The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Keep and Blank . This was a lengthy discussion with input from many editors. At least half of the editors would like the page to be deleted, while a substantial fraction prefer to keep it. In the middle there are those who would keep the page blanked as it is now. What is clear is that the humor page was not very funny, and it offended many editors. This was not an appropriate page for the Signpost, because the page generated bad will between editors. Moreover, some topics are not appropriate for humor in the context of a professional work environment, even an online one. The issue of how to deal with pronouns on Wikipedia could be discussed seriously and thoughtfully. This page did not do that. Jehochman Talk 15:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The essay by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) and Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs) is a misuse of Wikipedia pages under WP:POLEMIC and by targeting minority gender identity fails to meet the requirements of WP:Harassment, WMF:Non-discrimination_policy and the websites WMF:Terms of Use, as it attacks and defames minority groups. The article is written as a joke, but it clearly intended to marginalizes and disparages transgender, nonbinary or genderqueer readers and Wikipedians.

Wikipedia essays and the Signpost are not free speech forums to publish what to most readers will be deliberately transphobic rhetoric, even if those words are wrapped in a "joke" format. --Fæ (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Recommend this discussion applies automatically to the userspace essay discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SMcCandlish/It --Fæ (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Due to Barbara (WVS) having a sexuality related topic ban, they may be unable to comment here as the Signpost essay itself (may or may not fall under) the TBAN for which their account has been blocked unblocked. Refer to WP:ANI#Violation_of_topic_ban_by_Barbara_(WVS). (Updated, again) --Fæ (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Removed the word "intended", there was an intent to publish which has been stated by the parties as an error in judgment, but the wording of the nomination was not clear enough to distinguish between how the article can be read while making no presumption about any motivation other than the choice to write the essay as a joke and publish it. --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Survey[edit]
Are you seriously invoking Wikipedia:No legal threats or did you mean to suggest that this situation is some kind of exception to it? – Athaenara ✉ 17:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent: Asking WMF Legal to look at a Signpost article as being in breach of WMF policy, is not a legal threat by anyone's logical interpretation. Nobody is asking the WMF to start a civil action, neither would they be interested if someone tried. By the way, in light of your other comment about me here, if you raise another question for me, I'll be calling you a Crybully; seems fair. --Fæ (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what "specific legal implications" would need to be brought to the attention of WMF Legal? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent: It's unnecessary, so no, hypotheticals and wiki lawyering is pointless. If it gives anyone comfort, WMF employees are following this discussion, possibly due to interest in how improved community policies can be seen to be working or not, but the default and best position is always to give our volunteer community every opportunity to govern itself and the WMF are not our police, we are. --Fæ (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be absolutely crystal clear so you don't do this in the future, Wikipedia is a US-based project and there are no limitations on criticizing protected classes in any way in the US. In fact that is absolutely contrary to US law and to the principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you scroll down a bit from WP:NOTCENSORED, you'll also find WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Wikipedia "restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we as the Wikipedia community should restrict things that abuse other members and this is a clear example. Do not insult other editors! My concern was specifically the legal threat which is totally empty. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me you're considering yourself exempt from standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I can't approve of that. – Athaenara ✉ 17:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent: No, I'm not exempt from anything, neither are crybullies. If you write anything else, could it be about the nomination? You can write about me on my talk page, if you wish. --Fæ (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's possibly not technically a legal threat, but "does have specific legal implications" is obviously meant to feel like one. It's not Fæ threatening direct legal action, but telling us that they're actively trying to get WMF to take legal action (which of course is nonsensical, since nothing illegal or unlawful has transpired). This is an example of what WP:SANCTIONGAMING was written about: trying to "get away with it" on a technicality. We have WP:NLT not because laws and courts and attorneys are an evil, but because clubbing people over the head with legalistic FUD and WP:DRAMA is inimical to an open and good-faith-assumptive editorial community.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't be more plain that does have specific legal implications combined with asking WMF Legal to intervene is a legal threat. "Asking WMF legal to intervene" sounds a lot like "warning WMF legal that WMF is breaking the law". Why else would "WMF legal" be relevant unless Wikipedia is alleged to be breaking the law? The statement should be amended or retracted, or brought to ANI same as any other legal threat. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but am not interested in pursuing that (or the canvassing, or the harassment across three WMF sites so far). It's not worth the drama. I'm not offended that people have different sensitivity levels, even to the point of believing that humor cannot possible come anywhere near some subjects for any reason. Reasonable people can disagree, though this is edging toward not-reasonable. That said, I'm pretty sure I've seen something like this (i.e., politicized targeting of an editor with WP:ASPERSIONS of X-phobia) from Fæ before, and suspect that this may be habitual. I don't have the diffs or time to examine it for a pattern, though, and am averse to such diff-digging anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent: Try sticking to the nomination. If you want to haphazardly take a poke because I was the one to create this page, you know where my talk page is. You can see that an Arbcom member has commented here, so you could always approach them for advice on how to request a transgender related case, rather than using this MfD to make pointless personal attacks, I'm sure they will be interested. Given that your unfunny "joke" has been objected to by multiple well established and respected self identified trans and queer contributors, there is plenty of good advice written here that you appear to be unable to take on board. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Be careful what you wish for." Here's at least some of what I was thinking of: Fæ was indefinitely banned in 2012 for sexuality-related battlegrounding, most pertinently "ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others" (e.g., trying to label people "transphobic"). This was softened into a topic ban from "sexuality, broadly construed" (including gender identity matters) from 2012 to mid-2017 (suspended from Dec. 2016). If DIYeditor's ANI suggestion were followed through, a reinstatement of that topic ban would be the likely outcome, especially since the original case also involved canvassing of the same sort, and Fæ was at WP:RFARB again only a couple of weeks ago, also for canvassing in support of gender-related battlegrounding, though ArbCom remanded the matter back to the community for further discussion and examination. That may be overdue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent: Resurrecting a case from over 7 years ago as evidence of, something, maybe nothing? Again, you know where my talk page is if you want to keep on making personal attacks and throwing mud. This MfD is about the nomination and the article you co-wrote with Barbara Page, not about me, me, me, the nominator. --Fæ (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case from over 7 years ago. It started that long ago, but it concluded – and only provisionally – in mid-2017. Given that the behavior you were banned for has not stopped or even changed, it's extremely pertinent. The ban was lifted with a clear understanding that the activities that resulted in it would not recur. So, I would surmise that you have very little time left to right your ship. If you continue in this vein, someone less averse to drama than me will certainly ANI or AE or RFARB you in your next "week of outburst" or the one after it, using all the evidence of the aspersions, canvassing, legal threats, etc. from this instance too (and all three of those were aspects of your original ban, so a re-ban is a dead certainty). PS: I have no idea why you keep putting "Tangent:" in front of things. You must have noticed by now that this isn't a wiki-talk norm and no one else is picking up your lead, so it will not become one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent: Attacking the nominator, rather than addressing the nomination is a tangent. You know exactly what you are doing. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've attacked SMcCandlish across several pages now with deeply personal and hurtful aspersions. You need to stop. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And it's just another hand-wave. I've addressed the nomination in more wording than most people would like; the nominator's behavior isn't the nomination, and is obviously against our behavioral policies. Pointing that out is not "attacking the nominator" it's observing policy violations. They're entirely severable matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if you meant to, but you raise an interesting point about capitalizing "it". Re. your second sentence: How does one know if the "It" at the beginning pertains to the personal pronoun or the regular "it"? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  15:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One would perhaps boldface? Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is for the deletion of the defamatory essay. If you want to chat about the best grammatical use of personal pronouns, try WT:MOS rather than creating tangents. If you are making jokes about personal pronouns, do it off-wiki, it's not constructive here. --Fæ (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or else Fæ may follow you, too, from site to site and try to gin up a pogrom against you. LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent: With the excuse that I have asked the WMF to reconsider your suitability to be recognized and trusted as a WMF Technical Ambassador because of your published transphobic "jokes", you now compare your self-victimhood to the historic massacre of Russian Jews. Your use of "LOL" seems inappropriate when you are digging a deeper hole for yourself by being ever more offensive to even more people who might read this. Please keep in mind you are not using an anonymous account, what you are writing is literally stupid. --Fæ (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps you're just unaware that words in English have multiple meanings, and their senses shift over time (e.g. wikt:draconian, etc.). I don't buy this act for a minute though; no fluent English speaker can actually be ignorant of this. You're simply "high on outrage" and trying to WP:WIN at all costs. These kinds of ad hominem outbursts are precisely why you've been topic-banned from all gender and sexuality material for much of your editing history here. I predict that the ban will reinstated soon unless your approach changes. You may find this page helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting even Trans were on said frontier as little as 5 years ago – and that has changed thanks to Wikipedians. Contrary to the opinion of some, history shows its not always the case that Wikipedia needs to follow the Media – sometimes we lead it. With the Chelsea Manning case, while we needed to wait until the media settled on respecting her choice of name before we had lasting consensus to do so ourselves, it was also Wikipedia which to a degree drove the change of use in the world's media. This was thanks to the heroic actions of certain editors. They boldly changed the name of Chelsea's article at a time when the vast majority of the media were still using her deadname. As you know Journalists often check Wikipedia before writing on a hot topic. Seeing that we were respecting her choice of name & pronoun, they began to follow suite. Traditionalists managed to get the name changed back, but the heroic editors had defended the change long enough for irreversible momentum to develop in worldwide media. The names and deeds of Morwen, Josh Gorand and Steven Gerald will never be forgotten. By the time the matter went to Arbcom, it was almost too easy to get a progressive ruling, as otherwise Wikipedia would have been to the right even of the Daily Mail and part of Fox. It will be a while before its feasible for us to get a similar result for intersex/non binary/gender fluid, but hopefully the time is not too far off. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page isn't about using "she" or "he". It's about pronouns that aren't in common usage like "xe" Argento Surfer (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the relationship that insisting on xe, etc., has to insisting on trademark over-stylization, or religious honorifics, or whatever. People seem to be missing that part.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Factually incorrect. The opening line is "It, SMcCandlish, hereby declares Its personal pronoun to be It, beginning with this sentence. It has come out as a trans-biological explicate manifestation of the Multiverse's implicate reality, made of the stuff of stars." That is making a direct parody of anyone that asks for the respectful use of gender neutral pronouns. It is transphobic and the essay is deliberate anti-LGBT+ misinformation, despite the author repeatedly and bizarrely claiming it is not. --Fæ (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which part is misinformation? That's the second time you've claimed it to be such. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A throwaway line about honorifics the end doesn't change the hundereds of lines before it that are about the pronouns people prefer to be refered by. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which Wikipedia does not use in its own voice. Shall we start using bigger fonts and bright colors, too?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do: MOS:GENDERID. We write In January 2017, she underwent sex reassignment surgery, not "In January 2007, she, as he prefers to be refered by, underwent sex reassignment surgery. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course we do, with actual words that our readers all recognize. We don't do it with neologisms (per MOS:NEO if you want to continue with the P&G links. :) This was never about "he", "she", and "they", obviously. It's about inventing something non-standard in the language and then insisting that everyone else has to go along with it. (I specifically went for a different kind alteration than tritely coming up with another new word, and instead bent usage of an existing one, just for variety's sake, and because humor requires exaggeration.) The central point is that WP doesn't write in bleeding-edge "post-English".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not against a marginalized group, it's against language-change activism claiming to speak for a marginalized group, and distorting the difference between "include what reliable sources tell us about this subject's pronouns preferences, including a neologism" and "use a neologism in Wikipedia's own voice or else you are being transphobic". The latter simply isn't true.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Just... stop talking about this subject. Please. This is really embarassing. -- a. get in the spam hole | get nosey 19:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
= "Stop defending yourself from our witch-hunt, no matter how badly we distort what the essay says and means, or how badly we character-assassinate you with pure fantasy about your views and motives." Declined. I have no issue with the Signpost piece being removed or hidden or whatever, but I won't stand by quietly while people make up nonsense lies about me. Who would?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Blade of the Northern Lights: As a person who went through similar situation (I was homeless for a month because of being gay four years ago) I can tell you I have a little bit of perspective, My reasoning is that someone who is experiencing such trauma is actually more vulnerable to jokes or being undermiend than you think. Ladsgroupoverleg 19:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And mine is that people should be allowed to express things as they see fit. No more, no less. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People have a legal right to be offensive, yes. But Wikipedia isn't a project in libertarian free speech dystopia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to misunderstand what Wikipedia discussion spaces are for. People should not plot criminal acts, promote hate crimes or use the site to harass minority groups. You may think that is a terrible burden that stops free expression, but it is the price of having a civil community on this project. There are plenty of other websites for your idealised free expression to happen, especially if you desperately need to publish transphobic crap because you think it is funny. --Fæ (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of Wikipedia is not in serious dispute. And the level of sanctimony from both your comments above further convinces me that letting the most sensitive people run the show is dangerous. I'm no libertarian, merely wanting to have different viewpoints allowed in projectspace is important to me. You are conflating fact with opinion, and I'm sure you know it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Modest Proposal punched up, not down. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like Swift, the writer of this essay punches in a different direction than a cursory reading would indicate. Jonathunder (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Authors don't get to decide or dictate how readers understand their works especially not when one of the primary topics of the work is a frequent target of harassment and hate (and much, much worse). ElKevbo (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do hasty judgments get to decide meaning or dictate it for more careful critics. Jonathunder (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaker's Corner in Auckland. Fine print reads "no offensive language allowed".
As you travel through life you will encounter attempts at humor that you find to be offensive. See [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc6QxD2_yQw ], which documents and complains about some very offensive material that is for some reason widely accepted as being OK. Go ahead and flame the "comic", boycott its sponsors/advertisers, etc., but do not attempt to censor. Besides being morally repugnant (who are you to tell me what I am allowed to see?) you are extremely likely to end up experiencing the Streisand effect up close and personal.
I have some advice for the censors. Don't read things that you find to be offensive. Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to The Signpost. Simply stop clicking on the links marked "editorial" or "humor". The fact that you have a choice about what you read means that if you encounter something that you are offended by you only have yourself to blame.
If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away its keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are more diplomatic ways to make the same point that would generate more light and less heat. This post was needlessly inflammatory and divisive. And "delete" because this is apparently the only way the community can show some form of disapproval for some of the most recent stories that have come out of the Signpost. --Rschen7754 07:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really feel the need to link me to NPA? Did you really think I might not know of that page? Perhaps you thougt that linking might make something actually become a personal attack when it was not before? No? Excellent. ——SerialNumber54129 14:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the link, as it appears to have offended you. See how easy that was? Bradv🍁 14:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely wrong, of course, but I couldn't agree with you more. --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course we can also ignore all rules and keep it but delete it. Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has never been a requirement to quote a list of policies for a vote to mean something. By default, it is reasonable to presume that someone voting delete with no policy links, agrees with the nomination and the policies quoted there. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a very good point. I think we've lost the art of dialogue amidst the alphabet soup of policy abbreviations. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, as Signpost is a newspaper, it should have accountability and own up to its mistakes. Deleting the article and the attached discussion would be counterproductive to those ends. A delist from the front page + WP:CBLANK should be sufficient, in my view. I'm satisfied with the current notice, which says: This column has been blanked because, in retrospect, it failed to make its intended point, while causing pain to other editors. The text is available in the page history. -- Ununseti (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta love how free speech seemingly only is important because "I want to hurt minorities and say slurs". So much for "I didn’t want to offend" by doubling down on every possible point of offence... --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated my reason, let's blank and keep it then. Even more, let's link it to this discussion, so then readers will see lapses in judgments of those who claim censorship, forgetting about WP:NOTFREESPEECH, and accuse people in canvassing – 1, 2. Even more, it shows that this entire incident is about the insistence that it is the responsibility of another person NOT to be offended as if the authors had no responsibility for their words. If it was owned ASAP, it wouldn't have been devolved into that. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It goes further and further. As I suspected, it continued with more accusations in canvassing, even though a lot of people came to know about this Signpost thing by other means. For example, there was a very protracted discussion in Wikimedia Discord right after publishing this Signpost article. It looks like the most rational decision now is to unblank this, and to leave it for posterity with edits and links to this drama, so the people will judge by themselves this coming of author against Fæ and others. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying editorial question that SMC says inspired him to write this rant (specifically, that we cannot accommodate the use of idiosyncratic pronouns in Wikipedia's voice) is one in which my own perspectives align with his; in fact, I've advanced the same argument on policy talk pages myself, more than once. But the way he went about expressing his frustration on the underlying editorial question via this essay was inelegant, unfunny, and ineffective. More to the point, it was certain from the start to eventually create exactly the confusion and resulting disruption which has now arise. And if SMC doesn't understand 1) why this particular effort here was doomed to create offense, 2) how he conflated two entirely separate issues by going the route of a sarcastic diatribe, or 3) (and most importantly) why the language he used would be perceived as being more or less identical to the same kind of bigoted arguments trans people face virtually every day of their lives, then frankly this is closest I've ever seen this particular editor (whom I consider an asset to the project generally) get to displaying a question of competency. This is not funny. It is not useful. It is certain to give offense and create disruption as long as it remains, even if that was not (as I trust was the case) the author's intention to do so. It needs to go. Snow let's rap 05:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, I am pretty sure they were just being too polite to mention it, but Wanda uses they/them pronouns according to their latest signature. I, too, was confused about that considering the name "Wanda," but you know.. their choice. ―MJL -Talk-☖ 01:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the heads up. Snow let's rap 05:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MJL. (For the curious, my username was inspired by the androgynous protagonist of Shadow of the Colossus, whose name, Wander, is sometimes transliterated as Wanda.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 06:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's my answer to the MfD question. In terms of moving forward, I received some exceptionally helpful advice from one of my mentors (a retired USMC officer):

