Meta:Requests for deletion

(Redirected from Meta:RFD)
Requests and proposals Requests for deletion Archives (current)→
This page hosts local (i.e., Meta-Wiki) requests for page deletion. For requests for speedy deletion from global sysops or stewards, see Steward requests/Miscellaneous. Any language may be used on this page. Before commenting on this page, please read the deletion policy, in particular the criteria for speedy deletion, and the inclusion policy. Please place the template {{RFD}} on the page you are proposing for deletion, and then add an entry in an appropriate section below. As a courtesy, you may wish to inform the principal authors of the page about the request. After at least one week, an administrator will close and carry out the consensus or majority decision.

Articles that qualify for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{delete}} or {{delete|reason}}, and should not be listed here. (See also speedy deletion candidates.) Files with no sources should be tagged with {{no source}} and need not be listed here, either. To request undeletion, see #Requests for undeletion. See Meta:Inclusion policy for a general list of what does not belong on the Meta-Wiki.

Previous requests are archived. Deletion requests ({{Deletion requests}}) can be added to talk page to remember previous RfDs.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 180 days.


Submit your page deletion request at the bottom of this section.

Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articlesEdit

The following discussion is closed: kept; no consensus for deletion. Discussions about renaming can be had at WM:PPM. Sgd. —Hasley 20:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This essay deliberately uses outdated offensive tropes such as the following sentence "I myself may or may not be homosexual, but I do not know anyone else who is gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgendered, or otherwise queer. Additionally, I have no friends who fall under the following categories: savants, female dogs, people who tend to lose a lot, the mentally handicapped." Clearly the reference to "female dogs" is a deliberate way of saying "bitches" and the reference to mental handicapped is trying hard to offend all readers who do not wish to laugh at the idea of mental disability.

The essay is outdated. It does not fulfil any part of Wikimedia's educational mission and it is fails to meet Meta:Inclusion policy per "Dedicated attack pages" and Meta:NOT per "not an experiment", "not a battleground" and "not a storage room". In addition the essay fails to meet the Wikimedia Foundation WMF:TOU per "You support a civil environment and do not harass other users" and hosting the page on meta does nothing to "furthering the mission of the shared Project."

Previous deletion discussions for reference, the most recent being 7 years ago: 2007, 2008, 2013

