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	2/2/2

[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 15:32, 20 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Fæ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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 a lot of searching about, there appears to be no project Wikipedia talk page, where you can ask these questions, there is no other way of contacting someone who approves these accounts. Visiting Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars and following links, takes you to an off-wiki site with email contacts only (which was unexpected for an organization that appears to represent Wikipedia). This was neither harassment, nor "getting someone fired", those allegations are disruptive and potentially damaging hearsay. It was a good faith asking for their response to clarify this situation and more generally to understand how these Wikipedia accounts work and what they mean and whether that affected the MfD that I had created. I chose to contact "WVS" directly, giving them a channel for less public, and as it turned out because they had no on-wiki contact page, confidential discussion, which helps to reduce the attention and shouty drama that has been created around this contentious topic. Honestly until long after reaching out, I had no idea their site was a separate organization of some kind, rather than the way a WikiProject was being represented with emails sometimes going via OTRS, similar as you see with websites for some Wikipedia User Groups. I still 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 phone number and encouraged me to call; you do not do that if you are frightened of someone. Certainly nothing I have done has been anything other than in good faith and remained friendly. None of us should ever be worried about asking relevant, honest and civil questions of good governance of Wikimedia/Wikipedia 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) 11:38, 4 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: That Fæ created an entourage is self-evident and easily establishable fact, not a "conspiracy theory".

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.]

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 4 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 correction: 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; 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)

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 [1][2] and here [3] and here [4]). 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 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. 11:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: SilkTork's decision to accept: I have myself tried to draw awareness to the impact on Barbara [5], 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:[6], [7]

The "by private email instead of in a public discussion"[8] 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."[9]

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"[10]

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

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

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

I note that RTG made a snarky comment and linked to a diff[12] that was not canvassing. It clearly meets the criteria for appropriate notification at Wikipedia:Canvassing. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Barbara (WVS)

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

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

Statement by Boing said Zebedee!

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

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

  @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)

Statement by Ymblanter

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

Comment by SN54129

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

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

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

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

Statement by Cullen 328

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

Statement by OID

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

Statement by Pldx1

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

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. As a summary: don't recuse yourselves. Pldx1 (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky caldron

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

Statement by uninvolved Collect

The genie is well out of the bottle.

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

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

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)

Statement by BU Rob13

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

Statement by Softlavender

As I write this, there is no statement by the filing party, Leugen9001. The original case filing is here: [13]. 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 [14], apparently because he didn't want it popping up on his watchlist. A non-consensus "Kick it to ArbCom" and "I don't want this popping up on my watchlist" are never good reasons to close an ANI case, and only an experienced administrator should have closed such a lengthy and contentious case.

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

Statement by Dlthewave

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

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

Statement by DuncanHill

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

Statement by Dave

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

Statement by RTG

The supposed humour article was so funny it used the idea of transgender people being suicidal as a joke[15] (see the text on the picture, the piped link trans). As the point of the article was to express negativity at the onset of Transgender values in modern society, it is difficult to put a positive spin on that sort of humour in a public report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Guy Macon: I refer you to the dictionary about canvass (with two "s", just Google this: "canvass"). And, I do apologise for being so very difficult to understand sometimes. I don't apologise for inferring the hypocrisy on you, albeit in less direct terms. The lads tried a suicide joke and you are all out now. Don't let me stop you Guy, right? ~ R.T.G 06:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

McCandlish above, "I have to add that I find it disturbing ..." to ask for a safe space. And suicide is funny. ??? Wikipedia:BOOMERANG#How_to_avoid_shooting_yourself_in_the_foot, "Be up front concerning any of your actions that might have contributed to the problem. Finally, consider whether your own actions in the matter have been entirely blameless." ~ R.T.G 06:49, 4 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 of 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 {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)

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

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