When you feel really pissed off with the "idiots who just don't get it!", you have a choice: One, you can berate, hassle, ridicule, and turn others against the idiot; or, two, you can Seek first to understand than be understood. It sounds crazy--I thought it was--but damned if it doesn't make a big difference, even with asshole generals who are complete idiots. (Grinning as he said that last bit).

Yeah, I know that's Habit #5 from Covey's 7 Habits book, but he told me this when I was a young man (and before the book was published) and it has had a huge impact--especially when I feel rage about a horrible person or group and I'm thinking that this new-agey psychobabble bs is stupid.
A little personal background: I grew up in the 60s & 70s a terrified gay boy; one of my daughters has had the same girlfriend since adolescence and openly identifies as pansexual; and I have a beautiful, courageous trans niece.
My take on the Signpost column: I believe the Signpost article, although very unlikely meant to hurt others, is hurtful and displays a lack of empathy for transfolk and others marginalized, oppressed, and murdered for millenia. And, at the same time,there is an important argument to be made about how, when, and how rapidly we should alter fundamental components of our language(s). Making that point is what first threw the spotlight on Jordan Peterson (a more compassionate and thoughtful man than many people are willing to see) and led to more media coverage of "pronoun issue" as it is often referred to (inadequately).  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This articulates very nicely how I feel about this whole MfD and how I feel about how the relevant parties are responding to this drama. The Signpost article, although very unlikely meant to hurt others, is hurtful and displays a lack of empathy and Hiding from the intense disagreement serves no one; I agree. I very much doubt that SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS) intended to be hurtful with this piece of satire, but the doubling down in response to the not-insignificant amount of criticism doesn't seem like the best line of play in my view. -- Ununseti (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ununseti: Some people stand on principles (like not being subjected to nasty, false accusations) they consider more important than WP:WINNING. I don't plea-bargain. I've addressed your (and others') "doubling down" insinuations (among other more serious problems, not yours that I know of) under separate cover.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thank Markworthen for the thoughtful and calm response, and would say that even if it were favoring deletion. I don't disagree with your criticisms of the piece, and it's nice to not be accused of being a transphobe by someone presenting the critique.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, polemicalis very seldom commendable. Qwirkle (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As others have noted, this is an example of "punching down": satirising and mocking the weak and marginalised. Subsequent to the post I have read comments by the author and one or two of their strongest defenders that I consider even more offensive. Should they at some point come to their senses, then perhaps we should consider a courtesy deletion of the page and subsequent discussions. It is interesting that Don't be a dick explicitly mentions "show respect for others" and advises against "pointing out grammar issues". I wonder why?
I notice that a large number of people have cited WP:NOTCENSORED in defence of this Signpost article. WP:NOTCENSORED is contained in the Encyclopedic content sub section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Whereas WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:BATTLEGROUND are part of the same policy but in the Community subheading. Which, do we think, "Signpost" comes under? -- Colin°Talk 22:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also stands as a record, that the community can all read, of what the author and his supporters think is acceptable. As such it may prove useful in some future admin/arbcom discussion on those individuals. I see the Grand Inquisition is hard at work, congratulations! For the "record", I am not a "supporter" of anybody, be they the author of the offending piece, the Signpost editor who decided to give it some exposure, or the publisher who gave the final nod of approval. I am however an unapologetic supporter of WP:Old-fashioned Wikipedian values, two of them are being grossly violated all along this discussion: WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks. The repeated calls to pillory the author, to force an apology out of him, or to use this incident as a weapon in future proceedings, say a lot more about those who write them than about the imaginary bigotry of said author. For shame. — JFG talk 22:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JFG I don't appreciate that under my post you highlight "repeated calls to pillory the author, to force an apology out of him". I don't think I, nor indeed most people, have done either of those; only a few have. You may also want to consider that taking what someone said and inflaming it, is also a good example of bad behaviour: your "use this incident as a weapon in future proceedings" comment does that. I tried to word to word that comment neutrally. All of our edits here remain in the history and are useful for discussion should someone face a review of this at a later date. Access to what was actually written, rather than some of the hyperbolic descriptions of it, is essential to a fair and honest process. Would you rather that all we had left was "transphobic hate speech", which is the impression one might get from reading some of the comments here, or that we, as non-admins, could make up our minds for ourselves? If this was deleted such that only admins could see it, it would be an impediment to justice (both defence and prosecution). Not a "weapon" at all. Facts are neutral, opinions are not. Let's not delete the facts and keep only opinions. That's my point. -- Colin°Talk 14:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: I appreciate your thoughtful and measured response, and I admit that my message above was perhaps a bit excessive as it reflected my utter frustration at this whole discussion. The "calls to pillory the author and force an apology out of him" did not indeed emanate from you, but I have seen too many direct or veiled attacks on SMC's character, which in my opinion have gone way overboard. I totally agree that both the essay and the extensive discussion record should be preserved for future reference. I just wish the offended members of our community would not react as a lynching mob; that's the feeling I tried to convey, and I'm sorry that your previous message happened to be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back", as it prompted me to express my global distaste for allegations of hate speech liberally dispensed in this thread. — JFG talk 02:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forced "apologies" are bogus anyway. They're a form of theatre from public relations, and are not actual apologies, but a type of public shaming. WP doesn't do that; if the community considers someone to have transgressed against our policies and to not have learned from it, we institute a block or ban.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, of course presuming Barbara (WVS) is okay with her apology being republished for this purpose. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Qzekrom:, The Signpost didn't retract the piece. Floquenbeam blanked the page. We've yet to hear from the editor in chief, Bri who !voted Keep here, on the matter of retraction. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tally[edit]