-- (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as proposer and based on my awareness of how essays like this, damage improvements to Wikimedia projects by the Wikimedia LGBT+ community and WM-LGBT+ user group. (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep. This page has nothing to do with offending people. It is the opposite in fact — it mocks the offenders. It is outdated, in terms that it was created in response to Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles which was a long time ago. But it still has its use, as it is not uncommon for people to propose some exclusion criteria for the users and this page illustrates the absurdity of this. The page falls under essays clause of inclusion policy at the least. That being said it would certainly help to expand the disclaimer the page has. --Base (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
These points have been before. Please recognize that the essay and its title is offensive and hurtful for many LGBT+ readers and volunteers. This should outweigh that some user might want to laugh at the use of the words "homosexuals", "female dogs" or "mentally handicapped", without thinking that using this language for jokes is homophobic, misogynist and harmful to mental disability regardless of the normal views and identity of the person laughing. Those not laughing have a sense of humour, it's just that this essay is not funny. -- (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, while I do not think we should censor satire I certainly want people who just as myself see the article title and have a "WTF" reaction to be able to get a gist of point being made. This was also true regarding the Poles article if that is what you are referring to. I agree that the words you mention are used in their offensive shades here, but that is the whole point, they are used as an illustration of how the vandals use them, and just as with other types of vandalism the article describes it is quite aptly. --Base (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The unfunny fact is that even this year I have had multiple transphobic and homophobic death threats, this is a reality for our WM-LGBT+ community and the risk that supporters of the WM-LGBT+ user group take by existing here. If you tried creating an "humour" essay with the words that the vandals troll me with as an "illustration", you would be quickly WMF globally locked. It's just out of scope, outdated and not funny, our community is overdue to chuck out trash like this. -- (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename. In the main the content is fine, and of relevance. The title, however, is unacceptable. It may have been intended to be "funny" but this kind of "humour" does not work in writing and with a diverse audience. The same points it is making could be made without the offensive title. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah, I was wondering if this would pop up again. I think it is very clear from reading the article that it isn't actually offensive to anyone, and the title only seems to be offensive to people with gay friends. But whatever, just rename it to "Typing students should not be allowed to edit articles" or something related to one of the other categories of vandals that won't draw continued debates over renaming/deleting the page every six months. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be really decent and civil to stick to facts, rather than sarcastic fakenews and gaslighting in order to marginalize valid concerns? "Deleting every six months" should read "Deleting once in seven years". Thanks. (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh Fae. Such a lovely person to interact with. Look on the article's talkpage, it's more than every seven years. But it doesn't matter. Let's rename the page, remove content that could be offensive, and get on with our lives. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
A sincere apology for existing and having an opinion. You carry on, as a member of the ombudsman group you are the expert in Wikimedia civility so no doubt you are perfectly correct in using this vote to make an ad hominim attack on my character to marginalize my concerns to "win" your point. -- (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The only thing I take issue with is your (apparent) need to stir up drama and exaggerate statements. I think it's a fair argument to say that the page name taps into some undercurrent of homophobia for shock value (there's a reason why the page didn't reference one of the other groups of vandals when it was made all those years ago). I really don't think it's a dedicated attack page or a battleground. And I'll just skim over all the ridiculous accusations and exaggerations you've made against me in your last two comments. The page is a relic from an older time with less knowledge of unconscious bias, and I agree that the page should be changed, though I think that renaming and some modifications to the current content will be sufficient. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Glad we agree this smells of an undercurrent of homophobia. Homophobia is a great rationale for deletion, let's hope more voters believe that stamping out bigotry of any kind is a good idea, even if this particular humorous essay format appeals to Wikimedia "regulars" who have voted the same "keep, it's a joke" for literally over a decade. -- (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz The shock value is a large part of the humour, so to preserve the humour, the only acceptable rename is "Men with big penises should not be allowed to edit articles", in my opinion. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename. I think it's a stupid page, to be frank. But agree a bit more with QuiteUnusual, and like Ajraddatz's suggestion for such a new name. = paul2520 (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe start a new page if addressing vandalism is the real topic. Ziko (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ziko Given that you don't give a reason for deletion, may we assume your rationale is "per nom"? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I think that the title is offensive, and not necessary to make a point or explain the topic. Ziko (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Ziko, thank you so much for replying. However, if your issue is with the title, that could be adequately addressed with a move - so I don't see why you would be for deleting the whole page. Could you explain a bit more? Thanks from PJvanMill (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename and move to a subpage containing hoaxes with a trigger warning about sexual content. I do think it was meant to mock some obscure and pedantic not to say aggressive arguments about vandalism, nevertheless there are some people in an inclusive project who would not appreciate stumbling upon such witty expression of freedom of speech, especially the ones mentionning the size of "editors equipment", not to mention some people here are obviously not happy with the "funny title ". I also think that some people who dont have English as native language might just not see the joke and puns and take it seriously. Also, the fact that the issue keeps coming back throughout the years means it has not be resolved. Nattes à chat (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • delete sophomoric without redeeming social value. instead of projecting motives upon vandals, perhaps author could summarize actual evidence. Slowking4 (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4 Its redeeming social value is humour. Some humour to distract from all the misery (such as the misery that is deletion discussions, see for example this very one) is good, and something I dare say we do not have enough of. Not everything has to be serious and strictly useful. PJvanMill (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
