, similar as you see with websites for some Wikipedia User Groups. I do not understand what their representation of Wikipedia means, and whether we should think of it as part of the Wikipedia community, for example, covered by our policies. With regard to "she has apparently been frightened into doing this", that seems an unfair and untrue representation based on my emails with Barbara, especially as she gave me her mobile number and asked me to call; you do not do that if you are frightened of someone. Nothing I have done has been anything other than in good faith and friendly. None of us should ever be worried about asking relevant, honest and civil questions of good governance of Affiliates that use the Wikimedia brand and therefore comply with precisely the same policies that are part of the MfD nomination. Wikipedia policies do not and should not force every question of this type to be done as anonymous whistleblowing. --Fæ (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I think I understand better where you are coming from. Responded User_talk:Fæ#Reaching_out. --Fæ (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I have not sent an email of complaint to the WMF, or the CoCC, or the Signpost about anyone or anything. Bad cases make bad law, and I do not want to go through the torture of an Arbcom case to prove a hypothetical point, nobody wins. Even in the unlikely event that Arbcom officially support "non-anonymous" whistleblowing and states that nobody would ever face sanctions by emailing any Wikimedia related organizations with complaints, well before this request was opened I agreed in good faith with SMcCandlish and Barbara that we walk away, this put an end to our part in any further drama. I am not going back on a personal commitment.

Just to reiterate so there is no possible misunderstanding, it is a fact that nobody has accused SMcCandlish or Barbara of being transphobic. Because of our personal correspondence, I know and recommend as a matter of fact that neither of them has done anything deliberately or maliciously to cause offence to LGBT+ or genderqueer people, even if their action in publishing the "Pronouns" essay has objectively caused offence. --Fæ (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Clerks, Ritchie333 has used this Arbcom request to publish a personal attack which mocks, humiliates and derides based on my open sexual orientation, on other Wikipedia pages this would result in warnings or sanctions. I would appreciate it being removed, or an explanation of why that is not possible. --Fæ (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: My apologies if my wording here is clumsy, I am writing this as a logical question of committee governance for this request and am unsure if this is the best place to ask it. Your statement included sexual orientation as part of reasons to recuse from this Arbcom request, later stricken. Could you, or other Arbcom members, confirm whether there is social pressure, expectation, or procedural "norm" based on past cases, that LGBT+ identified committee members should recuse from this request. In the absence of a statement, this is likely to appear to many readers that Arbcom member judgment in a case with a background of multiple assertions by established Wikipedians that a publication on Wikipedia was hostile to LGBT+ minorities, is fair and without unconscious bias, only when from "non-LGBT+" people, even if this appearance is unintended. --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help me please? I am confused can no longer make sense of this request. What exactly the evidence of "misdoings" or my "conduct" are that I should be focused on

• whether this is about a disruptive "dispute" which already ended by collegiate agreement between the parties before the request was made
• whether this request is about posting off wiki, which is already a community discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing and already clarified by majority view that existing policy does not prohibit general posts
• whether the fakenews allegations on this page that I contacted someone's employer are being accepted as fact
• whether stating in the MfD "The article is written as a joke, but is clearly intended to marginalize and disparage transgender, nonbinary or genderqueer readers and Wikipedians" is a personal attack and could be read as an accusation of being a transphobe, a mistake of wording I have already publicly and fulsomely apologised for (5 hours before this request was created), and have taken the step of amending the nomination to make the intended meaning completely clear diff
• whether contacting a WMF Affiliate for clarification is a breach of a policy
• whether others saying Barbara feels harassed is more important than the fact she clearly does not
• whether people want to take this case for expressed hypothetical or politically correct reasons

The allegations and misleading claims are all over the place, with rewrites and repitches of the request after two ANI threads raised against me at the same time, all while the MfD core to all of this is still open, it feels like a random fishing competition to try and find something, anything, to nail me for, and "one sided criticism" definitely is a good summary, thanks @FeydHuxtable:. --Fæ (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Sorry, your answer is strange, and vague - "if you breached any of our policies... we may feel you have overstepped the mark somewhere" without mentioning any actual real evidence I can respond to. It also contradicts other statements by making the essay back in scope with an assessment of how it is perceived. We can answer that without a case, read the MfD and wait for it to close, and what actions the community agrees as a result.

Is this the official view of Arbcom? Nobody in our Wikipedia community should feel under pressure, bullied or obliged to release off-wiki private correspondence made in good faith, the exception I would agree with is if there is good, solid, evidence of a crime or credible direct allegations of targeted harassment. "Fishing" is not a good faith reason. Privacy policies for this website and the WMF are excellent, and I believe everybody wishes those values to be respected, especially where issues involved are as personal and sensitive as discussion on LGBT+ identity and private thoughts of Wikipedians. --Fæ (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

This request should be declined [Changed my mind; see below] for reasons that were already given in detail in the discussion the requestor says they read (the ANI included an whole subsection on whether this should be taken to ArbCom, and only two respondents supported the idea). An updated and context-adjusted version of those reasons:

This is now moot, since I rescinded my objection to this case being opened:

The entire topic area is already under AC/DS anyway; there are non-exhausted remedies available for disruption, so use ANI, or use AE if the party has already received a DS/alert. ArbCom just now merged the GGTF and GamerGate cases into one, to consolidate, so re-forking a "Gender, round 3" case would make no sense. The place to resolve any further disruption is going to be AE and, if necessary, ARCA. One ANI closing without consensus does not magically require an RfArb. There's no evidence that the MfD processes about the pages in question are failing, and ArbCom doesn't resolve content disputes anyway. Whether there should be community censure toward myself or Barbara_(WVS) or Signpost editor-in-chief Bri doesn't rise to ArbCom level (MfD is already answering it); there's no grounds for an RfARB against these parties. (And it's also a content dispute.) Whether Fæ has been breaking the terms of their "sexuality, broadly construed" ArbCom-imposed topic-ban being lifted is a simple matter, which can be determined at AE or ARCA and does not require an RfARB. However, Fæ has retracted the "transphobic" accusation, as of this Wikimedia-L post, making half of the issues raised about Fæ's actions effectively moot. The parties list could grow long, as a large number of editors crossed CIVIL/AGF/NPA/ASPERSIONS lines. ArbCom shouldn't be interested in finger-pointing about heat-of-the-moment accusations, unlikely to continue (the community certainly has no interest in ArbCom taking on a thought-police role). It's very different behavior from HOUNDING-style pursuit of "enemies" in socio-political dialogue across multiple WMF sites and multiple en.wp venues, the subject of the ANI about Fæ.

I decline to answer any accusatory rehash already appearing on this request page, because a) it's been talked out in MfD, Signpost talk, ANI, and user talk, and b) we'll get to all that at the evidence phase if ArbCom actually accepts this. (I reserve the right to respond to new bogus accusations.)