I know that only counting votes is bad, but guidelines around closing discussions does recommend that some weight is to be given towards the relative numbers. I voted and commented above, so I won't close, but I had some time to kill, so I thought I would help the actual closer by doing some quick tallies. This discussion has been open 7 days, and generated more text than any MFD I can remember, so it clearly has the input of a larger portion of the community than most of these kinds of discussions. The !votes above broke down into 5 basic types: Keep outright, Keep but blank or replace with apology/retraction, Blank or Delete (either), Delete outright, and Miscellaneous (where the intent of the !voter is unclear, or where they were clearly neutral). I didn't count miscellaneous votes in the tally, but here is my count for the other categories:

I won't make further comment on this, but the future closer of this discussion may find these numbers useful in their assessment. --Jayron32 15:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion (refactored)[edit]

And since I'm making this header, I'll say that the above has only strengthened my view. Much of the above would be perfect for illustrating the definition of jeremiad. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’d do pretty good for signal response, too, and that’s the real problem. When people’s brains stop working when they see certain words, trouble will follow, it’s only a question of how soon. Qwirkle (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that your comment above is not another !vote but it still seems pretty shitty for you to take another opportunity to restate your own opinion here. ElKevbo (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Autistic screeching Never mind, that's not a protected class on Wikipedia Someone eventually had to, and I figure the closer of this mess can appropriately weigh my comments. Besides, if a group of fundie Christians on Wikipedia claimed to be "offended" at... something... at the Signpost, I'm sure you'd support deletion of the "offensive" comment. Actually, I don't at all, I think there's enough cognitive dissonance that the majority of the community would be pissing their pants laughing that they "offended" the right people. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm as hardcore and anti-religion as it gets in my personal life, but if I saw a "humour" piece published in the Signpost that started with "I worship dead zombie jews, look at me I wear silly hats, let's rape some virgins lololololol", I'd be with the Christians asking for a retraction. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Headbomb's remark, with a caveat. That kind of mockery is utterly inappropriate on Wikipedia. At least in the hypothetical, the mockery is directed at a dominant ideology. In this case, the mockery is directed against one of the weakest and most marginalized and most persecuted groups in society worldwide. There is nothing more contemptible than punching down. Nothing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I'll keep my Lenny Bruce. And the people this is actually commenting on, those who would force all kinds of neologisms onto Wikipedia, are all too often not the marginalized ones themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a total phallus, here, but the diff provided retracts any allegation that those responsible for the essay are transphobic; I don't see where it suggests that the piece itself is not transphobic. Indeed, I would humbly submit that SMcCandlish's blunt denial of the innocuous posthumanist insight that texts, like other artefacts, can have impacts and affordances that are beyond the intentions of their creators - and that can be most elegantly discussed by attributing agency to the nonhuman - is a large part of how we have all arrived at the current drama. I read the piece carefully, and its opening reads as much as a satire directed at voluntary choices among "he, she and they" as it does an attack on neologisms, if not more so. Indeed, if the author is unaware that the first reaction of many actual transphobes when asked to "they" someone is to substitute "it" instead - well, that is a piece of information that an effective ironist in this particular discursive space ought to have known. Newimpartial (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Signpost a newspaper or only some internal stuff?[edit]

The Wikipedia article The Signpost describes the said Signpost as a newspaper for real, with a "newspaper" infobox, etc. etc. If this is true, then WP:Miscellany_for_deletion has nothing to say about this newspaper, the applicable rules being the laws about the publishing business. On the contrary, if the said Signpost is under the rule of WP:Miscellany_for_deletion, then it is not a newspaper and the WP article is only a pile of pompous assertions, that should be corrected. Pldx1 (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: It doesn't matter, because the Signpost is hosted on the English Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not it is considered a newspaper. The Wikimedia Foundation ultimately has control over its own servers; and presumably, since the English Wikipedia community is mostly self-governed, the Signpost may be subject to the community's policies and guidelines by virtue of being part of the English Wikipedia. Jc86035 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost's well-sourced article defines it as a newspaper in the first sentence. Newspapers are almost always editorially independent of their umbrella ownership, and this seems further proof that the first amendment principles should apply. Overlapping with WP:CENSOR, there doesn't seem any other way to close this than keep, and maybe at that point the author will think about withdrawing the page, which he has indicated he may do. But no blame, shame, or finger pointing should be shown anyone here, everyone seems to be acting in good faith. The author has described his viewpoint very well, and reading the article once again from that viewpoint makes sense. Pointofviewist comments on all sides seem heartfelt, as they should, but another point of view sees the first amendment as real which means, as mentioned above, that Signpost articles can't be subject to Wikipedia's deletion process. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia has no "higher court" for most issues, arguments of illegitimacy are never successful unless a majority are swayed by them. No closer is going to close against the numbers on the basis of this argument. I think it's unfortunate that under our system all editors are simultaneously advocates and judges (see conflict of interest), but it is what it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is almost no issue at Wikipedia ever for which "there is no other way to close this" can be played as a trump card designed to short circuit discussion. In the case of this discussion, we have two completely valid and completely policy-based positions which are under discussion, and we'll see which way consensus goes. In the case of this discussion, those two policy-based positions center around WP:CENSOR and related policies on one side and WMF:Non-discrimination policy on the other. What people need to come to terms with is whether it is more important that out language is inclusive and non-discriminatory or whether our language is free and open. There is a natural tension there, and neither policy "wins". There is a continuum here, and people have to decide where in the great broad middle between "we should allow all speech, including hurtful, bigoted, and harassing speech" and "we should only allow a set list of things to be said, and should delete anything not on that list". It isn't helpful to characterize the other position (than one's own) as being only at one of those extremes. Instead, people here are trying to find where, in the nuanced tension between allowing all people to feel welcome and allowing all people to express themselves without fear of reprisal. Saying "this can only go one way, because I found this one policy here" ignores all of the other policies in tension with that one. There are no trump cards at Wikipedia. There is only discussion and consensus building. --Jayron32 19:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all a closer has to do is read The Signpost article, determine if Wikipedia recognizes it as a notable on-line newspaper, then apply first amendment principles to it and find that no The Signpost article can be deleted under "Misc. for deletion" parameters. That and/or take WP:CENSOR at its word. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One could just as easily say "all the closer had to do is...take WMF:Non-discrimination policy at its word". Furthermore, your lack of understanding of what the First Amendment to the U.S. Consitution means seriously undermines your argument here. It doesn't mean that an organization is forced to publish all writing submitted to it. It only means that the government cannot stop said organization from publishing that information if they choose to. In this case, it doesn't require that editorial decisions at Wikipedia cannot be made ever; that Wikipedia is bound to publish every proposed bit of writing that comes its way. We (the community writ large) are the editorial decision makers for what goes on here at the Wikipedia, and we're allowed (as a community) to decide whether we should or should not allow some writing here. The First Amendment has nothing to do with that. Editorial decisions by organizations such as Wikipedia have nothing at all to do with the First Amendment. Invoking it here doesn't help your position, it undermines it because it shows you don't know what you're talking about. Making statements that cast doubts as to your own competence undermines any potentially valid points you may have to make. --Jayron32 19:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that virtually all editors will deem more important the policy that supports their position, which arises from personal viewpoints independent from policy. We decide what we want, and then we go find policy to support it, rather than the reverse. And policy is sufficiently rich to support A or !A for virtually any proposition. Way meta of course, but let me know when there is any community will to confront these foundational issues and I'll go there. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether the positions define the policies, or the policies define the positions, the tension is real, and the discussion and consensus building is vital, towards reaching a community decision.--Jayron32 20:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Democratic voting with a lot of policy window dressing per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either the process is legitimate (even with its flaws) and you participate in it, or it isn't and you propose a different process that would be legitimate and let's all do that. If you're not interested in doing either, in what way are you being useful?--Jayron32 21:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I put out feelers from time to time (say twice a year), and there is never any traction at all. There is a strong tendency to defend status quo for even the most trivial issue, let alone something huge like this. I know when such a proposal would be a waste of my time. That doesn't mean I zip it 100% of the time, and there's just a chance that I might get a few people to think on such things in their sleep. That would be more "useful" than helping decide whether a humor page stays or goes, in my view. Anyway, I have "participated in it". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --Jayron32 21:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost is either a newspaper or it isn't. I'm going by its Wikipedia page that calls it an online newspaper. In that case, at least in the U.S., the editors have the right to decide what is printed or not printed in their publication. We, as Wikipedia editors, can advise but should we have the power to delete? That is what I mean by the first amendment right to free press, and, as I've said elsewhere, if Freedom of the Press doesn't apply here legally it at least applies here in spirit. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly legitimate position to claim that the Signpost should be treated as a safe space to write provocative things, and then to come up with reasons why that should be so. The US Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with it, at all. Nothing. Stop going down that road, and find other ways to defend your position. Your position is defensible, just not by invoking that.--Jayron32 20:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The closer isn't the United States Congress, nor are their poweres granted by Congress, so the First Admendment says absolutely nothing about whether the closer can accurately judge whether or not the Wikipedia community feels that certain content is appropriate to host or not. There is no automatic right to publication granted by the Bill of Rights just because something is considered a newspaper. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I partly come from a journalistic background, and in journalism the publisher isn't responsible for the contents of the newspaper, the named editors of the publication decide what is or is not included. If The Signpost is to remain a reputable online newspaper it cannot be censored by this community, which adheres to different rules than traditional newspaper independence. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the Signpost is a "reputable online newspaper"--I'm skeptical of that claim to say the least, but I digress--such that isn't subject to Wikipedia policy, then Wikipedia has no obligation, and certainly no First Amendment obligation, to host the publication on its own server space. The Signpost is free to publish its content by printing it out and distributing it on paper if it wishes, but while it's published on Wikipedia's server space, it'll need to play by Wikipedia's rules. Deleting the Signpost page isn't violating its First Amendment right to free press for exactly the same reason that deleting someone's user page doesn't violate their First Amendment right to free speech. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Raising your point does not need a subtitle. The nomination includes WP:Harassment, WMF:Non-discrimination policy and WMF:Terms of Use, all apply to Signpost pages and Signpost contributors without exception. --Fæ (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
note: I moved the section here from intermingled among !votes. Having discussions intermingled with the votes was making the thread unreadable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no legal free-speech argument to be made here. Even an in-principle one for freedom-of-press is rather weak, since this is a house organ. However, outright deletion is a poor idea because Signpost is a publication, and this would tear out a page of it, and make all the debate about it meaningless for later editors. Those convinced that Signpost should not have run this (I lean toward agreement with them, despite having written this as a userspace essay) are doing their viewpoint a major disservice by demanding actual deletion. Their point is that this shouldn't have happened and this should not happen again, but no one later will have any idea what "this" refers to. Collapse-boxing it, or maybe blanking it so it can only be read in page history, is a much more sensible solution, assuming a consensus is even reached to go that far. Someone else noted above that a from a policy-analysis viewpoint, keep is the leading option, because most of the deletion rationales are invalid WP:IDONTLIKEIT stuff. E.g., WP:POLEMIC and the entire section that contains it only pertains to material "unrelated to Wikipedia", which obviously does not describe a piece (even a very silly one) about writing Wikipedia. Blanking it wouldn't be deletion, so the policy threshold for going that route is much lower.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. The reason I thought it was relevant to this discussion is that folks have argued that the editors of the Signpost have editorial independence and that it is up to them to retract or blank the page as they see fit, essentially making them exempt from the MfD process. This seems far outside of the consensus-based editing norms that apply to all pages on the project. –dlthewave ☎ 03:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is an MfD allowed to override our WP:NOTCENSORED policy?[edit]

