I seldom rush to be the first to express an opinion. It may be that this humour 
has deeply affected some people, but it is my considered opinion that they have 
jumped to a conclusion without due reflection themselves. Accusing a person 
with no known history of baiting people for their gender identification of 
doing just that, when they tried to make it clear that that was not their 
intention within the constraints of not over-explaining a joke, seems like 
attempting to use the article for political purposes to push an agenda for 
special use of terminology on Wikipedia which is not used by reliable sources 
by claiming extreme outrage. Maybe I am wrong, but that is what it looks like 
to me. I can imagine other alternatives too, and they are even worse. 
As far as I am aware, we are having the conversation freely, so yes, by all 
The "joked about party" can express what they feel about such "jokes", and are 
doing so to the extent that they appear to consider it quite OK to assume that 
their assumption that they are the target of the jokes is true because they 
choose to take it that way, and that the word of the author is irrelevant, and 
that it is perfectly acceptable to harass someone because they chose to be 
offended. This may be happening with others who do not feel personally targeted 
too, but I don’t know what  their reasoning is.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [] On Behalf Of 
Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l
Sent: 05 March 2019 16:12
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"

Hi Peter, 

Please take time to reflect that this humour has deeply affected some people 
(and not only the persons who outed publicly taking risks), hence the reaction. 
To those who do not understand how LGBTIQ people feel about jokes on their 
identity and the legitimate desire that adequate language be used to express it 
might just seem superfluous and look like an overreaction, but it does echo a 
deep suffering which takes place after being joked about virtually everywhere 
and not being able to express opinion when on the otherside, freedom of speech 
is invoked to promote such jokes. Advocates of freedom of speech do not try to 
silence opinions. 
Just look at what happened recently in France around the Ligue du lol affair, 
and maybe you will understand what is at stake here (1). 

Jokes are not bad in themselves, they become problematic when they 
systematically target the same group of people (women, LGBTIQ  people, 
minorities ect...) , and when they are issued systematically by the same group 
of people not aware of their own priviledge, and when they are disseminated 
through official channels. They can pave the way to problematic behaviors if 
the « joked about party » cannot in turn express freely what they feel about 
these jokes. 
I have a request : can we have the conversation freely? 
This is in no way underevaluating the value of the Signpost and the remarkable 
work done by people like you.
Maybe more articles on the subject of harassement and gender issues are needed 
in the Signpost to adress this issue, to lay down the cards, and maybe not in 
humour tone.
To finish  I want to thank Barbara  from the bottom of my heart  for showing 
willingness to apologize and understand (because the effect of this is soothing 
and shows willingness to understand) and I thank Fae for speaking out. 
If all protagonists could now calm down and consider that the very fact the 
conversation is taking place is positive, I think we would all have gained in 
freedom of speech. 

