Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Give us your fucking money

From the Help Desk

 * I moved this discussion from the Help Desk--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw a banner on Wikipedia that said this. I don't care if Wikipedia has articles on sex-related stuff, because children won't see them unless they want to. But they will see this banner even if they don't want to. I'm not going to donate, and I'm going to tell children not to read Wikipedia in case they see this banner. And where do I complain about such banners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.57.203 (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This banner was on someone's user page, as I recall. Whose page was it (I can't remember)? I thought it was a fairly harmless joke, but understand how some might be offended.  Also, this question might receive prompter attention on WP:AN/I.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming the above recollection is correct, I agree with the anon. Wikipedia isn't censored of course, but that sounds unnecessarily crude, even in user space. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the harm, in user space. I curse in my user space pretty regularly.  Parents who don't want their children exposed to the word 'fuck' probably should monitor their internet usage very, very closely.  I sympathize with this user, but- well, since we don't know where the banner is, we can't even go and look at it for ourselves and see whether it's appropriate or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is of course a quote from Bob Geldof, from the original Live Aid tv broadcast. Is it possible somebody has typed this in with a donation, and it's got into the rotation of quotes on the official banner ad? Jheald 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A paraphrase of a quote, I think; I have a vague recollection that either Rory Bremner or Spitting Image started that meme. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (EC) I think the IP may be referring to the Bob Geldof article... Or not? pedro gonnet  - talk  - 09.11.2007 14:38
 * No, i saw the banner myself, it was intended to be a harmless joke i think. I can't remember where i saw it though. Woodym555 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In any event, Wikipedia is not censored. Dppowell 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (copied reply from help desk)Woodym555 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC):
 * Image:Giveit.jpg and Image:Giveit.png was a little joke as the author Neil says at Administrators' noticeboard. It is apparently only displayed on User talk:Addhoc, User:Jeffpw, User talk:Jeffpw and User talk:Dynaflow. They are just three of a huge number of Wikipedia editors and they personally chose to add this (see for Addhoc) to their own user or talk pages. User space like this is not a part of the encyclopedia and I hope you don't advice people against Wikipedia based on something in user space. PrimeHunter 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to copy it myself but got edit conflict twice. The second time was with Woodym555 copying it! PrimeHunter 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you've got to be quick at this game. ;) Woodym555 14:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I took it off my talk page in case it offended anyone. I still think it's awesome, though.  Neil   ☎  14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree that there is no need for admin action here. The banner, while somewhat offensive, is displayed only on a handful of individual user pages that are virtually impossible to stumble upon accidentally. And it is obviously a parody of the famous Geldof quote. No policy has been violated. -- Satori Son 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It says "Give us your fucking money" with a link to the official fundraising page http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising, and it's displayed above the page name like other donation banners. Many people don't know users can edit there and readers (like the original poster) are likely to think it's an official banner. This is unfortunate. I think that if it stays then it should be made more clear to readers that individual editors are choosing to display this in their own space. PrimeHunter 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, PrimeHunter is absolutely right. In addition, the same policies apply to userspace that apply to any other part of Wikipedia.  WP:Profanity, although a guideline not a policy, is fairly clear:


 * Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.