I just re-read Wikipedia:Deletion policy again, compared it with the reasons given for deletion above, and I can't find the reasons given above anywhere in the deletion policy. I can however, find the above reasons for deletion mentioned in WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored:

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."

I can also find them in Wikipedia:Offensive material:

"Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers."

If I remember correctly we had a lot of votes in favor of deleting all images of Mohamed, and many of the arguments in favor of deletion in that case resemble the arguments above. In that case, our policy on censorship triumphed the fact that multiple editors were deeply offended. And rightly so. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lol. How often vandals do make this argument? "Deleting my userpage advertising my business and/or beef with another editor is censorship!!1", "undoing my edit saying this senator supports baby-killers is censorship!!1", "deleting my article on this non-notable activist I like is censorship!!1"... -sche (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see accusations of "canvassing" being thrown around, so I will say that I noticed this discussion thanks to Guy Macon starting a section about it on his own talk page, which I had watchlisted for reasons I have entirely forgotten. I am not saying that is canvassing, but if people are arguing that posting notices is canvassing, well, there's a data point for you: I came here because of a notice a "keeper" posted. (And then, probably to his dismay, proceeded to find his argument specious.) -sche (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The mainspace is WP:NOTCENSORED, to the extent that we describe topics in an encyclopedic manner, regardless of people's personal sensitivities. Wikipedia will, for example, include quotes presenting uncensored hate speech, racism, vulgarities and the like, as well as various non-mainstream viewpoints. It does, however, present those things in an encyclopedic manner.
Wikipedia, however, is very much censored in the sense of WP:NOTFREESPEECH, including personal attacks, attacks on a community, libel, hate speech, defamation, vandalism, patently offensive material, and the like. This WP:NOTFREESPEECH policy applies to be in mainspace and in metaspace to anything that the Wikipedia community judges is not in the best interest of the community.
The Signpost is the newspaper of the community, on the community's behalf. This does not mean that writers and contributors are prohibited from expressing viewpoints that are contrary to the majority's. If someone had an essay disagreeing with something like say Wikipedia:Systemic bias, even a 'humourous' one that mocked certain stereotypes about professors in the Western world//Eastern world, there would be no outcry. However, the Wikipedia community would be well within its rights to censor the Signpost if that essay called for the violent overthrow of Western universities, or painted medical editors as being vultures in the pockets of big pharma that edits Wikipedia to maximize children suffering in order to increase the personal profit they stand to make treating sick children, in violation of the Hippocratic oath many of them took.
Here The Signpost, and I'm going to say out of profound ignorance more than malice, published a piece that is patently offensive and that attacked and marginalized a group of people that is one of the most oppressed minorities in the world. This clearly legally defensible as free speech, and no one is calling for the jailing of Signpost authors and editors. It might be even defensible as the misguided views of a lone editor deep in his personal userspace. But this is completely indefensible as something that is acceptable to publish in The Signpost, whose purpose is to
  1. ... to inform the community about events that affect and are affected by the Wikimedia movement
  2. ... a wish to entertain ... [with] objectivity as would be appropriate for an independent media organization elsewhere
  3. ... to present ideas, publish community research, and draw attention to a cause before both the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia movement more broadly
This piece isn't defensible under #1 and #3, and the response from the community makes it clear it has massively failed under #2. If the Signpost isn't willing to retract the piece, only one option remains to Wikipedians: deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "patently offensive" to you and indefensible to you. Clearly that view is far from universal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to break it to you, but it does not need to be universal. It does not work that way. Thanks for spitting on a lot of editors. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for whether something is defensible isn't whether or not some people fail to be offended. Sex slavers have no qualms about selling humans. Nazis had their supporters. That doesn't mean sex trafficking or Nazism are defensible things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...aaaand we have a Godwin. Plus, typing some words on a website is not at all "spitting on" anyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Invoking Godwin's law does not absolve you from criticism. You need to own it. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard and owned it, and I don't find the argument convincing. That's all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm going to drop a hint, using your own words: it is not convincing to you. That's all. We can end here. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except that, unlike the above, I actually spoke for me; I claimed to speak for no one other than me, and substituted no objective criteria for my personal judgment. Therein lies the distinction. I, too, will happily move along. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, you are missing a key point here. In saying «You mean "patently offensive" to you and indefensible to you» you spoke for someone else. Here's a big distinction, that resulted in a lapse of judgment. So there's finally a moment where we can move along. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I won't bother unpacking this further. In the end, this particular page isn't all that huge a deal to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "own it": Accepting criticism does not equate to assenting to censorship; they're entirely unrelated concepts. A strong argument can be made that this should not be deleted, because doing so would hide the controversy and make all this commentary meaningless. If consensus ends up being that Signpost should not have run this piece, it will never be clear to anyone but today's participants on this page what the issue was – what decision was reached, or why. It would thus be a self-defeating action.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The censorship part was strongly debunked before, it's unconstructive to cling to it. However, the argument can be indeed be made for not deleting, because then it does not hide your mistake, and it will remain for anyone who will find it in the future. It will show your exact lapse in judgment. In fact, it may be preferable for those who «chose to take offense via their own willful misinterpretations of something that says nothing like what they claim it says». You may find labelling users like that very counterproductive for you. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The legal (First Amendment, Bill of Rights) argument has been debunked, but the NOTCENSORED one has not, because this doesn't qualify under NOTFREESPEECH, for reasons we've already been over in detail. However, the rest of what you say (other than your blame-ish language) is what I've been arguing myself (most explicitly here). PS: I find nothing even faintly counterproductive in calling out bad-faith-assumptive mislabeling of me as a transphobe for what it is, and those exercising critical thinking on this page agree with me on that. You mistake me for someone with a vested interest in the page under discussion remaining visible, and thus trying to WP:WIN. I'm not; the page should probably not be visible, but it shouldn't be totally deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding '"patently offensive" to you and indefensible to you': Yep. These policies can't be triggered because a directly canvassed cluster of editors who all share the same mindset are choosing to take offense via their own willful misinterpretations of something that says nothing like what they claim it says. That qualifies as neither patently offensive nor indefensible, just perhaps "apparently likely to trigger a particular camp of editors into making false claims about some else's motivations for writing something they would have phrased differently".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition here isn't because anyone was canvassed, but because the piece is offensive transphobic garbage that should never have been published. That may not have been your intent to hurt people, but that's what happened. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what someone would say if they were canvassed at WT:LGBT with a claim that the material was offensive transphobic garbage. It's no accident that a large number of delete respondents are regulars at that page and that (as far as I can tell so far) zero of the keep respondents are, other than a handful approaching it from a technicality perspective (e.g. to blank or collapse it). I'll repeat that I really don't care about the ultimate disposition of this Signpost page, other than literally deleting it will blow a hole in the consensus record. I'm fine with it being collapse-boxed or something. But I'm not going to pretend the canvassing didn't happen and didn't have an overwhelming effect (see the reversed keep/delete ratio at the userspace MfD, which was not canvassed) just because you're in a ranty-pants mood and insist on assuming bad faith. Insisting on what a terrible person I am and what a terrible thing I've done is not going to make me change my mind and kneel before you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Contributors to Wikiproject LGBT studies can think for themselves, they are not "sheeple".[8] The notification of this MfD is of direct interest to anyone editing LGBT topics. The notification was no more than what can be read in the nomination statement. It was not canvassing. It was not intended to be canvasing. It was a notice board notification on a noticeboard precisely focused on this topic.