"it was a joke" is now deprecated as transparent trolling, i.e. [1], [2], [3] i know a good joke when i see it, such as this community intends to be civil. Slowking4 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4 You've linked to three examples of Trump seemingly saying something in seriousness and afterwards saying that it was a joke. This page, on the other hand, was clearly a joke from the start. If you think that this page was created with the intention of making people feel unwelcome, I don't know what to say to you. Also, please don't bring Trump into this. PJvanMill (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
when a rhetorical tactic is disgraced by overuse in high places on the public stage, then all people might not want to use that tactic, regardless of their motivations and intent. changing the subject to intent is another tactic. when people tell you your joke flopped, then it is time to deprecate it, not archive it for posterity. the joke archive is here. [4] Slowking4 (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4 So me pointing out that it's humour and arguing that there is value in humour is the same "rhetorical tactic" as using "it was a joke" as a bullshit excuse? Confused regards from PJvanMill (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
lengthy discussion about conduct
@PJvanMill: your comments in this vote are reading as increasingly hostile, sarcastic and uncivil. If you have nothing constructive or factual to write, or are trying deliberately to provoke reactions for sport, please find a laddish locker-room environment to post your penis jokes, away from Wikimedia projects. Thanks in advance. -- (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@ I genuinely don't get what Slowking is saying, so I'm asking for clarification explanation/justification. It would also be appreciated if you gave some clarification justification where I've asked for it below. Thank you from PJvanMill (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
When an account with relatively low contribution history is disrupting an LGBT+ related discussion with gratuitous sexual jokes, then badgers other participants in a vote, that's a form of gaming the system because it is guaranteed to put off less courageous LGBT+ contributors from expressing opinions for fear of being targeted, and it is gaslighting those concerned that this essay is bad for Wikimedia and humiliating for LGBT+ contributors, who deserve more than being laughed at with penis jokes when discussing the removal of an essay that clearly promotes bias.
This behaviour is representative of the well documented systemic bias to these topics that pervades Wikimedia communities, especially some of our smaller projects, but that does not mean that everyone here should be expected to tolerate it, or pretend that it is anything other than what it is, and the hostile environment it creates. -- (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@ an essay that clearly promotes bias Again, as I said below, this really isn't clear to me at all, and it would be great if you could quote a few offending lines from the page and explain how they promote bias.
it is gaslighting those concerned that... If you knew what gaslighting actually was, you wouldn't use the word this way.
badgers other participants in a vote I am questioning others' statements in this discussion, because I don't think they make much sense. Maybe I was a bit too snarky with my questions here and there, I will try to contain my contempt for bullshit a bit more. But questioning others' logic is simply a normal part of a discussion.
who deserve more than being laughed at with penis jokes You seem to have the impression that I am having fun with this discussion. I am not - in fact, I hate taking part in this discussion, but I feel like I have to because I think deleting this page would be an absurd step, in the wrong direction. Unkind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
no, not bullshit - worse you are trolling editors with 5000 times your edits. your conduct here is absurd, and raises questions about your credibility. your conduct makes clear this is trolling and not humour. Slowking4 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, Slowking4, but your conduct here has been much more absurd. I disagreed with your position that the page has no redeeming social value and made a serious effort to have a discussion with you, explaining why I thought humour is valuable. And what did you do? You compared me to bloody Trump of all people, excusing himself with "it was a joke". That is absurd, it is a total non-sequitur and it comes closer to trolling than anything I've said in this discussion. Unkind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing can be gained by continuing to preserve this travesty. In what I can only assume to be a triumph of humor, this essay suggests hiring "private investigators to do background checks on prospective editors" to determine whether they are affiliated with PFLAG. Now, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays is a real organization. I shouldn't have to remind anyone that we live in a world where gay people often conceal their identities lest they be stoned to death or bullied to the point of suicide.
The biggest problem is that the title of this essay, purposely chosen for shock value, misleads editors into believing that it is an official policy. The proposal Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles links to this essay as an “alternate proposal”. Tips for resolving interwiki conflicts has a link to this essay, saying "You may also encounter vandalism - friends of gays sometimes vent their frustration in foreign languages. Be bold and fix it." On the talk page for Möller's Law, this essay is cited as a precedent for keeping other "potentially objectionable content". As far back as 2005 an editor commented "When I first saw the title I was actually a bit shocked and thought the title itself might be a result of vandalism".
