>In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general use of profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in >extreme cases is it considered actionable when actually directed at an individual. So it's hard to understand why many editors of long->tenure have reacted in such a strongly negative manner to this op-ed; it may be the unique nature of the Signpost, but like Gamaliel I >would be surprised to learn that many users regard the Signpost in the same way devotees do the New York Times. The most likely >conclusion is that profanity and vulgar language are almost exclusively deployed by men on Wikipedia, and the difference here is that >readers were shocked --shocked!-- to read it from a woman.

While I think this has something to do with it, I suspect some of the commentators may have seen this as hypocritical: A member of the Arbitration Committee, newly elected as one of several arbs committed to restoring civility and mitigating our gender imbalance, writes a Signpost op-ed using profanity in the headline, while some users (and, more importantly, their supporters) who believe (whether reasonably or not does not matter as the belief informs their actions either way) that last year’s ArbCom results effectively painted a bullseye on their backs, know that use of such language by them in discussions is routinely hauled out as evidence against them in AN/I threads and (more importantly) at ArbCom.

I don’t fault the Signpost for its editorial decision to run it. But I wonder if someone should have talked to Emily about this before she did it. Because now it’ll be hard for her to cast votes in cases where a user’s profanity has been brought up as evidence of consistent incivility without a whole host of users bringing this up immediately on the talk page. It will haunt her effectiveness as an Arb for a long time to come, I’m afraid.

And for what it’s worth, it is not acceptable to curse onwiki where I have anything to say about it. I have blocked people for this when they have refused to cease and desist and/or apologize. I have declined unblock requests without review of the edit history if people used foul language (this usually results in a new request with a profuse apology and more reasonably stated case for unblock).

Daniel Case