The only reason I can think of for ArbCom to take this is that Fæ was very recently at RfArb on canvassing grounds again (which would be a violation of the lifting-conditions of their t-ban), but ArbCom remanded the matter back to community discussion, then a discussion about Fæ and new alleged canvassing failed to resolve (after a discussion about the previous round of alleged canvassing failed to materialize at all).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a new bogus accusation that has to be addressed: It not a "conspiracy theory" that Fæ created an entourage, but self-evident and easily establishable fact:

To wit:

Of the two MfDs about essentially the same material at two pages, Fæ canvassed WT:LBGT, Wikimedia-L, and various other places, with non-neutral "transphobic"-laden accusations, only to one of them. Diffs already provided show this. Consequently, the keep/delete ratios at the two MfDs are exactly opposite each other. The canvassed horde then followed to the ANI, and for the first time in my wiki-memory dozens of the exact same, usually sensible, editors all consistently !voted to ignore multiple, clearly-proven policy violations that were in unmistakable transgression of T-ban-lifting conditions, simply because they agreed with the socio-political message of the actor (many are quite explicit that this is what they're doing). Fæ has been detailed and outright activistic about exactly where and to whom they are raising complaints on other WMF sites, including which WMF bodies Fæ is e-mailing to go after myself and Barbara, right in the thick of all of these discussions and even an ANI for forum-shopping, hounding, and canvassing ("mooning the jury" is safe if you selected most of the jury). Guy Macon already provided one such diff, and there are others. It is not credible that various members of this ginned-up group of "issue infantry" who have marched lock-step with Fæ across various en.wp pages are not taking Fæ's huge letter-sending hint. As Fæ personally noted – crowed, really – in multiple places (including their partial-retraction letter at the mailing list, diffed above), WMF has publicly stated that they've received multiple such e-mail complaints, and have never issued such a statement before. Fæ mis-used Wikipedia venues to generate a letter-writing campaign on a socio-political matter of hot dispute in the real world (WP:NOT#ADVOCACY). This is a WP:FACTION, and Fæ directly created it through multiple instances of canvassing and of post-canvassing "activism engineering" and "come defend the martyr at all costs" activity. All in violation of the conditions of the provisional lifting of their topic ban. I'll repeat, however, that it doesn't take a "Gender 3" RfArb to deal with this. [I changed my mind on that.]

This doesn't address motivation (I don't read minds), but why this matters regardless of motive was well expressed by someone else [1].
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC); revd. 07:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to add that I find it disturbing that while Fæ's stated goal in all of this is defense of safe space and the ability of editors to feel unmenaced about gender identity and the like, Fæ continues to publicly mock, on this very page, Guy Macon's honest concerns and discomfort about Fæ's outspoken on-wiki invective against white males, after it was already pointed out to Fæ why this was a self-sabotaging position. We're all aware that potentially discriminatory race- and gender-related messaging about the majority group are not entirely comparable to those against minorities, but they are still not permissible here even if of a lowered level of concern. Still, I think AE or ARCA [now supporting RfArb] could deal with this, since it's about Fæ's post-topic-ban actions in particular and is not a widespread community-unresolved issue for ArbCom to tackle.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Factual matters for the record:

1. No, Barbara did not co-write the essay in question; it dates to 2017, in my userspace. She simply edited it for length and added an illustration [correction: Bri says he added that]; doing layout appears to be the only reason her username was attached to the Signpost copy. I've already agreed (many times) that copy should be blanked (not deleted, since it would render all the community discussion of it meaningless to later editors).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

   @Levivich:: I think Bri's point is that what shows up in Signpost isn't much of a formal, procedural sort of thing. Some volunteer editors like Barbara have taken on rounding up content for particular "departments", and I was asked about supplying this piece in particular to the "Humor" column. I was previously approached about writing or rewriting something more serious for Signpost. This is all a matter of public record in my user talk. See this thread in particular (will eventually archive here), and the already-archived one here. PS: I didn't say I advised against Signpost using it; I just had some misgivings about it (which aren't in my user talk, though I did suggest looking at my essays page and picking something more important like WP:Race and ethnicity). PS: Additional matter taken to the talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC); PS added: 16:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

2. Fæ suggests, above, an "agree[ment] in good faith" between Fæ, myself, and Barbara in e-mail that we would drop the matter entirely. No such agreement existed. My entire response to that suggestion was: "At the ANI, I already posted an analysis of why such a[n RfArb] case should not be accepted (before anyone filed the request for one). I'm not afeared of receiving sanctions myself, it's simply unnecessary bureaucracy." I saw no response from Barbara on the matter. I've since rescinded my rationale for rejecting the case because others have raised ones I did not consider. I doubt I need to spell out in any detail that I resent the bad-faith implication of having gone back on an agreement. Fæ's opening e-mail included another such accusation (about "agreement" on what to say at ANI) which also had to be corrected; ArbCom has seen that, since Fæ expressly made that e-mail shareabale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
3. I had not noticed, as Pldx1 quoted below, that Fæ's Wikimedia-L retraction of the "homophobic" accusation was laced with an arguably worse sort of "I read minds and have seen their true, wicked motives" claim in it. It was technically off-site (Fæ pointedly refused to post the "retraction" on en.WP itself, as ArbCom already knows), but it should not be ignored if this goes forward. The "retraction" has a timestamp of Sun Mar 3 15:25:33 UTC 2019; the e-mail from me which Fæ says above convinced them I had no such motivation has a timestamp of Sun, 3 Mar 2019 05:23:41 -0800 ( = Sun, 3 Mar 2019 13:23:41 UTC); Fæ had time to think about it, but said what they said in the "retraction" anyway, and now reverses it here when under scrutiny. I call WP:SANCTIONGAMING.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Clarification:

This is now moot, since I rescinded my objection to this case being opened:
I do not believe that AE or ARCA action is now required. This has already blown over. Either Fæ realizes that all those in favor of a reinstatement of their topic ban at the ANI have strong arguments, and will not canvass or cast aspersions over gender/sexuality topics again, or Fæ will return to the same activity in a week or month or year and the ban will be reinstated next time.

I do share Collect's broader WP:5P community concerns (I raised them pointedly here [2][3] and here [4] and here [5]). However, this is just one "mass incident" and doesn't establish a pattern of a topically focused segment of the community running off the rails. If it happens again, then I'm all in favor of an RfArb to address it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

PS, on new bogus accusations – RTG's increasingly strange commentary, mis-diffing, and other behavior:

Deets ...

It has elsewhere been described as some kind of "performance art" and possible trolling, and seems to be habitual (see all the stuff this user has posted to my talk page, and the editor's general posting patterns, which includes all kinds of strange things like injecting inapplicable templates in mid-discussion, and long rants that don't really parse as meaningful in English). Has been here a long time, and I see constructive editing in the user history, but is clearly not adding to this discussion. The level of unproven and wacky allegations in what they've posted here (now worse after extensive revision) is actionable in and of itself, especially since the topic is under WP:AC/DS. However, they did say one thing that is accidentally on-point: "Some people think as long as they never say fuck or shit or piss that they have a way around [responsibility for] gross incivility." This goes right to the heart of Fæ's claims to never have accused or maligned anyone in actionable ways in this dispute.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 02:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm adding RTG as a party. Should this case go forward, their continued stream of grossly distorted accusations needs addressing, as a pattern of verbal abuse that has continued after multiple warnings and a DS notice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Diff of notice, as requested: [6].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: SilkTork's decision to accept: I have myself tried to draw awareness to the impact on Barbara [7], though you've added elements I hadn't thought of (e.g. effective loss of one's main editing account). For my own part, I have no vested interest in recommending decline, since I'm already under more scrutiny than anyone else on WP right now. With that in mind, I withdraw my above objection opening this as an RfArb case. This isn't about me, in that any justice needs to be done about the hounding (my skin's thick, and I'm not the one being harmed off-site); it's already about me, in the sense of opprobrium about the content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

Here are the links where Fæ tried to get SMcCandlish removed as a WMF Tech Ambassador:[8], [9]

The "by private email instead of in a public discussion"[10] 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."[11]

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"[12]

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:[13] In my opinion this is also is something the committee should look into. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish writes in his section: "Fæ continues to publicly mock, on this very page, Guy Macon's honest concerns and discomfort about Fæ's outspoken on-wiki invective against white males, after it was already pointed out to Fæ why this was a self-sabotaging position."

This has come up twice, so I feel that I should give a fuller explanation.

As for "why this was a self-sabotaging position" my argument was simple. In the larger scheme of things very few people read every page of The Signpost. By trying to have it removed and talking about it in so many places, Fæ is likely to trigger the Streisand effect. None of this involves Arbcom, but I wanted to explain what I was talking about.