The problem of misleading links to this essay is compounded by all of the redirects. Right now Friends of gays, Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit, Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit pages, Friends of gays should not edit Wikipedia, Editing Restriction Policy, and Vandals should not be allowed to edit articles all redirect to this page. Gay redirected to this for several years and GAY redirected there for 15 years. Since links to Meta from other Wikipedias appear as blue links, it can appear that editors are linking to a genuine Wikipedia policy. [5][6] On the English Wikipedia, admins have cited this essay when they've blocked users.[7] Deletion is a better option than renaming. If this essay is renamed and a redirect from the current title is left behind, concerns over misuse of links will not be addressed. gobonobo + c 07:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
You can vote how you want, but your statement is factually incorrect and should be corrected. The page is offensive because many people, including many of our LGBT+ volunteers and readers find it offensive. Continually saying otherwise and stating their reaction to this offensive essay is not real, is the definition of gaslighting. This essay is deliberately designed to cause offense, so it is a plain simple fact that it is offensive.
The nature of the deliberate offense is implicit and explicit homophobic and misogynist language and tropes. The essay is not educational, and it is not "historical". Continuing to host this essay on Meta, and ignoring the homophobic bigoted content because "it's funny", promotes homophobia and perpetuates an environment that is hostile to LGBT+ contributors.
We do not host essays that are "satire" that make fun of stereotypes of Jews or black people, and we cannot pretend that Wikimedia does not have a serious systemic problem of being hostile to queer and genderqueer people while the fact that this essay exists is a case study illustrating that our "regulars" adamantly refuse to see it happening in broad daylight, and therefore are deciding to refuse to take any action to remove hostile bigotry. (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@ We do not host essays that are "satire" that make fun of stereotypes of Jews or black people Where, exactly, does this page make fun of stereotypes of gay people? I've read the page, and do not see this anywhere. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@ I also do not see how the page promotes homophobia; in fact, it seems to be mocking homophobia if anything. Yet another thing that I do not see in the slightest is This essay is deliberately designed to cause offense. What are you basing all of this on? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep It can be marked as historical or deprecated, but this is historically significant. This page might be the single-most discussed LGBT guideline on Wikipedia and this is not without reason. A very common type of vandalism on Wikipedia is when one friend posts another friend's name, saying "Billy is gay" in a Wikipedia article. In the United States and Europe much of society has tired of the gay jokes and these kinds of discussions, but in a lot of the world, this kind of humor is still new and in practice. The time to deprecate this essay is when most of the world really is tired of these jokes, but for many people, posting that someone is gay on Wikipedia is still fresh and original humor. This humor is so frequent that I think it is worthwhile to keep this page to acknowledge that we have seen it, and thought about it, and . I even wish this page could be developed with serious research about LGBT vandalism and attacks on Wikipedia, because right now, this is one of the few places which document the LGBT experience and culture of personal attacks here.
Potentially useful developments:
  • Do informatics research to query all of Wikipedia to identify, count, and categorize articles where a vandal posted the "X is gay" joke; publish a paper about it; use for publicity and to teach civility.
  • Support a reporting and counting system for all sorts of LGBT harassment. It happens a lot, there are few safe place for users to document this on wiki without being attacked further.
This page is one of the few long time records we have of LGBT harassment on wiki. I agree that the humor is inappropriate, but the alternative of having no documentation of LGBT harassment is even more inappropriate. Sometimes bad humor makes it okay to talk about difficult subjects. Whereas people might get harassed for complaining about attacks on LGBT people if they did it in a serious way, here with the compromise of humor we have a historical record of a problem which I do not wish to lose.
Also: The WMF brings in US$130,000,000 / year in funding and this budget is growing 10% a year. The WMF in general reports almost nothing about their finances, but another useful intervention would be to ask and receive a report from the WMF on how much they invest in response to harassment, what budget goes to LGBT community, and what part of the money goes to wiki community programs versus paid staff WMF projects. So far as I know, in the billion dollars that the WMF has collected, the total budget allocation to support LGBT projects over the past 20 years is approximately $100,000. Donors give to the Wikimedia movement to promote tolerance and the WMF uses the wiki LGBT community to solicit donations in advertising, but at the same time, the respect of a financial commitment is not present in the relations between the WMF and community. If anyone wanted to see one of the most prominent outcomes that has come from the sum of WMF support for the Wikimedia community, then this essay is probably the best thing the WMF has been able to produce. If anyone is ashamed of saying that, then instead of deleting the history, a response that I would like more is demanding funding from the WMF to support global LGBT communities of editors and readers to better represent and organize themselves.
In general, demanding money from the WMF is an excellent community response to many challenges, because Wikimedia donors give money to support community programs more than all other reasons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand perfectly well why you want to use this as evidence of systemic homophobia on Wikimedia projects to waive around as a banner to get more LGBT+ projects funded, however I would believe this a bit better if the closure of this DR were to recommend that the same offensive bigoted bullshit is written in the format of "jokes" about other persecuted minority groups. With that in mind, please go ahead and create:
Targeting us queers for systemic abuse and nobody else is not just a freakishly masochistic rationale and a bad use of WMF resources, as it's then harder for Jews and black people to get project funding, based on your own logic that Wikimedia hosting services must continue to be used for homophobic jokes. -- (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Neither of those articles exist because "NAME is a Jew/black person" was never a common type of vandalism; "NAME is gay" was. The page was created as a reaction to that sort of homophobia, in a joking way that reframed those comments as a proud compliment rather than the insult they were intended to be. Humour has often been used as a way of deconstructing and diminishing prejudiced behaviour, and my read is that this page attempted to that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with that. Virgins might also work, but isn't as common. Rename to "Typing students should not be allowed to edit articles" or "Pets should not be allowed to edit articles". — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 23:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I have seen quite a bit of "[name] is a jew" with some other slurs mixed in, though I probably see that disproportionately often as I am Jewish, and that vandalism is usually one of a handful of LTAs directed at me. If it was more common, as with "[name] is gay", I'm not particularly offended by such a title. The content itself isn't remotely homophobic, and actively criticizes that very common sort of vandalism. The title, though a joke about the homophobic vandalism and is not homophobic itself, can be considered offensive by some. I've left a comment in favor of renaming below. Vermont (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Label it historical per above. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep-ish - I am completely sympathetic to the point Fae is making. The title is jarring at first, and takes some reading to understand its context. However, to re-factor the old adage: the antidote to confusing speech is more speech. Specifically, contextualized speech, explanatory speech and clarifying speech. The fact that Bluerasberry speaks to the meaning of this page in the LGBTQ context is powerful, and I had not been aware of before. What I am aware of - I remember in 2004 when this page was first created, because I was on the front lines of vandal fighting and new pages patrol. In IRC we were noticing this was a pattern of vandalism for foolish and sophomoric bored kids in high school and it was Tim_Starling who noted this on a large scale. Therefore, I can indeed attest to its historical nature and that as a part of Wikipedia history, it should be somewhere in our pages but with a heavy dose of qualification - it's historical, it's not meant to document actual advice, and shortcuts pointing to it should be severely limited because it is neither a practice nor a phenomenon we are promoting as a community. -- Fuzheado (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I wonder what the opinion of @EvanProdromou: is? Also, the original revision had a note: Note: If you've read this far, you should probably have already figured out that this is a parody. If not, well, it is. The original author has nothing in particular against typing students, curious people, or friends of gays and lesbians, nor against gays and lesbians themselves. The original author (65WPM) is in two of these three groups and would be prohibited from editing under these rules.
I can sort of guess which group they didn't belong to. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 04:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the mystery: at 65 words per minute, I am no longer a typing student. --EvanProdromou (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
And there I was, asking myself why I couldn't find any trace of User:65WPM. Doh! — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 05:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The original author has nothing in particular against (1)typing students, (2)curious people, or (3)friends of gays and lesbians, nor against (4)gays and lesbians themselves. The original author (65WPM) is in two of these three groups. Perhaps we should add "counting student" to the list. Alsee (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alsee: No, the groups that are referred to are the first three. nor against gays and lesbians themselves is just a side note and not part of the collection. Otherwise the line would have read "The original author has nothing in particular against typing students, curious people, friends of gays and lesbians or gays and lesbians themselves". Of course, reading is a learned skill. (I couldn't resist biting  ) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename and include a note of the previous title on the page. It's a useful essay, originally titled not on editors' homophobia but on that of common vandals. When the context is understood, I don't personally find it offensive, though I understand some people do. When I first saw it a few years back I was more than a bit surprised, but a read of the page explains both the title and the subject. There's useful content, and as such I oppose outright deletion, but the title is offensive to some, so I support a rename. Vermont (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am the original author, although the essay has been edited by many others since. It began as a parody of other proposals to block large segments of the population based on anecdotal evidence. The central premise is a willful misunderstanding of the homophobic slurs some vandals use, interpreting them instead as misguided expressions of pride. The joke was never that good and hasn't gotten better. I appreciate all the support it's received, but I think this page needs to go. --EvanProdromou (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@EvanProdromou Would you care to give an actual rationale instead of just invoking your non-ownership? Thank you from PJvanMill (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll leave it to others to decide whether the page should be deprecated or just transformed, but if deprecated, it should be marked historical rather than deleted. It has clear historical value as an indication of 2000s attitudes toward homosexuality as Bluerasberry explained above. Sdkb (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep This page is clearly not hostile towards LGBT people - it's a humourous page about vandalism and the title is part of a joke. No good reason to delete. PJvanMill (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I would also support renaming to "Men with big penises should not be allowed to edit articles". PJvanMill (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Bluerasberry, Fuzheado, Base, and Marco. Clearly not a homophobic essay. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename The article itself is clearly satire, but the name as it stands should not be on meta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoozaz1 (talk)