Wikiproject LGBT studies is a Wikiproject for people with a topic interest. Not a lobby group. Not a political party. Please avoid using rhetoric which might be read as attempting to make Wikiproject LGBT studies contributors unhappy to write here. They are welcome here as they are welcome everywhere else on Wikipedia to express their views.
Civil free speech should be encouraged, most people here will probably agree. --Fæ (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The piece may be defensible under #3, as it expresses an opinion on the use of nonstandard gender neutral pronouns as a matter of writing style. Leugen9001 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. It didn't attack and marginalize a group of people. It made fun of language activism claiming to speak for that group. And the main person complaining clearly does not feel either attacked and marginalized. They appear to be in a fighting mood, and are determined to win at any cost. as evidenced by the canvassing and trying to get the author fired from a techical position on another project. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, what? I made a comment earlier, which i think was misinterpreted, about a piece of satire which some are arguing has been misinterpreted, so i want to be very clear i do not misinterpret what i just read: Guy Macon, can you please confirm my understanding that Fæ is attempting to have  SMcCandlish removed from a position? And give me a diff or a place to look to understand this? Because, if i have not misinterpreted, that would truly be something to scream and shout about. If i am wrong, then i apologise, and wish to be corrected immediately. Happy days, LindsayHello 08:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, here are the links. [9],[10] Make a note of them; we will no doubt be seeing them again when this dumpster fire hits Arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, "author fired from a techical position" is false. SMcCandlish is using the brand of the WMF by calling themselves a "WMF Technical Ambassador". It is not a post, it is a self selected volunteer title, which in the light of the fact that the WMF have been forced to block the regular announcement of Signpost, stating "We received multiple reports of concerns related to potentially harmful content in the February 2019 edition of the Signpost", it seems entirely sensible to ensure SMcCandlish stops promoting themselves using the WMF brand or wearing a WMF hat. This is off topic for this MfD, should anyone wish to discuss it, they should be talking to the WMF as this is an issue of good governance by the WMF and whether they should allow SMcCandlish to continue calling themselves a WMF branded unpaid volunteer. --Fæ (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You just making up more off-topic stuff, as yet another hand-wave. The tech ambassador role is not an official position of any kind, it's simply offering to help editors understand MediaWiki better, and where its development is heading; it's exactly the same thing as participating in a wikiproject: you add yourself to a list of participants. It has no connection to WMF acknowledging that someone has made allegations relating to the Signpost article (which means nothing other than exactly what it says). I've done nothing self-promotional on WP; if you think otherwise, go open an ANI case about WP:COI; otherwise stop engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Factcheck: SMcCandlish includes a "CV" on their user page which lists roles, past work and publications where they have been mentioned. "I've done nothing self-promotional on WP" is not demonstrated by these facts. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can read the following [call for a witch hunt]. According to Fae, a Tech Ambassador has not to be selected upon tech skills. A Wikipedia Visiting Corn Flakes Eater has not to be selected upon ability to read and interpret what sources are saying. Plural_they are to be selected upon their worship of what Fae is presenting as politically correct. Why not requiring a prior hearing by Fae Fae-self ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove your "jokes" about my preferred pronoun. They are unwelcome and hostile. --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Letting other editors know your background, experience, interests, etc., is what user pages are for. That doesn't constitute self-promotion or CoI, and you know it. The primary purpose of it is avoidance of CoI; I self-disclose about this quite explicitly. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen someone wikilawyer so hard (or so poorly) in my entire time here. An old term for this kind of behavior (I doubt it's current lingo these days) is "thrashing".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Factual corrections when someone is misleading a discussion with untruths is not wikilawyering. Stick to demonstrable truth please. --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely thrashing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:NOTCENSORED should only apply to mainspace. Qzekrom (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the wording of WP:NOTCENSORED pretty much states that it is applies to mainspace (article namespace), links, and images. Given that there are other policies and guidelines that contradict it for other spaces I don't see it applying to project space. PaleAqua (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More to a critical point, whatever WP:NOTCENSORED expressly does say, we also have WP:NOTFREESPEECH, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and numerous other policy touchstones that make it clear that there are substantial limitations on your expression of personal opinion that you have to agree to accept if you want to participate on this project, which effort requires that you be a part of this community--or at a minimum not be noxious to said community and disruptive of the project's processes and priorities. These limitations include the exclusion of polemics and of making any kind of comment (whether from principle or for humor or whatever charming combination the author thinks it is) that is more likely to inflame than to serve a productive purpose in creating the encyclopedia and it's auxiliary services.
So, putting to the side for the moment the extent that someone feels that SMcCandlish breached that threshold (or did not), the first-order presumption that WP:NOTCENSORED, standing alone, presents a significant argument for the proposition that someone's conduct cannot violate community expectations is, clearly, a completely erroneous conclusion, and anyone predicating their argument primarily upon that piece of policy language as the reason why a given bit of conduct is not WP:Disruptive needs to re-examine their arguments for some other predicate authority as to what is expected under policy and from this community. Snow let's rap 09:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored in the sense that we do not select encyclopedic topics for deletion just because they may be offensive to some readers, but that's the limit. NOTCENSORED is not an inclusion criterion, either. We have encyclopedic discussions on pornography, sodomy, Pastafarianism, Nazism, and a litany of other topics which we would expect some readers to find offensive, but we publish anyway because we're making an encyclopedia, a database of knowledge, not a children's book or a church bulletin. Fortunately we also have Wikipedia:Offensive material, which in part says that potentially offensive material has to have some encyclopedic purpose - we don't include offensive material just for the sake of offending. To the extent that any of this can be applied to non-article space (none of these guidelines are intended to be): generally, material hosted in project space and userspaces is expected to be works in the interest of building the encyclopedia (WP:ESSAY covers this). It's not automatically valid because of anti-censorship, nor is it automatically invalid because it's offensive. Which is to say I agree with Snow, the NOTCENSORED argument is, taken on its own, a poor argument to use in this discussion, and certainly not a justification for closing it on procedural grounds. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep all discussion here please[edit]
Wikipedia overboard[edit]

