Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/Special report

Discuss this story

BlueRasberry - thanks for this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bluerasberry:. With regard to your words that make it appear that Signpost will officially "encourage our diverse contributor base to better respect all parts of our community", could you confirm whether the Signpost community still includes or has excluded the two people that just a few days ago wrote the following, and have never made an apology for these and other deliberately offensive and derogatory comments about those brave enough to stand up to them and object to what you now reframe as a "misguided humor column"?

"My point was that the same "gender warrior" types are making everyone miserable everywhere about everything they can think of, using the same "distort what you really said and claim you're saying something very different and that it's an attack on TG people" bullshit, and they're crawling all over Wikipedia like ticks [...] I care about reasoned writers being witch-hunted by censorious TG/NB "allies", a bunch of hypocritical busybodies – over things the writers didn't actually say or mean. It's just one example of the sorts of PoV crap that hits us in waves, of course, but it's one hardly anyone will dare to speak up about, because even doing so garners accusations of "transphobia" (it has nothing to do with that at all, but with calling TG-obsessed, cis-gendered extremist activists on their bullshit)." diff
"I find your rejection of my email to be an empty political gesture bowing to political pressure from braying sheeple. Thank you for letting us know that the WMF took this step." diff

Note that "TG" above is being used as an abbreviation for "Transgender" and "NB" for "Non-Binary".

If no lessons have been learned, then using the names of WikiProject LGBT Studies and the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group as if those communities are part of, or should be seen as supporting the Signpost immediately after the "misguided humor column", is empty political spin and a misuse of the reputation of these long established LGBT+ communities. LGBT+ Wikipedians and our allies should not be expected to be derided as "Sheeple", "Gender Warriors", "TG-obsessed", "extremist activists" or degraded as "Ticks".

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for at least describing the humour column in the previous issue "misguided", though I was certainly hoping for a more formal apology. I am definitely glad that the Signpost is still going strong and that you are using this incident (in a way) to encourage LGBT editors to contribute their perspectives to the newsletter. This article is good and I am glad very glad to be directed to some LGBT-related conversations that play on Wikimedia. I was unaware that Wikidata still has one property for "sex or gender" and that the situation there is still fairly awkward, so I'll definitely look into that! That all being said, I really would have liked a formal apology rather than an immediate defense on the authors involved in the incident... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aditionally, great ideas and input from the LGBT+ User Group at the 2019 strategy summit! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 13:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bluerasberry for this exceptionally well constructed and well written article - and some credit is due also to Headbomb for his Copy editing. Quite clearly this is a piece about Gay Pride and Wikipedia's efforts to support LGBT objectively; it was not intended to be a further apology for a 'misguided' humour piece: The Signpost published a misguided humor column in the February 2019 issue. The people involved in writing and publishing the article had good intentions and reputations for being advocates for the LGBT+ community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]