  • Delete, or alternatively rename, mark as historical. I found it amusing when I first read it 15 years ago, but it hasn't aged well. I would suggest userfy is also an option, though I see the original author has !voted delete so there might not be a user willing to take it on. If anyone has concerns that it might be interesting to some future researcher of Wikipedia, I'd guess this page must be archived somewhere, so doubt that's an issue. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    And before someone comes along and asks me to expand on my reasoning, here goes: It's hardly an attack page, it's obvious no offence was intended, and this LBGT wikimedian isn't offended by it. If you understand the context then you probably have to try quite hard to be offended by it. But not everyone does or will understand the context. The 'friends of gays' joke relies for its effect on the idea that homosexuality is inherently hilarious, which in itself is a form of latent homophobia. All in all it creates an unwelcoming environment. To people arguing "well, it's funny, we should keep it": Firstly, it's not actually that funny. Secondly, and less subjectively, I believe we should put a very low weight on humour as a factor in determining what content stays. Humorous essays that make a valuable point without being unkind, and without making us look like jerks to people who don't understand what Wikiculture is (or in this case, what it was like in 2006) - those can stay. But if it's not helping us achieve our goals, don't keep it because it's funny. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The 'friends of gays' joke relies for its effect on the idea that homosexuality is inherently hilarious, which in itself is a form of latent homophobia. Chris Keating, thank you for bringing this novel argument to the table! It is interesting to think about the assumptions that are made about what is funny. I do not agree that the joke assumes the reader finds homosexuality inherently funny, though - I would say it only assumes that the reader is somewhat familiar with vandalism and knows that calling someone gay is a thing that some vandals do.
To not everyone does or will understand the context: even with only the information that it is the title of a WM meta-wiki page, it is instantly clear that it is not serious, except to someone who thinks WM is a big group of bigots. The probability that someone might read the title without the necessary context to not take it seriously seems so small to me, that I think it is hardly a reason to remove the page. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: Inbefore Fae jumps in, my "thank you" for your novel argument is not sarcastic, it is also not fake politeness, it is 100% sincere; I think you make some good points.
@PJvanMill: I think you've made your position quite clear throughout the discussion; there is no need to continue responding to new comments. Other people can make their points, and the closing admin will consider all of the perspectives given. Thanks. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Ajraddatz, I am not doing this to restate my position. Chris Keating makes some good points that haven't really been made before. What the closer cannot do is imagine how the discussion would go if certain perspectives were played out against each other; if we can have an actual conversation about CK's points, that will be of value. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
You're bludgeoning the discussion, making it difficult for others to follow, and not adding much value beyond restating your position. If your name is popping up near almost half of the comments, you're too engaged. Just take a step back; other people will ask questions if they must be asked. Thanks. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz I would dispute that my comments do not add value, I am asking what I think are important questions. If I were saying the same things over and over again, you would have a point, but I am not. Parts of the discussion that do not add much value can always be put in a collapse template. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it's decided that rename+label as historical+userfy is the best solution, the page can be moved to User:Alexis Reggae/Well-endowed men should not be allowed to edit articles. Doesn't require active maintenance anyway, so no big effort. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep of course, per Fuzheado, Bluerasberry and pretty much everyone else above. Also, several of the concerns have been addressed by recent edits. The title is very useful and educational in that it helps users combat common fallacies and cognitive biases which often damage Wikimedia discourse, such as the very common post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments about supposed causes of damage to the wikis. It's therefore also a very useful protective tool for us gays and other possible victims of such irrational biases. Knowledge is rarely gained without some difficulty, of which the shock of learning something new is an example. Nemo 12:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename. The page title is, at best, clearly an attractive nuisance (this is at least the 4th deletion nomination). At worse the name is problematic in that there is no way to know it is satirical unless&until one actually follows the link and reads. I also want to emphasize the significant difference between homophobic content and content that satirically mocks vandalism (including mockery of homophobic vandalism). I think it perverse for anyone to claim offense at the latter pretending that it equates to the former. Alsee (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename to (e.g.) Sign this form to prove you aren't a vandal without leaving a redirect. The current title is both offensive (for reasons Fae and others have already discussed) and misleading: the joke has always been about more than people who say "Joe is gay". The first edition of this page already refers to "typing students" and "the curious". One of the features of this joke page is the "form" in the middle asking people to promise absurd things relating to common types of vandalism, which will make a nice new title. Moving the page to a title that keeps it funny for regular editors but doesn't refer to any particular category of people will allow preservation of this clearly marked joke, but minimise offence to our many editors who are gay, cheerleaders, typists, or whatever other category of people that this page could otherwise be named after. Deryck C. 16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What Deryck said, though a redirect seems appropriate. The URL that has been around long enough that external links point back to it, and noone should see the title unless they're following such a link. –SJ talk  22:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedians of Slovakia's Annual Report 2018Edit