As for my concerns and fears, on reflection I think SMcCandlish has a point and that they are legitimate. After seeing Fæ escalating a bog-standard deletion dispute into an unsuccessful attempt to get SMcCandlish removed from his volunteer position as a Tech Ambassador and their successful attempt to either get Barbara (WVS) removed from or forced to resign from her positions with WikiEd GLAM and The Signpost I had and still have a legitimate concern that Fæ will find out about certain off-wiki engineering organizations I am part of and give me the same treatment. I am not saying that this has actually happened, but I think that I have a legitimate fear that it could happen. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note that this section used to be longer. I removed some text to keep under the 500 word limit. The previous, larger version can be seen here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like some guidance. I am of the opinion that RTG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive in this Arbcom case and in other areas of the encyclopedia, but at the same time I think that we are just a random target of his ongoing behavior pattern. It doesn't seem related to the issues being discussed. I see that he has removed himself as a party[14] despite some other parties taking exception to his behavior here. So, should I ask an arbitrator or clerk to re-add him, should I bring it to ANI (it will be rejected there unless there is some sort of official opinion posted here indicating that Arbcom doesn't want to look into it at this time) or should I wait until after this closes one way or then other and then take it to ANI if Arbcom chooses not to deal with it? It seems like the sort of issue ANI can handle without any help. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:31, 7 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)

Dear fellow Wikipedians and Wikimedians,
Without a doubt, my errors in publishing an essay in the most recent Signpost has divided us instead of bringing editors together. I made a serious mistake that offended many. I don't like doing that to people-I would rather make them laugh. I'm not sure if anyone laughed, but if they did they are like me and don't understand the serious issues behind the struggles of young, transgendered youth who, I hope never read the piece. I am sorry.

I am going to do something that I've not seen anywhere. I am asking for forgiveness.

It is not only transgendered youth who were affected by my mistake; look at how many of us got distracted and had to spend time dealing with this serious issue! Wouldn't it be great to see something good come out of this? I hope to educate myself more on these topics. (Does anyone know of a good online encyclopedia I can consult?) And thank you for reading the Signpost. Please contribute. For those who do contribute, thank you very much. I actually read the 'rag' and laugh more at the other articles than my own. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 21:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@About employment-I don't and have never been employed by WMF, or the WikiEd foundation. They are two separate organizations. I work for a high tech company in Southern Florida. I don't even have a phone number for these organizations. No one can get me fired from a job I don't have. I believe these two organizations know what is going on.

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)

  @GoldenRing: Yep, I can see that now it has moved on, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 4 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)

@Collect, where are you getting contacts with employers of, or anyone in a position to affect the employment of, any Wikipedia editor from? As far as I can see nobody has suggested anywhere that anyone has at any point done any such thing (WVS and Tech Ambassador aren't jobs, they're volunteer statuses, and are no more 'employment' than New Pages Patroller or Featured Article Writer). If you have got any such evidence then post it, as that would be evidence of serious wrongdoing and likely change the opinion of every arb who's currently of the opinion that this should be declined. ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Arbs/Clerks; I'm not sure I've ever seen a case request in which so many participants are telling lies, and so few participants are providing diffs to back up their accusations. Your own instructions are that statements here should be A short and factual statement of 500 words or fewer, including diffs where appropriate, to illustrate specific instances of the problem (my emphasis). If you insist on keeping this trainwreck open, can you start clerking this to remove all the allegations and smears being flung in both directions unless those making them are able to provide diffs to back them up? ‑ Iridescent 11:47, 5 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)

• Addendum If, however, the case is accepted, then it must clearly focus to a great degree on Fae's actions. As I said at the AN/I, there is a valid concern that they broke the terms of their unblock/lifting of restrictions—"Fae may well have acted according to the project's best interests—in their own lights—but it is, unfortunately, not uncommon for editors to believe that doing what's right for the 'pedia excuses behaviour which has previously led to a topic ban. It does not"[15]—and that "when one has been indeffed then later topic-banned by ArbCom from "sexuality, broadly construed" (including gender-related activism) from 2012 to 2017 (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ), for incivility and aspersion-casting, as well as canvassing and forum-shopp[ing], it is unwise to be seen to continue such behaviours, regardless of the cause. In other words, Fae did not have to be the one to make the case; there will always be someone else. And in this particular case, it indicates a—lapse?—in judgement not to have foreseen that one's recent Tban, etc., might be brought up".[16]. ——SerialNumber54129 12:50, 5 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)

The idea that any $X\in Arbcom$ should be allowed to recuse $X$-self for having any private opinion about $X$-own gender/orientation/pronoun/what_else is absurd. (1) because each Arbcom member would have to recuse under such a pretext, leaving us with an empty board ; (2) because each $X$ has been candidate from $X$'s free will to be an Arbitrator, and each of them has been elected to sit and say what is to be said in order to sort the controversies the community has difficulties to sort by herself ; (3) because the very idea that being part of this or that sub-community will determine the decisions you will make is not only divisive, but blatantly false. Indeed, the question is not to take sides about pronouns, but to say what is to be said about behavior. Will $X$ be lenient toward $Y$ because they have the same opinion on some question, or being rash because $Y$ compromised this opinion with an horrible behavior is not written in advance. One cannot even exclude the temptation of being simply fair and honest. This apply to any arbitrator. As a summary: don't recuse yourselves in the present case. Pldx1 (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

We are not heroes. When submitted to an unbearable pressure, involving your own real life, what can be done, except from undergo the requested "self-criticism" sessions, producing either written or verbal statements detailing [your] ideological errors. You can wait and see if all these people that are usually campaigning about "women gap" will stand forward and protect you from a repetitive bully, but their silence was terrifying by itself . May be they were afraid themselves by the self-anointed Inquisitor . What remains, except derision ? At the Slansky trial, one of the accused, gesturing, dropped his pants too wide because of his thinness, so the laugh .... And now, we have: Does anyone know of a good online encyclopedia I can consult?. Arbcom must take the case: putting pressure on the real life of our contributors, women among them, must be addressed. Pldx1 (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis:. Using tone policing for describing what User:Barbara was submitted to as something maybe impolite but nevertheless well deserved looks as a double-down against her. Not only she was an ordinary user facing a repetitive bully, but she was threatened in her real life, and pushed to resignation. I don't see how this kind of real life oppression could help protecting anyone against real life oppression. Do you ? Pldx1 (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

References

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)

The further argumentation after my initial post makes more clear than ever that my concerns are correct and the over-use of "P, H and D" is not what is valid - but the underlying issues I enumerated must be dealt with. Especially the undoubted presence of Rowling's characters. Collect (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Having now seen some "interesting version of events" above, I suggest specifically that the committee by simple motion state that:

No persons or persons other than those specifically authorized by the Arbitration Committee, as a whole, shall endeavor to take any contacts with employers of, or anyone in a position to affect the employment of, any Wikipedia editor. Any such contact shall require a full and open on-Wiki discussion reaching a consensus on such contact. Any person who contacts any employer or representative without approaching the Arbitration Committee or seeking a valid consensus for such contact, shall be immediately banned from Wikipedia, and such ban shall be logged with the WMF.