 * I think this clearly falls into the latter bracket, and the users in question should be asked to be a bit more careful. Waggers 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel as the creator of this little image I should point out I - in no way - intended it as a parody of Bob Geldolf, as I was unaware he even said such a thing, and wish to dissociate myself entirely from him, his daughters, and his maelevolent beard. I just made it for a joke on Fundraising redesign. Neil   ☎  15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I see this on the main page FA. --Kaypoh 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I keep reverting the IP whose doing it as vandalism because article space is not a place for these things, and it's obviously being done in bad faith. Bmg 916  Speak 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should semi-protect it. --Kaypoh 16:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said an AN, I love the alternative banner. Since my walk to work every morning takes me straight through the heart of San Francisco's lovely Tenderloin District, that is the kind of language I've come to expect to hear when being solicited for "donations." If the typical Wikipedia reader would be shocked by the word "fucking" [cringe] and would not immediately realize the banner is satirical, I guess I have no choice but to take it down. I did copy the code to make the thing transclude in place of the real donation banner from elsewhere, and if I got rid of that part and just had the image as obviously a part of my userspace, I don't think it would cause quite as much of a fracas should someone be ... accidentally exposed. Page visitors would then have an extra clue, above and beyond the banner's content, that it's satire. --Dynaflow  babble  03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That horrible begging banner currently defacing every single page of this fucking project is what offends me. It's just so...Wikipedian . I commend Neil for giving us an alternate that actually puts a smile on my face (though under no circumstances will anything compel me to put any money into this project's pockets--my free labor will have to be enough). For me the choice is clear: it's either the "fucking money" banner (which is really what you're trying to say with the original, dreadful banner) or stop editing until the beg-a-thon is over for the year. Jeffpw 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Using this image is probably a bad idea. It's needlessly crude and serves no encyclopedia purpose.  Friday (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Friday, I just visited your userpage, and those pink whatevertheyares scared the hell out of me. Do they accomplish anything encyclopedic on your page??????? If not, I'm afraid they'll have to go, no matter how attached you are to them. Jeffpw 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone can make a reasonable case that they bring the project into disrepute, I'll remove them without complaint. Friday (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen no reasonable case made about the banner; just the usual gosh gollying about little tots and their innocent eyes. Last I heard one could say "fuck' in a PG movie, so I doubt any brat coming to Wikipedia would be led down the primrose path to hell by seeing the word on my pages. Jeffpw 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there has been a semi-reasonable case made--that some people may mistake this for an official banner and take the Wikimedia Foundation (or whatever they're called) to be somewhat unprofessional. Not every new editor understands the distinction between userspace and mainspace. Note that I don't necessarily buy this argument, but I don't think it's entirely meritless.  In general, though, I'm in favor of more wikijokes, not less.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Peeps make a queasy whenever I see them, and they bring back bad childhood memories of The Worst Easter Ever. Anyway, there's a difference between being obscene for the sake of being obscene, and taking elements of what might otherwise be obscene and using them for a satirical purpose.  The banner in question is clearly an example of the latter.  --Dynaflow   babble  18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is really being added to articles like the FA of the day, a sensible solution would be adding both versions to the MediaWiki:Bad image list with appropriate userspace exceptions.--chaser - t 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan. [EDIT:] Make that all three versions; here's another: Image:Giveit.svg.  --Dynaflow   babble  18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with temporarily adding these three images to the Bad Image List to prevent vandalism, but I still want to be on record as opposing any application of WP:PROFANITY here. Surely the community did not intend that guideline to prohibit the use of colorful language in an obvious satire used only on personal user pages.  I fully realize we have to draw the line somewhere, but this behavior doesn’t cross it. — Satori Son 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. — Satori Son 18:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Satori, did your edit interfere with the image displaying on my user and talk page? Because it's just a blue link now. Jeffpw 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understood that MediaWiki feature, it is only supposed to prevent use of those images "inline in articles", but I cannot see the image on your page either. Anyone else more familiar with this feature with some insight? — Satori Son 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like user pages require exceptions as well. Fixed by others - thanks. — Satori Son 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem here, after all WIkipedia is not censored, and it's funny as hell!! (except if you're the Moral Majority ) ;)    KoshVorlon  ".. We are ALL Kosh..."  19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Kosh Vorlon
 * I think restricting it to userpage only is a sensible solution, good stuff. Neil   ☎  20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to restrict it to a single "domain," or is the only option to restrict the image from all of Wikipedia and list one-page exceptions one at a time? --Dynaflow   babble  20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is any such mechanism in the software. I don't mind including people in the list if they ask at my userpage. ··coe l acan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that there is any need for restrictions. I would hope, however, that people would have the common sense and maturity not to use it. I guess it shows quite clearly what kind of people we have on this project, and so in that sense is not misleading donors. User:Veesicle 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was showing up in the featured article earlier, so the potential for abuse is pretty high and I think the Bad Image List is a workable solution. As for the kind of people we have around here, well, we have various sorts, including the sort who don't care for what they perceive as intrusive pledge-driving and who, in the relative autonomy of their own userspace, prefer to subvert that with an irreverent and light-hearted jab. And I wouldn't want it any other way. ··coe l acan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If they have a problem with the WMF needing money, they are welcome to edit another wiki. User:Veesicle 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They certainly are. And they are welcome to edit here as well. Last I checked, we do not demand that editors sign loyalty oaths. ··coe l acan 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but it is rather childish. User:Veesicle 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Giveit.svg now helpfully offers: To use this image legitimately, such as in an article about human anatomy or physiology,... I'm now dreaming of legitimately attaching it to such an article. Hm, spleen, perhaps? Bile? (Moreover, it would seem to belong in [non-anatomical, non-physiological] expletive.) -- Hoary 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Something else: The banner says "Donate to Wikipedia NOW!". Donations are to the Wikimedia Foundation and help Wikipedia but "Donate to Wikipedia" could be considered misleading. I'm not a lawyer and don't know whether there are legal implications. PrimeHunter 01:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If one wished to donate to Wikipedia, he or she would do so through the Foundation, as my understanding goes. There's no logical conflict there.  <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Shop steward's thoughts
While I personally don't struggle with this, I know that this banner can easily be considered harassment. I'm not sure about how this is treated on the web, but if it were in a workplace, and someone might look there FROM a workplace ......., or most other places, one would be vulnerable to complaints on the grounds of the local human rights code. Also, it does not portray a desirable image. I personally despise political correctness with a passion and view it as a plague and would view the inventor of it and ardent supporters of it as hypocritical, holier-than-thou twits. However, the law is the law and there is little anyone can do about that. One can easily make a case, that no part of an encyclopedia should be such as to communicate on that level AND be linked to an official part of the site. It is asking for trouble and degrading to the image of the whole site. Were it allowed, one could then also make a case for permitting that sort of language in discourse between editors. That, however, is not allowed. I would love to use more emphatic language with some individuals on here and am prevented from doing so by the rules. In short, the banner should be altered to delete the f word. If not, then why not say: "Give us your motherf?$§*ß%& money." Or how about: "Give us your motherf.... money, you stupid, motherf&%$, etc." Where do you draw the line, once you allow it? I know that as a union steward, if I had to defend a member who had been disciplined for the use of such terminology, I'd have a serious case. Even if I dealt with it under a collective bargaining agreement, that still leaves the path open for charges with the local human rights commission..... You just don't want to go there in today's environment. Even celebrities are losing their jobs over this stuff now. --Achim 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the thousandth time, "Wikipedia is not censored." Please actually go and read that official and non-negotiable policy. We actually have an article entitled f*ck, and it's not going anywhere. We also have articles for sh*t, c*nt, and a**hole. (Yes, ironically I prefer to self-censor my own language, but no policy requires me to do so.)
 * We make no guarantees that the website is safe for any workplace, nor will we ever. That argument has no legal relevance whatsoever. — Satori Son 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just did some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies . One, this isn't an encyclopedic image being used in an article. So its relevance to the content doesn't really apply here. As far as violating existing policy, some people might consider this to be a little uncivil. 'not censored' doesn't protect this, yet civil would indicate it shouldn't be here.--Crossmr 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're joking, right? "If it were a workplace" It's not, it's a website. There are no collective bargaining agreements and the only work contracts apply to a half-dozen foundation employees who have no connection to this situation whatsoever.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is just funny :) - <font color="#0000C8">NeutralHomer T:C 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I Would like this on my userpage, if at all possible - would it be in any way possible o the bad imag list to permit it to be use here? No more bongos 06:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added your userpage as an exception for all three images .--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies for typos, my keyboard is broken. Especially E, D and N. No more bongos 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks... No more bongos 07:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, if we're taking requests, I'd like to use the banner also. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also ✅.--chaser - t 00:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that sort of language is all OK, then why don't we go much further? And since we're not censored, then why not throw "being civil" out as well? So that means anything goes, right? What about the N word? I made it quite clear that I was not making claims to legalities here. It's just that it's a slippery slope, once you allow that sort of thing. Apart from that, ask yourself this: If you have never previously considered donating, would you be more likely to donate if the request contained the F-word? Personally, I am not, much as I am amused at the use of it here, but it certainly does not make me more likely to donate. So what's the point of having it? Amusing the author of the banner? --Achim 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider it a bit of rebellion from good standing contributors. I've donated money to the foundation, I'll donate again.  The fundraiser banner annoys regular contributors because it is unnecessary to use.  If I use a Wikimedia foundation project daily, I don't need to see a banner.  But I have no choice.  It's akin to being a listener to National Public Radio during pledge campaigns but with the ability to comment in response.  As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not censored and so follows that the word "fuck" in satire is applicable.  If it trips your work filters, sorry for that as well but that's a baseless claim for removal if that is the ultimate problem.  By rhetorical definition, those offended are the on the Slippery slope's fallacy.  Just keep on editing.   Keegan talk 06:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I just pointed out above, "not censored" doesn't protect this usage in non-article space. Not censored protects the use of words and images that people might find offensive when they are necessary to article space. It doesn't give you license to fill an article with "fuck" and in fact the policy clearly states that its only allowed so long as it doesn't violate any other policy. So you might want to cruise over to WP:CIVIL and have a read. Which obviously some people feel this doesn't jive with.--Crossmr 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who you are asking to go re-read Civility, but let me assure you that I am extremely familiar with that policy. Especially the part that says "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." And the part that says "Profanity directed at another contributor." Please note carefully the "personally targeted" and "at another contributor" language I have bolded.