I for one am grossly offended by the blanking of the essay. While we're at it, shouldn't we blank the comments on that page, as well? especially the ones that offend each other? And while we're at it, why don't we just blank the whole encyclopedia, since just about every page contains something that offends someone. I vote we blank this page, because every other post offends every other poster. I would laugh my bells off if people here hadn't made me cry so muckin futch! buncha freekin' Drama Kweens! (no offense) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You insufferably insensitive Neanderthal. For shame. (Irony, for those who haven't been paying attention.) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts, Mandruss. However, I was not being ironic and seeking an irony reply. I am seriously grossly offended, because this is not what Wikipedia is about. I am well aware of the overuse of the term "censorship"; however, this is a classic case of it. This is a news medium being subjected to gross censorship in the classic sense. And as a citizen of the world and a proven defender of freedom in it, I see "red" in every delete !vote and rationale. The forefathers of many countries are turning over in their graves. And if that ain't enough Drama Kweening for ya, try this: SMcCandlish ought to be worshiped as a god for Its (It's?) contributions (or at the very least, It should be venerated and canonized a saint of the Universe)! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its. "It's" is a contraction of "it is" and your grave offense to my grammarian intolerance is grounds for whippin' around the square a dozen times before driving you off to a nearby disreputable colony, Rhode Island perhaps (anyone taking offense at that has no sense of The Crucible history). – Athaenara ✉ 09:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brings to mind the ongoing FEAR of lemurs leapers lepers and their colonies. (my spelling ain't for crap these daze) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Liberalism is about tolerance. Tolerance sense 2a: "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own". It says nothing about avoiding offending people with humor, whether it tickles our personal funny bones or not. The position of most of the Deleters here is the opposite of tolerance. The way to fight intolerance is not with more intolerance—that just ensures that the world will remain locked in an embrace of intolerance, becoming more and more polarized with little room for true communication and understanding. I oppose any furtherance of that at this encyclopedia.
Better? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody could've said it "better". The deletionists should turn their red faces around and get the duck out of Fodge (in my humble, tolerant opinion). Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  18:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page in question is not news, and publishing it as a subpage of a "news medium" does not change that fact. It is an WP:ESSAY, and on Wikipedia, problematic essays are often deleted or userfied. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's news to me and to a lot of people on Wikipedia! Advocates of the published essay being censored in any way should be whale-whipped! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  22:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When we add any user to our watchlist this is what comes up: "User:Anyuser and its talk page have been added to your watchlist". Its talk page! Where is the outrage at this coding? What does this say about each and every user on Wikipedia? Who's on first? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Until now, most people wouldn't have given "it" a second glance, but we are all sensitive to pronouns and other "isit an it? or isit a who?" type things, and in this case a "user" is an "it". Reminds me of one of my pet petty issues with a commonly quoted biblical prayer. When most people say their memorized "Lord's Prayer", they begin, "Our father, who art in heaven...", and that is used even at confirmations and crownings of world leaders. In the King James version of the bible, the "Lord's Prayer" begins, "Our father, which art in heaven...", and "which" implies that "father" is an "it" rather than a "who". Would people prefer to see their heavenly father as a "who" rather than as an "it"? even to the point of misquoting their "written by men, inspired by God" sacred text? Seems so, don't it. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: "It" refers to the user's page, not the user themselves. Themself? Him or herself? -- Ununseti (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that a logical point of view. But from another point of view, "its" refers to the user name. Even though the author of the code will probably claim that your point of view "is" correct, should we assume good faith, or should we take the stern assertion that they held a darker, mockingly attended, and hidden-in-plain-sight point-of-view? Make of it what you will, but in some absurd universe that coder who called all users "It" is being made to resign from a major unpaid Wikimedia Foundation project (which was much better off with them than without them), apologize in numerous locations, and drop and give me 20. Being a pointofviewist is easy, just have to forget that everyone else exists. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that in certain situations on WP, the concept of AGF is allowed to dramatically degenerate, places like RfA and situations like this one in which we find ourselves. Just glancing at the nom's nom and comparing with the disclaimer "JOKE ALERT" box at the end of the blanked page and on Mac's talk page make it clear that there is little or no AGF'n 'round here! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  20:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness Floq cannot please everyone, Personally I would've preferred blanking after the MFD (if it's closed as keep) but I can see why it was done. –Davey2010Talk 17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make me any less grossly offended by it, now or at any time. Point is: Where does it stop? What's next? If this senseless censorship is allowed to continue, then what else will the deletionists delete in the very near future? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a related problem with it. The editor who did the blanking had recently made several edits showing that he had a particular opinion about the content. He should have asked someone uninvolved to do the blanking. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, it's perfectly reasonable to hide possibly problematic content pending the outcome of a discussion or decision-making process. This regularly happens over on WP:COPYPROB. -- Ununseti (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ununseti, that may be true, but it does make me wonder how many people are making informed votes. The brief moment there the draft was oversighted (I believe that was the case), I can't image people really fully understood what the hub-ub was about. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―MJL -Talk-☖ 05:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MJL That's a fair point. When I first got here, I went into the article's revision history to see the content in question, but I guess not all people will do that. The content was hidden about a day after this MfD started, though. Should Fæ perhaps add a link at the top of this MfD to a revision where the content is visible? -- Ununseti (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ununseti, someone had tried that, but it got removed. This seems pretty touchy for people. ―MJL -Talk-☖ 06:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A generalized response to several participants here, their "double down" stuff, and their off-site vindictiveness: Mischaracterizing my calm and reasoned defense against this firehose of aspersion-casting as "doubling down" is disingenuous, especially given what I've said at User talk:SMcCandlish#Pronouns about accepting responsibility for this, and my support of blanking the Signpost piece.