Basically the same report, in 2 languages:

The text below is from the English version. The Slovak version have the same issue, with even stronger wording.

The report contains false and libelled information about me (Michal Matúšov). The organisation haven't reacted on Meta for 7 months; private consultation (regarding the file on WMSK's website) is ongoing. The false, libelled information is in the section "Board changes" and texts "Michal Matúšov resigned his position as well as his membership in the organization on 20 December 2018. As a result, Radoslava Semanová, the deputy chair, became the only board member able to act in the name of the organization. However, she was staying abroad at the time. Accordingly, the board asked Michal Matúšov to register the organization for 2%. The then chair asked for a 100 euro reward for such action. The board, knowing the potential outcome of the 2% registration accepted it." More information on the topic is on the Talk:Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/en.

See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WMSK – Výročná správa 2018.pdf.

--KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I will only add that the matter has been brought to the attention of AffCom. WMSK and I personally have been supportive of this inquiry and we have offered all the necessary information and explanation to AffCom. I hope you, KuboF, have done the same. Be well!--Jetam2 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a correction: WMSK, Jetam2 personally and ex-member of Audit Committee Lukas Mikulec was in fact very unsupportive of this inquiry. During 7 months they made absolutely no reaction on Talk:Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/en nor on Talk:Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/sk, during more than 1 month no reaction on the original RfD and even was covering-up the falseness of the information in the report. Good to know that this is the "support" that WMSK is providing for the Wikimedia movement...
But back to the topic: The report spreads false and libelled information about living person for 5 months. I again ask admins for deletion. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I (and we) do not believe it is best practice to keep reacting and rereacting and rerereacting. Issues in the reports and others have been explained many a time on sk.wikipedia where they were first raised. See, especially here. There comes a point where more explanation will not advance anything. That is why we welcome AffCom's interest into the matter. Let AffCom judge our participation in the inquiry.--Jetam2 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Jetam2, please keep this discussion on topic - its topic is the concrete report (Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/en, Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/sk), not any report (I am also not going to write here about bylaw violation of WMSK's functionaries here, simple because it would be off-topic...). I have raised objections about this specific issue on Talk:Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/en and Talk:Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/sk but functionaries of WMSK was only covering up the issue without solving it. As the report is spreading false and libelled information about living person for more than half a year, I ask admins to proceed the request for deletion. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I wish you took your own advice and not spread libelous information about a cover up etc. In any case, I now understood that the chronology was indeed reversed. I corrected it.--Jetam2 (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Please refer to the report discussion page.--Jetam2 (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

KuboF Hromoslav, would it help to just replace your real name with your username for now? (While as I understand other people are still figuring out what is going on). It definitely does not look constructive to delete the whole report. --Base (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


Submit your template deletion request at the bottom of this section.


Submit your category deletion request at the bottom of this section.


Submit your image deletion request at the bottom of this section.

File:Mw13ie517mac.jpg (revision from 2004-05-24)Edit

Potential copyright infringement. Internet Explorer layout is and was not free and it's not de minimis. Meta prohibits Fair Use. Could be kept if cropped. The purpose of the file was to illustrate a bug in the MediaWiki software. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't knew c:Commons:CropTool worked for other projects as well. It was a glad surprise. I went ahead and removed the potentially infringing material. Perhaps we shall focus only on the previous uncropped file revision from 2004. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Cropped and previous revision RevDel'ed. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Requests for undeletionEdit

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.