Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SMcCandlish/It

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Users are typically given leeway to express opinions in their user space even if they are disagreeable to other editors. There are boundaries of acceptability and user space content that crosses them can be deleted, but the consensus of the discussion is that SMcCandlish hasn't crossed them in this case. (Note that this close is independent of the close for the related Signpost article, and the guidelines and norms for project space are different from those for user space.) RL0919 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish/It


I am nominating this page for deletion in conjunction with the deletion nomination of today's Signpost article, since the article is based on this "humorous" essay. Regardless of SMcCandlish's intent, the Signpost article has been found to be offensive by many readers due to its thinly veiled insults directed towards those who prefer to choose their own gender pronouns.

The page apparently functions as a template, but it has no transclusions and is in SMcCandlish's userspace. Jc86035 (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly suggest this nomination is procedurally closed and merged with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour to save having the same discussion on two different pages &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am persuaded that the two nominations should remain separate, as there are different standards for keeping in differnent namespaces &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible delete - this is a WP:POLEMICal transphobic rant and it makes me, as a trans user of WP, incredibly uncomfortable. -- a. get in the spam hole &#124; get nosey 17:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought WP:POLEMIC applied at first but this "joke" is apparently related to Wikipedia and I don't think that qualifies under POLEMIC. Maybe WP:CIVILity for making a joke of a sensitive topic? —DIYeditor (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's ban all humor, then, since every topic is sensitive to someone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. They're not "thinly veiled insults", they're a humorous attempt to deal with the befuddlement one experiences when various others attempt to constrain one beyond the normal boundaries of personal expression.  – Athaenara  ✉  17:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per above, recommend procedural close with same outcome as identical Signpost essay. --Fæ (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have wide leeway to write on-topic essays in userspace (even if some people go really, really far out of their way to twist them into meaning something offensive. Feel free to delete the Signpost thing (which should remain a different MfD; it's subject to different standards). It wasn't intended for that venue, but someone who edits it wanted to include it. I had my misgivings, predicting that various of the too-easily-offended would willfully misinterpret it, which is exactly what's happened. It wasn't transphobic in the faintest. Several people have . It's about Wikipedia editors engaging in language-change activism trying to push non-mainstream stylistic strangeness, including a) fake pronouns like zie and hirm, b) unusual trademark stylizations, and c) excessive honorifics. It has  to do with the off-site usages or the values of those who engage in them. It's about and only about encyclopedic usage. If you want to go change WP:MOS to say "It's okay to exactly mimic the appearance of logos, to write of Jesus and Mohammad with "Our Lord" and "Peace Be Upon Him" before and after (respectively) their names, to inject made-up pronoun shenanigans like ze and xir into our articles", well, good luck with that. Never going to happen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: I am being pursued from project to project by Fæ, trying to make as much trouble for me as possible, e.g. at Meta:Talk:Tech/Ambassadors (where they also made a point of outing my full name, which I do not use on that site, and which I have since redacted; so much for respecting identity and preferences, eh?). This is getting right into WP:HARASS territory. See also the borderline and bogus legal threat in the other MfD. And now this uncivil canvassing at Wikipedia-L.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC); revised: 19:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: some (very few) of us can appreciate the context this thing comes from, but given you haven't provided it, you must have known it would be taken out of context (you even acknowledge so, though you ABF on people's reactions to it). Stripped of its context, it  come across as a transphobic polemic—especially as the Web is ovepopulated with so many similar screeds that  transphobic polemics—see Poe's law. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume no bad faith at all about over-reaction to this piece or even continued willful misinterpretation of it in the face of repeated correction as to its actual content and meaning. I assume nothing but human nature. Also, the nutshell of the piece clearly provide the context, in completely clear terms. It's the very reason the page has a nutshell template on it (which isn't usual for a humor piece; I added it specifically because I suspected some would misinterpret it – I took into account exactly what you accuse me of not taking into account). "Especially as the Web is ..." is just off-point.  What random yahoos writing on 4Chan are doing doesn't dictate how anyone must write on WP, in or out of articles.  While I'm not a conservative, I also have to point out that this is not LefistPedia, and people are actually free to hold and express right-wing views here, and see to it that our articles on socio-political topics are balanced, no matter how much this pisses off various far-left elements. That doesn't pertain directly to me or this essay, but it does relate to the attitude, along the lines "anyone who doesn't agree with every single idea the furthest and most activistic leftists holds dear about TG people must be smashed", that is interwoven throughout all these discussions about this essay (especially the Signpost copy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was trying to hint you should give some better context on the page (the nutshell doesn't clarify it at all), but ... You know, "I assume no bad faith at all about ... continued willful misinterpretation" is just hilarious. You should add it to another "humour" page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh. The whole thing's crappy anyway.  