Such a ruling would prevent the highly unfortunate effects of the actions of some editor on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that I have no direct personal knowledge that anyone in the entire history of the Internet has ever behaved in the manner I suggest be proscribed. That is, I can not "furnish evidence" in this matter other than my personal reflections on the events clearly related by others here already. (reply to what appears to be a rhetorical question to me) Collect (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Added bolding to note the encompassing character of the proposal. ArbCom, in the past, as asserted its authority over off-Wiki communications, and this is not a major step. Collect (talk) 19:00, 5 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)

• @Fae: Bluntly, I erred in explaining my rationale for recusal. I knew that I would be recusing from this case because I have strong personal feelings about the content nominated for MfD, but suggesting one's sexual orientation is a reason for recusal was a mistake. It was more my voting in the MfD that warranted the recusal (or, put more simply, my belief that I could not remain entirely unbiased while evaluating this case). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• I urge the Committee to accept this case. The fundamental underlying dispute here is not about this one transphobic post. It is about whether the Signpost is subject to the policies of the English Wikipedia. This is the same basic issue that led to the Gamaliel case, and clearly, the answer there wasn't clear to a subset of editors. This dispute appears far from over, given the current state of the ongoing MfD. While ArbCom can't rule on content, it can rule on whether the Signpost must abide by the same rules as every other page on Wikipedia, despite the repeated arguments that it should face less stringent standards because of a vague appeal to freedom of the press. For an example of the problematic view that the Signpost should not need to comply with any of our policies and guidelines, see [17]. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:15, 5 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: [18]. 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 [19], 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)

• Request to clerks: (pinging the ones I've seen on this case: Cameron11598 GoldenRing) can you PLEASE reinstate the original filing of the case? Leugen9001 keeps collapsing it.

  Leugen9001, that is not how cases work: You need to leave all of your original statements and filing as is, and add any other comments, responses, or updates under that, in chronological order. Do not change, edit, refactor, move, or collapse anything.

• Request #2 to clerks: I just logged on for the first time today and viewing the changes to this page I see that RTG has massively changed their statements so as to greatly change their meaning, even after many people had commented on them [20]. without indicating on the statement the changes or the time of the changes. Fæ has also greatly changed their statements without indication of the changes or time of changes, long after people had read and responded to them: [21]. Both of these problems need to be fixed somehow.

-- Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Anytime someone drastically changes their posts after others have read and responded to them, they need to follow WP:REDACT and indicate that they have done so and when. This was not done in either case. What needs to happen in the two cases mentioned is that: (A) If no meaning was changed but word count was merely drastically altered, the editor needs to append ;edited for wordcount ~~~~~ to the individual posts and/or (B) If meaning was changed, that needs to be indicated with strikeouts (and/or underscores) and the following needs to be appended ;edited ~~~~~

-- Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 5 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)

Just for this to go on record but personally I don't agree with Fae going to the WMF over it and I don't believe any sanctions should be imposed on Fae or Barbara, If this is accepted then it should solely focus on SMC but as I said I don't believe it should be accepted. –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by RTG

Note that this statement has been significantly shortened at the clerks' request. GoldenRing (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Humour article used the idea of transgender being suicidal as a joke[22] (on the picture, piped link trans). Edit summary "game of lemmings" (an oldschool computer game about little furry animals who are mythed to jump to their deaths every four years.)[23]

• After two or three days Fae nominated for deletion after a SNOWish complaint spree. I picked up the story when Guy Macon canvassed it. The first comments I remember were McCandlish claiming to Fae near the outset, to be an experienced free speech professional. McCandlish has provoked Fae on a personal level from their motivations on using WP, to diagnosing Fae with psychological disorders [24].

• All I know is transgender at its worst means difficultly to live with themselves. Suicide jokes are wrong for that. Writing sarcastic humour to the public, about social groupings, without genuine good faith, where civility is a pillar, is wrong. Twisting it on one accuser, with the write-up ignored, is wrong.

• Signpost humour section has no meaningful guideline apparent. This is not just a squabble between Fae and :McCandlish.

• McCandlish supposes [25][26][27] others not receiving the skit as was in concept, to have a perception problem. That is extremely provocative.

• McCandlish (probably not going to consider it) generalises and marginalises using descriptions of social groupings.

......

Provoke improvement of the mission statement for Signpost.

Extenuating circumstances as that publication, count. Those involved juggled the possibility of transphobic appearance.

The fact I am added as a party highlights the farcical nature.

Late signature ~ R.T.G 10:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I am obviously added as an escape goat. I see an elephant in the suicide joke and in passing diagnosis as a form of argument. I feel drawn into this rather than a major party. ~ R.T.G 16:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I made a bold edit to the Signpost page after the blanking, an attempt to diffuse[28]. I reverted in 3 minutes, admitting some may see it as vandalism()[29].

I left a template:puke on McCandlishes talkpage, a bad close to a short attempt to reason. "Puke, I've done something silly!" I apologise to the site for that.

Macon and McCandlish have been pinging me on this page from the start.

My comments to the incident are lost in walls of similar text from others.

~ R.T.G 06:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nattes à chat

• I mainly contribute on the francophone wikipedia around topics relating to the gender gap. Both Fae and Barbara have apologized, and Barbara has indicated she has learned from the process, and was willing to know more about a topic she knew little about. We have good faith on both sides there, humans make mistakes especially since this has virtually gone viral, there is a lot of emotional pressure on all parties. We are all humans with feelings and emotions behind our pseudos. The argument is moving towards discussion and cooperation, which is what we look for in the first place, therefore I see no reason in fueling the argument by continuing this process. It will only create more resentment, when all we need is now to calm things down. --Nattes à chat (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Amakuru

• Leaky caldron has made an interesting point above. There may have been a tacit assumption over the years that The Signpost, as a magazine rather than part of the encyclopedic content, has some editorial independence and is not subject to many of the usual policies and guidelines which govern the rest of the site. We've seen issues like this before I believe, where "humour" posted in the SP (mostly ill-advised IMHO) causes problems across the Wiki. I appreciate that there have been excellent efforts by the parties concerned in this case to come to amicable agreement, and the fact that perhaps the immediate dispute is not severe enough to warrant an ArbCom case. But the role of The Signpost and what conditions it operates under are important unresolved questions, which ArbCom should take up and come to a decision on. I therefore suggest they accept this case. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

I encourage Arbcom to take up a case with limited scope, focused mainly on Fae's immediate actions following the publishing of the article in the signpost. Guy Macon's statement highlights the behavior in question. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jayron32

I urge the ARBCOM to decline this case. There's nothing to decide here, as there is no dispute the community cannot work out. Here's what has already happened, which IMHO, is the correct course of action based on the involved parties:

• An ill-advised, but good-faith attempt at what the author, SMcCandlish, and to a lesser extent, Barbara (WVS), thought would be a provocative and humourous essay was written for the Signpost. In hindsight, the effect of the writing comes off as transphobic to readers of the piece.
• A discussion over deletion is in the process. It'll probably set records as the longest MFD, and there's a strenuous, but IMHO mostly good-faith discussion at that MFD over the inherent tensions between WP:NOTCENSORED and other key policies such as WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WMF:Non-discrimination_policy on the other hand. People have strong opinions at that discussion, and its robust, but no one in those discussions has yet done anything untoward. At the main discussion over deletion; there seems to be a general consensus that either blanking or outright deletion is in the majority, but there's significant, though not majority, opinion that the piece should have been left as-is. Consensus will probably move towards either deletion, or blanking, though it may end up at no-consensus.
• A discussion was started over sanctioning Barbara (WVS) over her involvement, where it was made pretty clear that 1) she was not the principle author and 2) her involvement did not represent a violation of any existing editing sanctions against her.
• As far as I can tell, there has not been any further discussions over directly sanctioning editors.