It's just an outright falsehood with regard to 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. (Fortunately, I'm a private contractor and secretive about my clients, so none of this il-liberal deadagenting behavior can apply to me; none of you can get me fired from anywhere by pursuing off-site channels.) This whole gaggle of vengeance seekers should be ashamed; you're doing grievous harm to WP as an open venue. "Only like-minded thinkers need apply, and you'll be really, really sorry if you're not one of Us."
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You're doing grievous harm to WP as an open venue" says the person who wrote this trans-hating garbage and tried to pass it off as a joke. People can see your "I'm sorry you were offended" song and dance for what it is: continuing to shirk any responsibility for your significant role in all of this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... always thought of you as someone with a cool head and good judgement. No worries, since people are always surprising me at some time or another. Kind of disappointed that you would stray from the subject at hand into a nonsensical diatribe that belongs nowhere but maybe perhaps on a user's talk page. People see each other through strange tinted glass sometimes. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A community response[edit]

Regardless of how you voted or how you feel about the article: if you'd like to affirm that Wikipedia should be an inclusive place, where LGBT members are welcomed and everyone is respected, I have a friendly suggestion.

1. Go to Special:Preferences

2. Add your preferred pronouns to your signature. (he/him, she/her, they/them, etc.)

You don't have to be transgender to do this - it would be very helpful for cis folks to join in as well. (If you're planning to join in with a spicy pronoun joke though, do us all a favor and don't.)

On top of being inclusive and affirming it would also be just plain practical. I can't tell you the number of times I've wanted to use a pronoun to refer to someone in a talk page only to realize I didn't know which one to use. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 11:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the post was making fun of suicide. It wasn't even funny. It was like 40 uses of the word "it" on 12 half sentence lines, and a picture with text mocking suicide. The complaints are totally valid, even if you are against pronouns. ~ R.T.G 14:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made it clear in a post elsewhere in this thread that I thought the piece was tin-eared and unfunny. EEng 14:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, we have the gender magic words: ((gender:MJL|he/him|she/her|they/them)) for a reason. ―MJL -Talk-☖ 14:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much less am I going to waste my time with those either. We've spent decades helping people understand that gender shouldn't be an issue, and now suddenly we're supposed to be pointedly aware of it at all times and even use magic words to robotically reflect back some preference setting. It's ridiculous. EEng 14:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and by the way that contradiction occurs in other areas of discrimination as well. "Be X-blind. We are X3 and we need special protection and treatment." For me, that's pretty much the crux of this whole thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no contradiction in saying, "We strive to be X-blind" and also saying "... but nonetheless sometimes X-status does gum up the works, so it's appropriate at times to recognize and take stock of X-status and attend to it where things can be remedied somehow" – but that's different from constantly forcing X-status to the forefront all the time. EEng 16:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Affirmative-action rules are neither valid remedies nor effective ones—they are lipstick on pigs. Nor is suppression of speech that can be misconstrued as anti-X3 or X3-insensitive. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with what your blanket statement about remedies but that's not the question here. EEng 17:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I realize I may have set myself up as a target. If you must shoot at me, all I can say is what one of the guys in my family tree is purported to have said: "my only regret is that I have not more lives than one to offer". – Athaenara ✉ 14:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Athaenara, that gets you an invite to WikiProject Connecticut. ―MJL -Talk-☖ 14:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, from a CT resident who's braved the wilds of Coventry to visit his home. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness! Two Ardrey quotes on your  It  User page! As an aside, African Genesis was, for a time, my new Bible, beginning with my service in Ethiopia as a PCV. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Qzekrom: I got an unexpected laugh out of this, too. I saw your post, tried it out on my own username, saw it worked, thought, cool!, went out for a few hours, came back, read more discussion, realized that a different sort of person will have tried it out on lots of other editors' usernames. Humor! Thanks! – Athaenara ✉ 22:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone else, just be mindful and respectful. Nobody's going to stand here (for long, anyway) and order you that you must address gender in this particular prescribed way, it just doesn't work that way. Whether you want to use masculine default, or generic he, or singular they, or just call everyone "Biff", we'll find a way to get along. None of us can be reasonably expected to always proactively search out a user's preference, but if someone has gone to the effort of asking you to respect their genuine pronoun preferences, it's a big deal to them even if it's not to you, and there really isn't a non-asshole way to decline. On the other end, if someone has misgendered you, don't assume it's in malice: the overwhelming majority of editors here are male and more likely to be genuinely uninformed about this topic. Assume good faith: it's a policy. Now, if someone is deliberately misgendering you, then it's a good idea to find an administrator in this category, or see the shamefully weak instructions at WP:DWH. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector: If someone doesn't feel comfortable declaring their pronoun preferences they absolutely should not feel pressured to do so. :) But this actually ties into why I want to encourage cisgender folks, in particular, to declare their preferred pronouns. As things are now, a trans person might feel trapped between wanting to let folks know their preferences, but not wanting to out themselves or feel like they're making a fuss. That's why it would be helpful if pronoun declarations became common among not just trans folks, but cis folks as well. This is a POV I've heard repeated several times in my circles. So that's why I say: for anyone who feels comfortable doing so, go ahead and add a brief note about your pronouns to your Wiki user page, your Wiki signature, your email signature, your Twitter profile, and/or your nametag, etc. :) (The most common way to format this is: "he/him", "she/her", "they/them", etc. Why this specific "subject pronoun/object pronoun" format? I don't know, but perhaps because it can be efficient. There are some contexts where you wouldn't want to write a full sentence like "my preferred pronouns are..." and you can stick the phrase "she/her" onto, say, a Twitter bio on its own and your meaning will be pretty clear.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WanderingWanda, I appreciate your viewpoint on this issue. Other users might be interested in pronoun.is, a website with a database of personal pronoun examples. If I understand how the devs intend it to be used, "this comment is written by Ivanvector, whose pronoun.is/he." There are certainly some in that database that are unexpected, but I for one endeavour to respect preferences where they are stated. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He, She or They are my only pronouns that I use and regardless of what bs someone conjures up those 3 aren't changing. –Davey2010Talk 21:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never (and would never) attack nor rant at anyone over their signature (regardless of pronouns) - If someone wants a pronoun in their signature then great but in my honest opinion it simply makes you look like a total bellend,
I wouldn't treat transgender people differently however out of fear of being corrected I would rather just not go there, What I'm trying to say is if you don't shove it in my face or don't turn a discussion into a "please refer to me as this or that" then we'd get a long great, (These days I don't automatically assume people by genders and instead refer to everyone as "they")
I appreciate not everyone's going to agree with me nor do I expect anyone too but that's just me .... I believe everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, disability etc etc .... and so despite my above comment I wouldn't automatically just "not interact" if that makes sense. –Davey2010Talk 01:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't get offended when people call me by the wrong pronouns (which happens all the time in meatspace!). I just gently correct them. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 02:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: I suppose we all have certain types of people that we try not to interact with. For me, it's incel creeps who take pictures of young women on public transit. Just as an example. I don't understand why it would bother you if people add pronouns to their signature. They are just trying to help you tailor any messages to them. If that upsets you, maybe it is time to retire from Wikipedia. World Band Receiver (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly bizarre example .....but okay then, As I said I simply think it's ridiculous to add pronouns but ofcourse everyone's different and what I may believe is ridiculous others may believe is fine,
It doesn't upset me per se but either way I certainly don't plan on throwing in the towel over it. –Davey2010Talk 20:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing you can do: whenever you're writing about someone, just always use ((they|USERNAME HERE)). ((they)) automatically expands to the correct pronoun (from user preferences), so you don't have to go look it up. There's also ((their)), ((them)), ((they are)) and ((they have)). Gaelan 💬✏️ 03:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


More