 * If someone visited your talk page and demanded that you "f*cking donate," that would be a completely different issue. But colorfully worded satire on your own personal user page is not a violation of any official policy, and it never has been.
 * I hope it doesn't sound like I am completely insensitive to your concerns. I personally do not approve of such language: I don't use it here and I wish that others would not either. But just as I argued that the personal essay "Don't be a f*cking douchebag" was not a policy violation, I will always defend those who choose to use profanity in a way that is not uncivil. It is simply not behavior that requires administrator attention or action. If someone feels that it should be, they should make a formal proposal at the pump. -- Satori Son 00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Humour is not universal and you're going to have to accept that fact that obviously this isn't universally hilarious as its seemed to be thought. But I don't see how behaviour has to be personally targeted to be uncivil. If I go off on a rant about the general behaviour of wikipedians and lace it with profanity you can guarentee I'll be blocked for it regardless of whether or not I name names. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. More than one editor has indicated they don't find this hilarious and have an issue with it. That's enough as far as I'm concerned to consider this as not acting civilly towards each other. Another quote from the page and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.. This obvious was unintentional but people have been offended. And 'not censored' doesn't provide any protection here. So there is nothing here to support keeping this image and a clear policy which indicates it should be removed, along with WP:AGF which means you should take their complaints at face value unless you see any evidence to the contrary.--Crossmr 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against admin action because I think it's "hilarious"; I don't. And I don't see anything that indicates I have not assumed good faith; I have.
 * My argument, simply, is that official En-Wikipedia policy does not strictly prohibit the use of profanity that is not uncivil. Obviously, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of policy, but I respect your opinion. And if it's supported by other administrators, I will support consensus. -- Satori Son 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The moment someone comes here to complain about it, it has become uncivil. Whether its intended as such or not that is how its has been viewed.--Crossmr 06:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if one grants that it's not strictly prohibited (which I would grant), is that really as high as we aim? I don't really care whether it's prohibited; I care that it's unprofessional, tacky, and unbecoming the dignity of this project. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right: whether a behavior is "strictly" prohibited by policy is not really the standard we use for determining when administrator action is required in a situation, and I have stricken that needlessly restrictive qualifier. My other points still stand. Sorry for the misstatement. -- Satori Son 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for completely missing my point. Even if behavior is not prohibited in any way, does that make it excellent, or professional, or indicative of any class at all? Is there any reason that we might want to be excellent, professional, or classy? Is our goal to do everything right up to the edge of what's prohibited? Nobody has made an argument that the banner is tasteful, or that their chuckles are more important that presenting a professional face to the world. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to correct a mistake I made, not irritate you. I am sorry. -- Satori Son 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter whether I'm irritated - I'm not really anybody. What I think matters are two things: (a) Can Wikipedia rise to the challenge of being culturally sensitive, as opposed to culturally insensitive, and (b) Is our attitude that of doing anything that's not forbidden, or of trying to be as excellent as we can? I don't see how such a banner could possibly be consistent with cultural sensitivity and excellent behavior. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The key to the civility policy is to act civilly towards others. The presence of the image on a userpage is not directed or addressed towards anyone; it only exists as a self-obvious bit of humorous ironic hyperbole on the part of the user whose page it happens to appear on. Now that the image has been BADIMAGE'ed, there's no worry it might be maliciously forced on a mass audience. If what is causing emotional distress is the image's simple existence, we are dealing with a different issue entirely. WP:AGF also calls for the image's detractors to accept that the users of the image are probably not using it in a manner calculated to shock or offend. As regards the "gratuitous" profanity, as long as we're still citing not being dicks as one of our most important, core values, we have to accept that profanity and quasi-offensive language, in both humorous and merely emphatic contexts, have a secure and long-standing place in Wikipedia's culture. <font color="#285991"&amp;amp;gt;--Dynaflow  <font color="#285991">babble  06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the humor is as obvious as you make it out to be. I find it cute enough, but Wikipedia is read by a lot of people from a lot of different cultures, and writing cultural differences off as some kind of oversensitivity on the part of others strikes me as very unprofessional and unbecoming of an encyclopedia. The f-bomb means a lot more in some places than it does in others. I think the banner is very tacky, and while I wouldn't support sanctions against users who display the banner, I would hope that most of us aim to be a little classier than that. We are being watched by the world, after all. The conflation of profanity with our fund-raising drive is particularly unfortunate, to my mind. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I made the banner (in a deliberately crappy manner with all manner of bad jpeg artifact) with the sole intention of making people giggle when they clicked on the pipelink to it on Fundraising redesign. It wasn't intended for display on talk pages or anything like that.  Neil   ☎  09:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to suggest that you made the banner for bad reasons, or that anybody who's displaying it is doing so in less than perfectly good faith. I'm just hoping to point out that there may be reasons for not displaying such a banner that some people have not perhaps considered. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i think it is VERY unprofesional of wikipedia to have such a banner. after i see the banner, i will NEVER donate. americans think saying the f word is very funny. here it is NOT. i didnt come to wikipedia to see that kind of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the argument about the use of the f word's being directed at a specific person. Anyone who reads it may very well feel addressed. The author wanted all readers to feel addressed (Otherwise what's the point?) And the point of the banner is purportedly to get people to donate. I don't think anyone can argue that it fulfills that purpose. That means that either there is another purpose or the author was unable to see that the purported purpose was not served by the banner. In any event, it's in poor taste. I don't see the upside of having it on a site like this. --Achim 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a good reason to keep these images on our servers? I appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored, but that's an important article-space policy. In user-space, we're presenting the face of Wikipedia, and I think it makes a lot of sense to appear professional and culturally sensitive. The banners are neither. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The face of Wikipedia is in fact the encyclopedia: article space. We have never had any pretensions of professionalism in userspace. Despite the war on userboxes, and UCFD, and a few sad essays scattered about, there has never been more than a tame breeze pushing for professionalism in userspace. Giant Jefferson and I hope we will never see such a day. And I know it's tragically politically incorrect to say so, or perhaps I'm just a clod, but I can't muster any sensitivity for people who get flustered about fornication. Is there a good reason to keep the images? Perhaps you don't value these reasons, but I do: some productive users like them, the area of usage is confined by the software, the time of usage will be temporary, we never know what potential good we stifle when we curb expression, and there's no consensus to delete. ··coe l acan 09:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So, the "potential good that we stifle" when we "curb expression" is worth more than the fact that we're basically pissing in the face of entire cultures? I don't think you're getting just how disrespectful the banner is. Do you walk into churches and spit on crosses, because it's not forbidden? Yes, I'm choosing extreme examples, because I'm trying to get across that, until you've been there, you don't know just how offensive these words are. I was shocked, when I lived in Kenya, to learn just how beyond-the-pale the f-word is considered there. I wouldn't say it there, unless I were trying to offend, and maybe get my ass kicked. Every time I edit Wikipedia, I think about Kenyans reading it. Is it really such a painful hardship to be respectful of other humans' feelings? I know a lot of people who do it, and seem to enjoy it. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the silly thing about this is how people can make a case for being obnoxious (and the comment isn't made at Neil who made a one off joke and is no doubt bemused about the ongoing molehill/mountain scenario), but at those who then seek to construct a whole principle upon it). In context, I swear, I will even use the odd swear word or two on Wikipedia to make a point (and risk being reprimanded), but it is done in the knowledge that swearing is offensive, even on the Internet.


 * In the end though, gratuitous swearing or obscene images just make those who use it seem ignorant and insensitive. If people want to create the impression of themselves being ignorant, then I guess that is there prerogative, but it does then reflect on Wikipedia. People who wear the badge of Wikipedia, and to be that includes admins (regardless of it being "just some tools"), need to reflect that what they do on Wikipedia is seen as what Wikipedia condones. If you want Wikipedia to be reported as being run by a group of foul-mouthed geeks, then carry on, but don't fall for the kidology that what you do in userspace is not part of what Wikipedia is, regardless of what you think it should be.