Good afternoon, 

Nattes à chat


> Le 5 mars 2019 à 10:07, Peter Southwood <> a 
> écrit :
> "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."
> Overreacting is a tradition at Wikipedia. 
> Cheers, 
> Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [] On Behalf 
> Of Michel Vuijlsteke
> Sent: 03 March 2019 19:49
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"
> I don't understand in which possible world anyone thought this was a good
> idea.
> The MfD, that is. It, and the entire discussion in favour, reads as some
> sort of caricature of the worst SJW-type excesses.
> M.
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 16:41, Fæ <> wrote:
>> As the last second repost had the same format error, I am trying for a
>> final time. How embarrassing!
>> ****
>> I would like to apologise to SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS), and more
>> generally to the Wikipedia community, for any possible implication
>> given in my previous email to this list, that authors of the
>> problematic Signpost "Pronouns beware" essay, might in any way be
>> thought to be transphobic. This was an important matter to word
>> precisely and accurately. I take responsibility and apologise, it was
>> stupid of me to fail to ensure that there could be no way that my
>> words might appear to be intended as an attack on the person, rather
>> than criticism of the judgement used when writing this essay, and the
>> choice to publish it on Wikipedia.
>> I refrained from correcting this email previously, as it was thought
>> to be better to avoid stirring up any further drama, however this was
>> being interpreted by one of the authors as deliberately avoiding
>> making any correction.[1] I apologise for that misjudgement, and my
>> failure to understand how a delay would appear. My thanks go to
>> SMcCandlish for raising their complaint that a correction was needed.
>> The rest of this email runs on the long side, if you have been
>> following the deletion discussion, there is probably nothing new here.
>> :-)
>> My action in acting transparently as a whistleblower, was to criticise
>> the editorial judgement of creating an essay which made jokes about
>> pronoun usage which would, and has, been read as making a bad joke
>> that mocks genderqueer and transgender people. This problem of how the
>> article could be read, was raised by others before publication.
>> Overwhelmingly the deletion discussion created for the essay has had
>> feedback from many long term and experienced Wikipedians who were
>> alarmed and upset that the article was published without this problem
>> being acted on, and either halting publication, or ensuring a
>> resubmission so there could be no confusion that the article appeared
>> abusive or a failure to respect genderqueer and nonbinary people.[0]
>> Many deletion comments have called the article "transphobic". Nobody
>> as far as I have seen, has mistakenly called the authors transphobes.
>> There is a good faith presumption that cause is an error of judgement.
>> It has been explained several times by myself and others in related
>> Wikipedia discussions that objecting to a published joke being
>> offensive to a minority group, in no way implies or presumes that the
>> author(s) deliberately intended to cause offense to that minority
>> group.Thanks,
>> Thankfully the Signpost essay has been hidden from view while the
>> deletion discussion continues, an action that resolves the immediate
>> issue, and removes any need for me to be involved.
>> I have not made a complaint to the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct
>> Committee, and decided to let a thread on meta stay closed with regard
>> to use of a unpaid volunteer WMF related title that requires
>> compliance with the Code of Conduct.
>> I sent a friendly confidential email to the Wikimedia Wiki Education
>> project for comment, as Barbara chose to publish the essay using the
>> unpaid volunteer account that specifically represented Wiki Education,
>> though again, this was not a formal complaint. I had one informal
>> reply back saying they were looking into it. I have not emailed anyone
>> else with regard to the authors or their actions. Explicitly, I have
>> not contacted anyone's employer nor anyone else not directly part of
>> Wikimedia projects.
>> Barbara has thoughtfully stated in a personal email to me, and on her
>> Wikipedia talk page, that she is preparing a formal apology as one of
>> the coauthors.
>> Thankfully SMcCandlish has agreed with the article being hidden from
>> view, and continues to debate the article deletion. They chose to
>> raised an ANI request against me for "canvassing and
>> incivility/aspersions in gender-related disputes", which was closed
>> without action toThanks,day.[3] At the time of writing this email, there
>> are
>> claims by SMcCandlish that they are "accused of being a transphobe",
>> it is unclear who is doing this.[4]
>> The WMF have taken the unusual step of refusing an email promoting the
>> Signpost on the announcements list, due to "multiple reports of
>> concerns related to potentially harmful content in the February 2019
>> edition of the Signpost". I made no formal email complaint to the WMF
>> about Signpost, or anything else. The multiple reports were from other
>> concerned people that are unknown to me. Sadly the immediate personal
>> response to the WMF by the Signpost Production Manager has been "I
>> find your rejection of my email to be an empty political gesture
>> bowing to political pressure from braying sheeple."[5] No other
>> Signpost contributor has made any other reply, either personally or on
>> behalf of Signpost. I have seen no plans or proposals to change or
>> improve the review process or policies for the Signpost.
>> Thank you for those sending private messages of encouragement, support
>> and information. Should anything similar happen on Wikipedia in the
>> future, this experience has taught me to run as fast as possible in
>> the opposite direction, rather than putting my head above the parapet.
>> Becoming a figure of hatred is not worth the stress, or having to read
>> targeted mockery wrapped as "jokes", published on the project you love
>> and support. Throughout our Wikimedia projects, there remains huge
>> room for improvement in how best to ensure correct, friendly and
>> respectful treatment of minorities, especially us queers.
>> Links
>> 0.
>> 1.
>> 2. https://enThanks,.
>> 3.
>> 4.
>> 5.
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>> --
>> Wikimedia LGBT+
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> and
>> New messages to:
>> Unsubscribe:,
>> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> and 
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> and 
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to