Given that 1) No one appears to have acted in bad faith, even in the initial creation of the piece, and 2) discussion, while heated, has not raised to the place where anyone needs to be sanctioned, I'd recommend the committee decline this case, as there's nothing to do. The MFD will run its course, and then what? Really? I can't see where anything further needs to happen here. --Jayron32 13:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SemiHypercube

This dispute did not need to go this far. This should be rejected, as it seems quite unnecessary for just a user essay. Just calm down, guys. SemiHypercube 13:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333

An Arbcom case never fills me with excitement, joy and merriment. However, I am concerned about Fae's attitude to anyone criticising them with a "homophobe!" dog whistle in a manner similar to Daffyd Thomas which seeks to raise conflict rather than defuse it, and which I have found rather upsetting. I'm glad I have gay friends who are nothing like this whatsoever and are some of my closest friends, being kind, considerate and compassionate, so I know I'm not tarring people with the same brush. Conversely, SMcCandlish's bludgeoning of the MfD debate has made a bad situation much worse, and if he had simply said "okay, I didn't mean for this but I'm really sorry for causing offence, I'll delete the page per G7 now and please accept my apologies" this would have all blown over. I'm pleased to hear the two parties are talking to each other, but I fear the situation is more complex and may warrant a closer examination. In particular, I am not happy about people trying to get other people fired for expressing their views, even if they are foolish and misguided. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

Regarding an editor being required to no longer edit from a role account which has become their main account: I don't see why this should play a part in accepting a case. Eventually editors depart from their organizational roles, and so having to transition to another account is expected from the start.

Regarding examining the editorial procedures of the Signpost: I feel the community has demonstrated sufficient ability to hold discussions on this topic, and so no action is required by the arbitration committee at this time. Any on-wiki project, including ones that exist solely to publish newsletters, exists at the pleasure of the community to uphold a consensus in its favour. The community also has the final word on where a project is able to provide on-wiki links to its content, such as within watchlist notices. Additionally, given that the Signpost has been searching for a new editor-in-chief for quite some time now, anyone unhappy with specific operational procedures of the Signpost can volunteer to participate in effecting change. With these mechanisms, the community can adequately provide feedback on the Signpost's direction. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding whether or not English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply to the Signpost: I feel the community has already adequately expressed its consensus view (in the English Wikipedia sense of consensus). There are vocal dissenters, but the majority view remains that the community has the mandate to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines on all pages, including the Signpost. I do not feel the arbitration committee has any need to weigh in, just because there is a minority view that disagrees. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

I strongly urge the the committee to accept this case for the sole purpose of making the unambiguous statement that Fæ had the absolute, unquestionable right to make complaints to the WMF and that the bare existence of such complaints cannot result in sanctions on Wikipedia. The other aspects of this case are complex, but the fact that anyone would even suggest that someone could be sanctioned for complaining to the WMF (offsite!) about what they believe to be transphobia or other inappropriate behavior from some who appears to be acting on the WMF's behalf is shocking and needs to be thoroughly and utterly refuted. Censoring users for such complaints would have a chilling effect on users' ability to report potential problems in the future and would effectively put the ArbCom in a position of evaluating whether the complaints have merit or not, in effect deciding which issues we are 'allowed' to raise.

I would also add that, irrespective of whether the exact article under examination qualifies, it would also be worth establishing a general principle that unambiguous transphobia, as a general rule, is a violation of WP:CIVIL, since it is disrespectful to trans editors, and that raising concerns about it is therefore valid provided such concerns are legitimate and well-grounded. Again, without that case it feels like we risk reaching a point where people will argue "it is a WP:CIVIL violation to call call me unWP:CIVIL", which, while sometimes true depending on the legitimacy of the complaint and the language it used, has the potential to have a chilling effect on legitimate complaints about editor conduct.

None of this is with regards to how the specific case in question turns out (individual case-specific details about language and conduct matter); and it may be that the individual event in question isn't worth considering directly. But some of the language people have used above to criticize Fæ's actions strikes me as very far out of line in ways that, if not thoroughly rejected, could have a chilling effect on future discussions - I read some of them as saying, basically, "you can never complain to the WMF about the transphobia of someone working with them" and "indicating that you feel a comment is transphobic is always, itself, a WP:CIVIL violation", which are not defensible statements and which need to be categorically rejected. These disagreements are the real heart of the issue and deserve to be resolved by the committee. --Aquillion (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

I suppose I could reasonably be added as an involved party. But since nobody has felt the urge to do so yet, I'll comment down here for now, especially since I'm only here to say that I'm aware of this case request and choose not to make a longer statement. I'm not boycotting the case - if it's accepted and I'm added as a party, I'll participate - but otherwise I'm trying to avoid the timesink. IMHO, everything has been or is in process of being settled by the community, except possibly the accusations I read above of Fae trying to get SMcC or Barbara in trouble with WMF-related roles, which I know nothing about, pro or con. Iff there's something there, that's the only reason I can see to take the case. Otherwise, I suggest it be declined. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector

I fully endorse Aquillion's statement above as the most intelligent comments written in this entire dispute. Arbcom is considering a case framed as evaluating the conduct of a whistleblower over reporting a serious concern to the appropriate authority, while taking great leaps to ensure that the concern itself cannot be examined. It would be shocking if it weren't so predictable.

The core of the issue is SMcCandlish's essay. Now, there ought to be room here to discuss valid criticisms of gender-inclusive language and nonbinary third-person pronouns, of which there are many. In fact there are some good works hosted here on that topic, such as Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language, Wikipedia:Writing about women, Wikipedia:Gender identity, even some which could reasonably be construed to be less than serious such as Wikipedia:Xe or Wikipedia:Use feminine pronouns (not that these are not serious discussions, but less likely to be considered Wikipedia best practices). SMcCandlish's essay is in a different category entirely, a page dedicated to poking fun at individuals' use of nonbinary personal pronouns, presented in a way which seems intended to dehumanize those individuals (the "humorous" insistence on being called "it"). Many editors have described the essay as insensitive, offensive, transphobic, hateful, and generally in poor taste.

It was a poor decision by Barbara, using a role account affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation, to publish the essay in The Signpost under the "humour" heading. She has apologized for this lapse in judgement, sincerely in my view, and while I don't wish for anyone to lose their job over regrettable isolated incidents such as this, there is in fact no protection on Wikipedia from real-world consequences for one's internet activities. Fae's request to the WMF to examine their agent's conduct was not harassment, it was a reasonable request to the appropriate authority, and none of us here can pretend we have any say in how the Foundation conducts its internal matters.

SilkTork's accept below is an example of why I suggested when Guy Macon proposed this case that the Committee is not equipped to handle this dispute. SilkTork is taking the view that the Committee should accept a case to criticize only the whistleblower, while paying no mind to the situation which led to the need for a whistle to be blown to begin with. Again, that would be appalling if it weren't so obvious that this is how the Committee would react. That short-sightedness is certain to lead to another embarrassing decision on a matter of inclusivity, for which the Committee and Wikipedia as a whole have been rightly criticized in the past. The point of this criticism is that, while most large websites would recognize the incident and seek to remedy the situation directly, Wikipedia consistently and repeatedly chooses to punish the people who report these issues instead.

I reserve my opinion on whether the Committee should accept this case, but hope that this Committee will get it right for once. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I appreciate your response, but I fear you have still missed my point. While a case focused on Fae's [mis]conduct seems to be what the community is asking for, Fae's action of reporting what they (and I, and many others) feel was serious enough to warrant reporting directly to the Foundation cannot be fairly evaluated without also evaluating the nature of that serious incident, which is SMcCandlish's essay and its publication in The Signpost. If the Committee chooses to ignore that issue and focuses solely on Fae's report, then you have already got it wrong, and any decision that comes out of such a case is unjust and disrespectable. I hope you can see that, but the arbitrators' comments thus far do not inspire confidence. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: thank you. I suppose we'll see how it plays out, then, if a case is accepted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Responding to Lepricavark's comment below, it has not been my intent to personally attack any editor in this dispute. My comments have been directed at the content of the essay, the choice to publish it in Wikipedia's front-facing newsletter, and the campaigning against the decision to report it. Several editors have observed over the past several days that SMcCandlish is an editor who takes style consistency seriously, and it is reasonable to view their essay as a response to the use of grammar constructions such as singular they, because they are [viewed as] nonstandard, not because they are gender-inclusive. It is unfortunate that this is also an argument used widely by hateful individuals to disrespect and dehumanize transgender individuals. It is thus perhaps a valid point to make, despite being presented with a thoroughly unfortunate veneer of offensive transphobia (referring to gender-inclusive pronouns as "made up idiolect pronouns", and elsewhere as neologisms). I believe that was not intentional, because I have to believe that Wikipedians are generally good people who disagree on a great many things but can agree that purely hateful attitudes are incompatible with our goals.