 * It is not the first time I have seen an argument that user pages are off limits to Wikipedia rules. This view extends to one that civility does not apply on talk pages (or your own talk page). That is simply unreasonable if user pages are part of the Wikipedia mechanism. Spenny 09:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "It is not the first time I have seen an argument that user pages are off limits to Wikipedia rules." Who is making this argument? I am not your straw admin. If the image is in violation of some rule, let's hear it. ··coe l acan 10:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "... no doubt bemused about the ongoing molehill/mountain scenario ..." ' - you are not wrong. Neil   ☎  10:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * coelacan, I will not point to specific examples as I do not want to either revive old wars or fan ongoing ones. I'm not overly fussed about Neil's joke, which only backfired because of someone else's vandalism, but I would simply make the point that generally rude jokes have the potential create an atmosphere of incivility and as such you should be sensitive to those who might reasonably claim to be offended. (Long ramble omitted for all our good!) Spenny 12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neil's joke, which only backfired because of someone else's vandalism. Exactly. And now that the potential has been dealt with, the rest of this discussion has been only so much Wiki drama, suitable for passing the time on a rainy day, but of no lasting consequence. As a quick aside, I fail to see how this innocent little sign could stimulate so much discussion, while userpages which advocate nuking other countries and spouting racism were allowed to stand for eons before action was taken. If we wish to keep Wikipedia from being discredited by its users, perhaps we could first get our priorities in order and deal with those kind of pages--or figure out some way to stop the vandalism which is a far greater problem and makes us look like such an unreliable source of information. Just a thought. Jeffpw 12:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In any case, a little harmless vulgarity can pay dividends beyond a chuckle from those unafraid to laugh at it: "Regular swearing at work can help boost team spirit among staff, allowing them to express better their feelings as well as develop social relationships, according to a study by researchers."  Leave the fucking thing be.  <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dynaflow, I hope you drop the f-bomb sometime in a cultural context where it's considered truly offensive, and then you can explain to the people you upset that their culture is wrong to be so "afraid to laugh". Then, I hope it doesn't get you into too much trouble. Cultural sensitivity is not simply "Wiki drama". -GTBacchus(talk) 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL requires we also avoid being unintentionally offensive. As pointed out there are cultures and even people in the west who find this truly offensive. This has no place here.--Crossmr 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe displaying this is intentionally offensive - I'm not intending to offend anyone. I don't see any harm in a little satire in userspace. If anyone reading my userpage would be offended by the banner, I might suggest to them that they should lighten up. No more bongos 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that it be intentionally offensive. ...and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. The fact that some people have posted here and said they are offended is all the evidence that we need that this could be offensive. Continuing to display something that some people have indicated offends them, services no encyclopedic purpose, and could potentially offend other users may have some questioning your motivation for doing so. We don't assume good faith blindly and had I encountered your userpage outside of this discussion with no previous talk of this issue I'd assume good faith, but now that good faith concerns have been raised and a policy very clearly cited to indicate why it shouldn't be used, we don't continue to blindly assume it.--Crossmr 22:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, misread quote above. Well, fine, people are offended and the image is gone. I would suggest that some editors are rather easily offended. I suppose we all have different standards on this kind of thing, though. No more bongos 22:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't characterize cultural differences as people "needing to lighten up". I think it's rather provincial to put it that way. Try living in a very different culture, and then see how comfortable you are saying that your culture is right and others are just "easily offended". Wikipedia is trying to be a world-wide institution; doing that involves learning about what it means to interact with all kinds of people. They are not to be judged for being different from us. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Direct you to my comment further down. Have seen plenty more potentially inflammatory things on userpages. Wikipedia also involves learning not to get unnecessarily inflamed. No more bongos 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not inflamed. I'm saddened that there seems to be so much resistance to the idea that we might take people's feelings more into consideration than to write them off as "easily offended". Article-space is one thing, and nothing can compromise NPOV. In the rest of the project, I'd rather not offend people if I can avoid it; I'm sorry that others feel differently. The fact that plenty of potentially inflammatory things are on user pages does not make those things classy, or courteous, or good ideas. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted
Note that User:David Gerard has deleted two of the three images. No more bongos 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he missed the third accidentally, rather than deliberately. Joke's over, the thought police have won - I've deleted it.  Neil   ☎  22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Neil, at least one portion of your sign is still providing me with use and pleasure: the code for the sign is still suppressing the crappy beg-a-thon sign from appearing on my userpage. For that I thank you. For the rest, I'll just say I'm glad the well meaning Wikipedians take themselves so seriously. God knows nobody else does. Jeffpw 22:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite agree. It's possible to edit an encyclopedia seriously at the same time as engaging in light relief, just see List of sex positions . Honestly though, I don't understand the issues people had with this. No more bongos 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Other cultures are silly; let's laugh at them and at how stupid and easily offended they are. That's class. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No more bongos, your statement above, "I don't understand the issues," is precisely correct. You don't understand how words sound to people in different parts of the world, and that's why others are here trying to help you understand. Go travel and learn. You don't sit down among Arabs and put your feet up on the table. You don't go to dinner in India and eat with your left hand. You don't make irreverent religious jokes in a religiously conservative country (no matter how stupid you think religious conservativism is). It is a different world out there. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - however this is the internet. Although I normally agree with those opinions of yours that I've seen, I think in this case you're both drawing irrelevant parallels and being unnecessarily patronising. No more bongos 00:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So what if its the internet? That means everyone should suddenly subscribe to your ideals? Wikipedia is also a community. Part of working together is not doing things to offend other members of that community. Its one thing to do it unintentionally, its another to pursue it doggedly after the complaint has been raised. However as a community we aspire not to do it unintentionally in the first place.--Crossmr 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, and would be nice if you didn't try and simplify my argument by extension. Being the internet means we do not have a homogenous moral standard. The nearest thing that exist to this is policy. Policy is flawed and appears to be self-contradictory at times.
 * Userpages in particular are still a very grey area. If somebody had posted a nice note on my talk page, for instance, asking me nicely to take it down as use of the "'F' word" offended them, I would have given it serious thought. Nobody did this.
 * Instead - and this is only a probability rather than fact - what appeared to be a regular user logged out and used an IP specifically and only to remove it from my userpage and anyone else who had it, which struck me both as gaming the system and as assuming bad faith.
 * In any case, parody is parody, and as far as I understand it - and this forms my rationale for displaying it there in the first place - it plays on the visual aggressiveness of the fundraising banner. If people don't find it funny, that's down to them. It wasn't my intention to cause any offence, but I found the reaction here very bite-y, which made me slightly overly combative above.
 * In any case, this discussion here is getting WP:POINTy, since everything has been deleted, so I invite you to my talkpage to continue the discussion, should you feel the need. No more bongos 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Do you walk into churches and spit on crosses, because it's not forbidden?" No, and in fact that is forbidden; it's defacement of private property. It's not only illegal, but immoral, since I have no right to damage or leave my spittle upon others' property. But to correct your analogy, I have in the past linked from my userspace to this monstrous text in which a terribly insensitive man calls "one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."
 * Religious conservatism of all brands is remarkably consistent in relegating women to second-class citizenship, if they are afforded autonomy at all. Women in Kenya who've been raped have to flee traditional society to live safely without reprisal. Rape is their fault only if one begins from the ludicrous superstition that a woman first brought "sin" into the world, initiating bodily and sexual shame, and was punished for it with painful childbirth, thus making sex and reproduction the centerpiece of a busybody institution that maintains mindshare by normative violence in this life and threats of hellfire in the "next".
 * There are indeed plenty of people who are offended by words denoting human sexuality, and those people are wrong. Their beliefs are rooted in misinformation, and are factually wrong. Their beliefs contribute to sexual and gendered oppression, and thus are morally wrong. If they learn their beliefs from their cultures, then their cultures are wrong. Insofar as their culture restricts freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, it is damaging to humans and must be opposed, or we will still be born free but live everywhere in chains. Insofar as my culture values and protects liberty to a greater degree, yes, my culture is better.
 * If we pretend that an aim of communication should be to appease the most easily offended, then let us not neglect to cover the female visage, easily as offensive to some people as the word "fuck" is to others. If we pretend this a moral endeavor, let us make haste to remove all graven images from Wikipedia servers (surely a worthy criterion for speedy deletion). But I'm confused; you mix in pragmatic arguments too. If I should shut my lip in Kenya lest I be beaten, this is but amoral pragmatism. On the other hand, GTBacchus, if you felt it pragmatic to restrain your vocabulary or "maybe get [your] ass kicked", then this unspoken but understood shadow of violence is all the more reason why those people are morally wrong.