It is thus doubly unfortunate that SMcCandlish's response to this criticism has been to insist that editors are wrong to have found it offensive and to demand punishment for reporting the incident. I have made several pointed comments with respect to those actions, because SMcCandlish's responsibility-denying framing of this incident should not be accepted at face value. To the extent that my comments may have been interpreted as attacking SMcCandlish personally, I sincerely apologize. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

@Opabinia regalis: nothing few things would bring me more pleasure than being proven wrong on this point :) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: the clerks responded below about editors adding and removing themselves from the list of parties. As for RTG repeatedly editing their statement, I've just been ignoring it, I can't really make sense of it anyway, edited or not. IMO it's not an Arbcom issue, it's definitely not restricted to this page or this incident, and it probably would be worthwhile for community discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bri (and others): personally, I support The Signpost as an editorially independent entity within Wikipedia (to the extent that Wikipedia has editorial oversight at all, which is very debatable) and I particularly appreciate your willingness to take on topics which may be sensitive or controversial. But you must realize that a free press is not shielded from criticism; this case has arisen at least in part because of poor response to it. You (The Signpost) published an essay labelled humour, intending to present it as humour. After publication, some editors (I'm not sure if we can say a majority, but certainly a significant number) observed that it could be seen as offensive to a marginalized group, in that its humour appears to derive from a hateful ideology. Based on everything that's happened I'm reasonably sure that SMcCandlish didn't intend for it to attack transgender individuals, nor did you intend to cause offense, but that's a good place to start with your response. A good way to respond is to hear the criticism and to sincerely apologize for having caused offense (really, whether you see it as offensive or not, a significant number of editors do). Barbara did that, and kudos to her for her genuinely self-aware response. A bad way to respond to that criticism is to insist that it's objectively not offensive, to accuse those expressing offense of being overly sensitive or trying to score political points, to complain about other potentially offensive things that nobody seems to care about, and to cry about free speech and censorship and political correctness run amok. Then it does start to look like you intended to offend, and I hope you would agree that deliberately offending is not compatible with the mission of The Signpost nor Wikipedia's fundamental principles. More to the point, if someone tells you they're offended and your response is to offend them more, you should expect an emotional and probably irrational response.

None of us are perfect, none of us know everything, and none of us can anticipate every possible reaction to words that we write or sentiments that we express, on Wikipedia or otherwise. We all screw up sometimes, despite having the best intentions, and it's okay to be wrong or to have not thought of things from a different perspective. I don't expect this incident to have any more chilling effect than would blocking an editor for a personal attack, and I do look forward to more quality articles published under The Signpost banner. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: it's only just occurred to me now, but the antipattern phenomenon you described is known as tone policing, and in retrospect it is happening a lot in Wikipedia discussions lately, not just here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Supplemental

Considering how this has progressed, I now encourage the Committee to decline this case. The scope of the request has shifted dramatically over several days as various community processes have played out, and I would encourage those arbitrators who have already voted to review their rationales versus the current environment. The Signpost article is blanked after a widely-participated MfD, various initial misconceptions regarding Fae's supposed communications have been clarified on this page and elsewhere, the initial participants in the dispute have mostly apologized to each other and Barbara has published a heartfelt apology to the community at large, and the Signpost itself is going through a period of probably-much-needed introspection with community participation. While the Committee may yet have work to do regarding more private details of the communications to the WMF, that can and should be done privately, and so there doesn't seem to be anything left to do with a case that the community hasn't already mostly worked out for itself, or is on the way to resolving. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

I would recommend that the Committee decline this specific request. This can be re-filed if the conduct dispute escalates further. Separately, most of the issues at play here should already be covered by my clarification request from last month. Thank you for you time. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Supplement (1)

Now that RTG is a party to this case, should SMcCandlish include a diff confirmation of them being aware of it or is this necessary? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing and Cameron11598: Pinging the clerks most active working this case. Sorry if this is an unproductive use of your time, but I really would like to know if this is the case. This may also be relevant concerning the length of their testimony. Also, I see that they have not actually been notified of this development on their talk page. I really have no clue if this is necessary or not. This specific scenario is not addressed in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures. Thank you for your work, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Well RTG just took himself off the involved parties list. This is probably all now moot. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

RTG, my statements under Supplement (1) are moot, I mean. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Supplement (2)

It would appear the discussion is being framed around whether or not the cases should be accepted solely in proportion to how one feels about Fæ's reaction to the controversy was appropriate or not. I am of the opinion that this is not the only pretext with which the Committee may choose to accept this case. This case theoretically could be broadened to look beyond the current parties listed here. As reference, I will point to Opabinia regalis's vote rationale here and the statement made by Thryduulf for the same matter. Thank you again, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Supplement (3)

In response to Bri: As I stated elsewhere, I am sorry to see Bri go as EIC of the Signpost. I encourage all editors to participate in this conversation about the Signpost's future. Thank you all. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark

The harassment campaign against Barbara and SMC went too far and resulted in real-life consequences for at least one of them. Fæ's irresponsible, vindictive behavior cannot be swept under the rug and I urge the committee to accept this case and apply serious scrutiny to Fæ's conduct. I also urge the committee to review the behavior of Ivanvector, particularly his misconduct at the ANI thread where he blasted SMC for being on a high horse after the latter decried the outcome of Fæ's harassment campaign. That response was inappropriate and ventured quite near the realm of a personal attack. I realize that Ivanvector is a well-respected admin, but that doesn't earn him a pass. My confidence in him has been permanently destroyed by his reactionary comments during this controversy. Lepricavark (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I am satisfied by Ivan's response above and suspect that I might have overreacted myself. I would like to point out, however, that SMC's defensiveness seems understandable given the hostile reaction that was directed towards his essay. I can see why he might take that reaction personally, especially when Fæ began pushing for SMC to suffer person consequences. Lepricavark (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by FeydHuxtble

Recommend decline per all previous decline arguments. Just going to add my opinion on Fæ, as they seem to be receiving some one sided criticism. I agree reporting McCandlish to the WMF was going too far, and it's highly regrettable good Barbara felt pressured into resigning from her WSV role. But it wasn't Fæ who started an ANI against Barbara. While Fæ may have slightly over reacted, that is understandable considering they had taken point in the important efforts to block the publication of the damaging material. Which many understandably found highly emotive. Looked at in the round, Fæ stands a hero for what they've achieved for Wikipedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by RhinosF1

I've read over this case multiple times over the last few days and monitored the statements that have been given. I agree with arbitrators @SilkTork and KrakatoaKatie: that the case should be heard but only on the behavioural aspects as the MfD and TBAN issues should be and are community issues. Given the back and forth, removal of content and adjustments to statements I have found it hard to comprehend the large amount of debate regarding conduct but it looks clear that there is a debate that should be heard regarding user conduct and opening a case to allow evidence to be clearly laid out is beneficial to the community. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon

I've not looked over this in detail and so have no opinion on whether it should be accepted, but in reply to OR: if you're concerned about "whether B's tone was a little too sharp and perhaps B has been uncivil somewhere and can't B just be nicer already", then accept the case and decide that B's tone is not a little too sharp, B has not been uncivil somewhere, and that B shouldn't have to "just be nicer already! This is your chance! Banedon (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

I have two recommendations to the Committee about this case request, the second of which I consider to be more important than the first, but I ask that both be considered, and that both be adopted. The first is that this case be accepted. The second is that, if this case is accepted, it be accepted with an unrestricted scope, that is, without limiting in advance what the scope of the case is.

The ArbCom should accept this case for several reasons. It is not obvious that ArbCom should not accept the case, and, when it is not obvious whether ArbCom should accept a case, it is better to open it and decide after receiving at least preliminary evidence whether a full case is in order. ArbCom might do well to hear this case in two phases, the first to decide whether a full case is needed or whether motions can be used. There was extremely poor judgment, and damage has been done. The community is divided. ArbCom should, in my opinion, accept such cases when it is less than certain that the community has disposed of them.

A more serious mistake than not accepting this case would be accepting it with a predetermined scope. ArbCom should accept the case, but should only accept it if its members are willing to hear and decide the issues that need to be decided. The case may result only in severe warnings to multiple parties, but, if so, the severe warnings would have been appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

"Look at the entire case" is easier said than done. While a case would provide the structure for an orderly analysis of evidence and workshopping of remedies, analyzing this situation in full from all angles would require major diff diving of at least four and maybe five or more editors, plus a mailing list and who knows what else, to figure out who said/did exactly what and when. Who is going to do that work? If Arbcom members want to volunteer to collect the diffs and perform a comprehensive review, I think that'd be swell, but it's not something we can reasonably ask or expect. That's why we have filers, right? If the filer of this case isn't interested in pursuing it further, then perhaps the case should be declined without prejudice for refiling by any other editor(s) who feel they have evidence of a problem to present, and let any such filers decide what the problem is that they want Arbcom to look at it. In my view, that means any editors who want Arbcom to take this case could refile their own case, and that would let the community essentially decide the scope of the resulting case (by seeing who steps forward with what). Leviv ich 04:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand Bri's statement that The Signpost has "an open-door policy, editing contributions as little as possible" in light of SMcCandlish's statement that he did not submit the article to The Signpost, but rather The Signpost approached him about publishing it (and he cautioned against it but agreed), and that Barbara (WVS)'s involvement was limited to editing the article (as little as possible, I guess). Somebody, at some point, must have had the idea to take this user space essay and publish it in The Signpost, and if that somebody was a member of The Signpost, then what's an open-door policy for contributions have to do with it? As I understand it, it was The Signpost that selected this article for publication-nobody asked them to do it–so it's not a matter of censorship or chilling effect? Perhaps I have my facts wrong? Leviv ich 15:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you SMcCandlish for the response and links. I would feel differently about this issue if this were a matter of en editor submitting something for publication because they had something important they wanted to say, in which case I would generally err on the side of not censoring the submission. It's also no big crime for a volunteer editor to make a poor selection for publication. Humor at The Signpost is great; controversial humor, less so. If The Signpost were more circumspect when selecting pieces for publication, and generally avoided humor about race, sexual orientation, gender identity (and IMO, neologistic pronouns are a matter of gender identity, not a matter of grammar), religion, and other hot-button issues–because those are sure to be offensive to large swaths of editors–I cannot imagine such self-restraint would produce any chilling effect on contributors. Leviv ich 16:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Bri

Some things I want to point out as the acting Editor-in-Chief of Signpost for the issue in which the controversial material appeared.

The Signpost has attempted to provide an open-door policy, editing contributions as little as possible. Especially so without an actual Editor-in-Chief supported by a community process of election/appointment.

The image captions were added by me, so they should not reflect on the editors of the piece. Unless you want to pin them for not removing the captions in the hours before publication. And BTW this link was meant to be a reference to some kind of quantum indeterminate "trans-biological" state that pertains to beings such as the essay's hypothetical author. There was no intention to associate transgender status and suicide or to even promote it, as some have suggested.

If an Arbcom decision decides The Signpost and other Wikipedia-space content is subject to scrutiny for humor that impinges on people's feelings, then you will have to take a hard look at other things as well, starting with WP:TOP25 which regularly lampoons the US presidency, and conservatives in general, and the entire nation (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-01-31/Traffic_report #15, "from sea to poisoned sea" strikes me as bad taste and offensive but I promise not to bring a new Arbcom case over it).

I predict that this whole episode will end up having had a profound chilling effect on discourse on-Wiki, especially that which pushes against the politically correct tide. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to re-litigate the process of selecting and publishing articles here. If it goes to an evidence phase I guess we can get into that. Just one example of recent controversial events covered in The Signpost: News and notes from the January 31 issue covered WMF personnel changes and Venezuelan Internet censorship. We were harshly criticized in reader feedback for the entire thing. In another issue, selection of images for the gallery was perceived as nationalistic and criticized. An adverse decision here could effectively eliminate coverage of even slightly controversial topics in The Signpost even when many people argue that there is a critical need for awareness and debate in this community.

Honestly I expected negativity around – and even contemplated the possibility of retaliation for – our publication of adverse material on the Acting U.S. Attorney General (which never came), but the scope and venom around the reaction to this humor piece has taken me aback.

An observation and a question to Arbcom: criticisms of The Signpost run the gamut from the trivial (image galleries) to the substantial (gender pronouns). Are we to avoid all topics henceforth that generate criticism? Are we to self-censor? Are we going to try to rewrite our contributors' content to match our own predetermined ideas of "truth" or, worse, follow a "truth guide"? Will Arbcom provide that? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by 28bytes

@Bri: If you don't understand the difference between mocking the President of the United States and mocking trans people you might want to Google "punching up vs punching down" before going any further. It is not a "politically correct tide" that is making people upset with you, it is your seeming lack of empathy towards the people who feel attacked by the piece in question. 28bytes (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I have closed the MfD discussion as Keep and Blank. I recommend rejecting this case because Fae was responding to an issue that was actually offensive in the opinion of a majority of Wikipedia editors. Though Fae's response may have been sub-optimal, this is a poor dispute to use as a basis for inspecting Fae's behavior. Any possible sanction would create the appearance of wrongdoing by ArbCom. Instead, I recommend that friends of Fae try to counsel Fae about better ways to deal with situations like this one.

The Wikipedia community appears to agree with 28bytes. There are legitimate targets for lampooning, and other targets that are off limits. It was poor judgment to publish this kind of humor. No socially worthwhile goal was furthered by making fun of a group of people that have traditionally been harassed, including even murder. It is possible to have a thoughtful discussion about Wikipedia's policy on use of pronouns in articles, but this page was not a useful discussion of policy. Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Bri, Every single one of your contributions on Wikipedia is subject to revision, editing, deletion by others. That is true of every Wikipedian, on every page. And only the consensus of others keeps the contribution there. Perhaps, that's just so fundamental, that some people don't notice it, but it is the truth of the matter. And we all have to live with it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JFG