 * It is impossible to avoid offending someone. I have just offended many people with my assertion that my culture is better than any culture which lacks liberté, égalité, fraternité. You have offended me with your suggestions that I should kowtow to my neighbor's superstitions. Sensitivities, then, cannot alone dictate what stays or goes at Wikipedia. Those who sought the deletion of the images should have taken the question to MFD. Consensus rules here, and these impassioned defenses of taboo might, sadly, have carried the day. For future reference, though, such exhortations are lost upon me. ··coe l acan 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it a shame that you mistake courtesy for taboo. If I suggest being mannerly, apparently I'm "kowtowing to superstition". If I think it's better that we try and get along with each other, then I'm "trying to appease the morally offended". You're pretty sadly mistaken about me. I'm probably more opposed to "taboos" than most people you'll meet, precisely because of experiences I had in Kenya. That does not, however, mean that I think that casual vulgarity is going to set matters right. I still believe in treating others as I would like to be treated, and for me, that means maintaining a certain level of decorum and class. I think it's entirely appropriate that we have articles confronting such practices as female genital cutting, which is hardly addressed in Kenya because they've got taboos against saying words such as clitoris. That's not the same as keeping vulgarity on our user pages. There's a time and a place for shocking people by dropping the f-bomb. I don't see how our user pages at the encyclopedia is that time or place. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but where, exactly, is "stupid and harmful banner" listed as a reason in the criteria for speedy deletion? Or was this an out-of-process deletion undertaken with zero participation in discussion and with absolutely no desire to follow Wikipedia policy, either in spirit or letter? Oops, my mistake. — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:IAR. We do not owe unencyclopedic pages "due process" or something. If you wish to formally contest the deletions, Deletion review is right there. Furthermore, I find it very easy to see how the deletion was an attempt to follow the spirit of various policies. Assuming good faith is easy if you can just place yourself in another's shoes. If you can't... um... yeah. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The image was deleted on behalf of the Communications Committee because it was in extremely poor taste while representing the WMF. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in any event, I was only using the wonderful image to obscure that annoying banner from my userpages. Now that a helpful editor has told me how to edit my monobook to obscure it from every single page of wikipedia that I view, I'm even happier than I was with Neil's banner. For me, the issue was being harassed for money each time I gave my free labor with an edit. Now that's offensive, in my opinion.Jeffpw 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What a load of bullshit. Can I now demand that all American Wiki users are required to remove the Stars and Stripes flag from their user pages, as it is offensive to myself, and others that are still rightfully aggrieved over the illegal rebellion perpetrated on what was rightfully and legally UK holding? What a joke. I just hope the "editors" that spent so much time here moaning about this spend as much time chasing rasists, vandals and other dickheads.Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We do. Also, I didn't "demand" anything. I asked that people take others' feelings into account, instead of not doing so. Apparently, that makes me an asshole. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, yes. (With due respect otherwise). Duja ► 08:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not you, but David Gerard did quite a bit more than ask, he forced the issue. And Swatjester claimed it was on behalf of ComCom, which has not made an official statement at all (nor was such a thing cited in the deletion summary). The images were ALREADY on the bad image list, therefore they could not have been placed anywhere near article space anyway. —Random832 17:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not civil only in article space. People found them offensive, civil covers this, 'not censored' doesn't make any exemption for jokes in poor taste, I'm not really sure where the disconnect is here and why some people feel they should be allowed to be as offensive as they want in the name of humour.--Crossmr 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The question, though, was whether it was really on behalf of ComCom, and whether it is appropriate to claim that if there was no foundation-level involvement in this decision. —Random832 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've actually been curious about this, too. I see on Coelacan"s talk page that Swatjester says it was done after email discussions, which brings up the question of transparency. I would like to have some clarity about this. Further, after reading the page for the committee, I wonder if it was even within their scope to delete an image solely used in userspace. On my page, the image didn't even link to the beg-a-thon, as I removed all other code. I would hope someone would check into this further, or Swatjester would be somewhat more forthcoming than he has been until now. Jeffpw (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground for you to protest against the fundraiser, and it's certainly not a place for images to make offensive remarks with the appearance that they are sanctioned or even on behalf of the foundation. That is a publicity issue which is clearly within the scope of ComCom's business, which by its nature does not have to be transparent. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  07:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Censored?
I see that "Wikipedia is not censored" is sometimes used to defend incivility. Is the policy only for articles? --Kaypoh (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, yes, that policy is intended to apply to articles. I invoked the policy earlier only in response to a “shop steward” who claimed we should ensure Wikipedia is “workplace safe”. Obviously, we do not censor even user or talk space to ensure that it complies with all workplace regulations everywhere in the world.  But other than that, the policy is not especially relevant here, and I’m sorry I brought it up. — Satori Son 14:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)