The scope of issues raised by this recent dispute goes far beyond the individual behaviour of the parties involved. Editorial independence of the Signpost has been strongly questioned, and two of its volunteer contributors have resigned under pressure, including the acting Editor-in-Chief. I urge ArbCom to accept this case, as Robert McClenon pointed out, without any predetermined limitation of scope. In my opinion, editorial controversies in a community newsletter are expected, and even necessary to the health and self-awareness of said community. The chilling effect of this incident, and similar ones outlines by Bri, must be examined by the community's highest authority. If ArbCom declines to rise to this particular occasion, I wonder in what further extreme circumstances they would be compelled to examine the underlying tension between no-free-speech and no-censorship. Please accept the case. — JFG ^talk 12:29, 8 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)
• Recuse -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Boing! said Zebedee: There are fairly stringent rules the clerks follow on when to remove cases, and I'm sorry to say this is nowhere near meeting them. GoldenRing (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Softlavender: I've expanded the collapsed box in Leugen9001's section, as for the other issue RTG was directed by GoldenRing to trim their statement due to the length. I'll defer to GoldenRing as the edits were made at their request. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • On a side note I'm about to head into a night class I'm taking on computer systems (trying to become more technologically literate) so its unlikely I'll be active for the next several hours. I'll nudge the Clerk's mailing list so GoldenRing sees the above. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Softlavender: Editors have refactored their comments, either at the request of the clerks or because they've seen others doing so at the request of the clerks, to (try to) observe the 500 word limit for statements in case requests. I don't see this as disruptive. GoldenRing (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• I know this is unfortunate with so many clerks already recused, but I fell down a flight of stairs last night and am variously in quite a bit of pain or dosed up on pain killers. I'll try to keep an eye on things here, but I am going to have to be aware of my own limits in dealing with clerking matters. GoldenRing (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Hi all, I'm trying to keep an eye on this but like most Wikipedians I have a full time job and issues in my personal life that I need to take care of. That being said the easiest way to get my attention is pinging me (e-mail alerts from pings go to my phone). But as GoldenRing mentioned we've had a good chunk of our clerks recuse on this case.

  With that in mind a few reminders are in order for all participants; only members of the committee or clerks acting at the direction of the committee may add parties to an arbitration request. Discussion is beginning to lean towards incivility and as a reminder while this case request may be contentious all parties are expected to abide by community standards. The clerks are empowered to enforce the arbitration policy on pages pertaining to the Arbitration Committee. With that in mind please be respectful and abide by the expected standards of conduct. Thanks. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'll echo Cameron11598's statement, and in particular remind SMcCandlish and RTG not to edit the list of parties. If the committee decide to accept a case, they'll decide on the list of parties to it then. GoldenRing (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• @RickinBaltimore: I only see four decline votes; but perhaps Opabinia regalis' statement is intended as a vote to decline? GoldenRing (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I do believe so especially since they said "I know there's no such thing as "strongly decline"". RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Conduct dispute involving gendered pronouns: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/5/2>

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)
• Decline. 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)
  • I know there's no such thing as "strongly decline", but I have to echo some of Ivanvector's points above (well, not the one about our not being equipped to handle this! :). I said this yesterday on the mailing list and want to make sure I repeat it here: accepting this case specifically on the point of "whether or not Fae went too far" would be a serious mistake on our part. There's a really well-established antipattern on Wikipedia where person A does something ill-judged or oblivious or offensive, person B takes offense, and then suddenly everyone's talking about whether B's tone was a little too sharp and perhaps B has been uncivil somewhere and can't B just be nicer already? Based on the recent activity in this case, we are in real danger of falling for this type of effort to change the narrative and redirect focus away from the origin of the problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:01, 5 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)
• Decline. I'm not seeing an ongoing dispute here. The major parties all seem to regard it as resolved (or on the way to being resolved). – Joe (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• There appear to be several aspects to this case. The first is concern that User:Barbara (WVS) may have violated her topic ban. That is a community matter, and appears to have been settled by the community. Decline on that count. The next is the content of a Signpost article written by User:SMcCandlish. That is a content matter, and as such is a community matter, and the community are dealing with it appropriately. Decline on that count. User:Guy Macon said some words on ANI and warned Fae on their talkpage. There's nothing in that for the community nor ArbCom to look at. Decline on that count. There is the concern that User:Fæ's reaction to the article was excessive, particularly in terms of both the threats and the evidence that they have tried to get SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS) removed from volunteer roles. Hmmm. This is the part of the request that I'm pondering. Barbara has two accounts, Barbara (WVS) and Bfpage, which are allowed under Designated roles. If Barbara resigns her Wikipedia Visiting Scholar role at the University of Pittsburgh, this impacts her use of the Barbara (WVS) account, as per WP:DOPP: "If the editor leaves the role, their role account must no longer be used." As the Barbara (WVS) account has become her main account, that seems a heavy price to pay for merely moving an essay that someone else wrote into Signpost, and I'm uncomfortable that she has apparently been frightened into doing this. And particularly by a user who has a history of reacting inappropriately. I'm not going to put forward a strong argument for acceptance to look more closely at Fae's behaviour, and will continue to consider carefully what others (community and ArbCom) say, but for now it's an accept on that count. I'm not taking too strongly into consideration that the main parties are saying they don't want an ArbCom case, as they each have a vested interest in this matter not being investigated closely by the Committee, but that is something I am bearing in mind. I'm also aware that the filer, User:Leugen9001, is uncertain as to should the request continue. I feel it is a valid request given the history of some of the parties named, and the nature of the subject matter, and that allegations of harassment, potentially by email, have been made. That it is a valid request doesn't mean it will be accepted, but it is one that Committee members will think about carefully before accepting or declining. SilkTork (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• User:Ivanvector, I understand your concerns - it is not uncommon for people to think that when ArbCom accept a case, that we are assuming that someone is guilty, and the case is therefore about deciding on a sanction. But what we do is see if there is substantial enough concern to warrant a case to settle matters. Some people are saying Fae went too far in their reaction, others feel that reaction was tolerable. I feel that enough has been said to justify exploring if Fae did go too far or not. Accepting a case does not assume guilt, it only assumes there is enough fat for people to chew on, and we want to see if there is a bone there. SilkTork (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• User:Ivanvector, if we do look into Fae's conduct, we will of course take into account what prompted their behaviour. But ArbCom do not look into content issues, so it is not for us to look into the essay, that is for the community, and the community are already doing that. ArbCom look at conduct, particularly when there are privacy concerns, and that's the situation here as I see it, though others can and do see it differently. I'm not hugely in favour of this case, but I think there is stuff here that should be cleared up one way or the other, and my thinking is that ArbCom are best placed to do that. If we do have a case, it may well be that we will be looking into more than just Fae's conduct. If we have a case.... SilkTork (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• User:Fæ, to respond to your request. If this case is accepted, it is likely that we will be examining your conduct in response to the Signpost publication to see if the claims made regarding harassment, etc, are true and accurate. To see if you breached any of our policies, or to see if your response was proportionate to the offence you felt at reading the essay. So we'll be looking at the timeline of events, who did what, who said what to whom, what was reported to whom and why, etc. Parties to the case are not agreeing on this request page as to what was said in emails, so it is difficult for the community to get to the truth of what is going on without content of emails being published that may contain personal material. ArbCom can look into that. It may well be that we look into this, and decide that no policies were breached, and we can publish that, and your name is cleared. Or we may feel you have overstepped the mark somewhere, and we'll decide on an appropriate sanction. If accepted, and depending on how the evidence page goes, we will determine if the other parties need some form of sanction. Does that answer your request? SilkTork (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've gone back and forth over this for a few days. The content issues are in the hands of the community, and I'm not going to swoop in and grab them. I think there's an argument to be made about Fae's conduct, so accept to examine that. Katie^talk 15:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Decline I am not seeing enough here to indicate that this is an enduring problem that cannot be resolved by the community or by simply elapsed time. If the issue continues to persist beyond the MfD, other Signpost issues, or further interaction by the two editors -- and where the community is demonstrated to be unable to resolve the issue then another case request should be filed. Mkdw ^talk 23:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Decline, for now. At this stage, I don't see this as an intractable issue that can't be handled by the community. The article has been withdrawn from the Signpost. The MfD is contentious but not disrupted to the point of being unworkable, and it is scheduled to close soon. Barbara and Fae have apologized for their actions, which is a good sign in my opinion. I agree with OR and Ivanvector that there's something quite unfair about accepting solely on the basis of examining Fae's conduct - if we accept this case (now or in the future), it should be to examine the situation as a whole. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)