Someone in here was saying "If you have to explain the joke, then it's not good humor".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Being found offensive" is not a reason to delete even a proper article, much less a userspace essay. People outside a very specific bubble are quite offended by content posted here on a regular basis, and we have strong policies to make certain that content can't be censored for the purposes of avoiding offense. Certainly we're not about to start strangling points about actual policy in the interests of not offending members of the locally dominant sociocultural group in particular. --Yair rand (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As I said in Signpost talk: anything can be "offensive" if a) someone's desperately looking to be offended, and b) if they have trouble telling the difference between "entity A writes like X, off-site" and "Wikipedia is required to use exactly X because A says so". It's the exact same thing over and over again with adherents to various religions, with trademark holders, and with people convinced that English is broken and must be fixed right-now-or-else. Being a trademark holder, or a follower of a religion that makes lots of use of honorifics, or being an ally of the nonbinary and transgendered (or NB or TG oneself) doesn't confer magical immunity to criticism for advancing non-encyclopedic writing in the encyclopedia (and it's mostly self-styled "allies" doing this, too often making one-size-fits-all assumptions and demands about people who are actually quite diverse in their preferences). WP should be (with reliable sources) what the subject's preferences and usage are, but not adopting invented words in Wikipedia's own voice (though we seem to more or less have consensus that singular they is okay, finally – because the real world says so – even if MoS doesn't say so explicitly yet). That's all the essay is about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I find this to be in quite poor taste, but that's not a reason for deletion. Natureium (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This is SMC's personal user space, and should be allowed more latitude than the Signpost. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete WP:POLEMIC . I would suggest that  consider a more direct and serious approach to his perfectly valid concerns about MOS and pronouns. Sardonic ridicule undermines what he is trying to say and does appear to attack other editors. In fact I quite agree with his sentiment about the made up pronouns and activism to use them. The problem with satire is there is always some room for question about the message and it is very easy to read this as an attack on people who use contrived pronouns. As I said in the other MFD, not only a professional offense-taker would take offense to this or find that it seems to insult certain people. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Already addressed this in detail with someone else, here. Précis: We try the serious approach all the time and it just turns into months of screaming matches. A humor take was worth a shot, even if this one didn't go over well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this personal sandbox essay about the MOS. The pageviews show that no one reads it, and that means that no one will be offended by it. I'd expect SMcCandlish to delete the snarky portions of the essay per community feedback w umbolo   ^^^  22:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is refreshing to see some parts of the essay amended per community feedback. I don't see any issues now other than "It" being a derogatory term for genderqueer people. While I still believe that the essay is inappropriate for The Signpost, which seeks readers among all kinds of editors, there are very many more divisive essays than this one in userspace. w umbolo   ^^^  09:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Keep. (just to lend balance to the other "strongest possible" !vote above) Keep per all the keeps above and those that may follow. This whole thing's a joke. It appears that the funniest part is that the deletionists here and on the other page don't "get it". Someone wrote about "suicide rates" on that other page, but failed to mention that of professional funny people, aka comics. Anytime one says or writes anything meant to be humorous, one risks offending those who "read (write?) between the lines" for whatever reason. The Signpost should not be censored for any reason once any article its editors have agreed to publish gets read by those who choose (opt in) to read it! An editor's user page might be subject to deletion for certain reasons; however, this user page should be kept!  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  00:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - That something "has been found to be offensive by many readers" is not a reason for deletion. The content of this userspace essay is well within the standards defined at WP:USERESSAY and WP:UPYES. Different namespace, different standards; oppose merging this discussion with the one about the signpost article. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - It's in user space, and it isn't funny. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep No harm in userspace. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  03:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course, WP:CENSOR covers this particular user page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CENSOR is about articles in the encyclopedia specifically, saying that we can write practically anything as long as it is encyclopedic. I doesn't really apply to userspace pages. Moreover, there are other reasons to delete this page besides the fact that it is bigoted in nature, such as that this userspace template may only really serve to be useful for jokesters and trolls who have no interest in improving the encyclopedia. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 18:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It certainly applies to userspace pages, as any review of MfD will show you. The vast majority of attempts to delete userspace essays – even ones actually intended to offend various people, which this one is not – fail on censorship grounds, as long as there's some Wikipedia-related rationale in the page in question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:UPNOT: "you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense ... Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor." See WP:UPYES for things that can be hosted on userpages; this offensive content cannot fit under any of those categories. ɱ  (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The fallacy of selective quotation. You left out that the policy applies to "polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia", and this is really obviously related to Wikipedia (it's not about anything else). Nor is "some people were offended" equivalent to "widespread offense" (as the 3:1 keep ratio here demonstrates). Nor is there any evidence that using humor to suggest that criticism of putting in Wikipedia's own voice things like the Artist Formerly Known as Prince symbol, "Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him" and "Our Lord Jesus Christ", or pseudo-pronouns like zie, brings the project into disrepute (the non-neutrality of doing those things would, however).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a selective quotation: WP:UPNOT clearly states anything likely to bring the project into disrepute must be removed. As others have stated, if news media found out about this hateful thing being posted and staying on Wikipedia, that will bring extreme disrepute. This content has also has brought widespread offense, as is seen by the vast number of delete votes on the main deletion discussion, far outweighing keep votes. Your argument here is invalid, and your content is an extreme and vulgar insult to our hard work on Wikimedia projects. ɱ  (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: while both userpage and Signpost content are regulated by basic civility policies, Signpost content is also regulated by sound editorial judgment, and the standards for Signpost articles should be stricter than the standards for userpage articles because Signpost articles to some extent represent Wikipedia. Thus, this difference in standards means that the consensus for deletion on the Signpost article does not necessarily carry over to here.Leugen9001 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think most will agree the level of outrage on the main deletion discussion shows clear evidence for "widespread offense". ɱ  (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just counted 59 distinct users who believe that the article was offensive or in bad taste. ɱ  (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of whom were non-neutrally canvassed to come do so, at WT:LGBT, Wikipedia-L, Meta, and various other places. And don't confuse objections to the Signpost article with objections to the userspace essay; a large number of the former are about Signpost 's particular role as the project newsletter, and are not pertinent here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're blowing the canvassing out of proportion, and it seems there has been canvassing on both sides. And, no, I counted people who were just disgusted with the content, not any approval/disapproval with its hosting on the Signpost. ɱ  (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been proven canvassing on one "side"; however, you will need to produce evidence of your serious accusations of double canvassing. Canvassing produces dramatically skewed results made even worse by pile-on !votes of editors who give knee-jerk agreements. That is why the accusations are very serious and virtually cannot be blown out of proportion. Please provide diffs that show that one or more supporters of keeping the essay are guilty of canvassing.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  03:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That the effect of the canvassing has not been exaggerated at all is demonstrated by the keep/delete ratios at the two MfDs being directly opposite each other, while the canvassing only led people to one MfD. It would be difficult to imagine more conclusive evidence. And, no, there was no canvassing in the other direction.  Given the amount of debate and scrutiny, including at ANI and now ArbCom, we'd've seen evidence of that by now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, I it's selective quotation by quoting the pertinent part that you omitted.  Feel free to keep arguing at the wall.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong delete – Whereas I can accept the Signpost article to some degree, I really can't see a postive side to this template. Its existence and potential use by some editors will only alienate others, including myself. This template is meanspirited and not humorous, having a particular nonsocial intent: any user that may apply this template to their userpage shows themselves to be particularly contemptful towards the identities of other people (be they pronoun use, chosen names, etc). Notably, the text would imply that any user that uses this template should automatically be considered a jokester or troll throughout the entire website? I suppose that tag could go on someone's userpage in isolation, but in combination with the rest of the template, that really makes a given user look like a troll who is only there to discredit the identities of others. ~ Maplestrip/Mable  ( chat ) 13:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Only bigots and trolls would use this template. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 13:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep since this is in userspace per above. SemiHypercube 13:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – this serves no purpose other than to harass or intimidate members of a minority group, and is a violation of WP:NPA and Wikipedia's fourth pillar. Bradv 🍁  13:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a "humorous essay" and, as such, is perfectly acceptable in User-space. Deletion would make me want to edit this discussion and label it as "humor" as it has certainly attained such a status, in my honest opinion. Wikipedia Signpost essays are not "official opinions" of anyone at all, but deleting them sure as heck makes an "official statement". Collect (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be better if it were indeed an essay rather than a template. Either way, though, suggesting anything labeled as "humor" and "should not be taken seriously" can stay on Wikipedia seems like an odd stance. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Slightly weaker delete this is in userspace, and thus not in Wikipedia's "official" voice (as compared to the Signpost article), but is still transphobic. Hypothetically, if someone had an essay in their user-space mocking Catholics or Jews for their rituals, or perhaps making fun of black people for their traditions, would it be allowed to stand? I would argue that this would fall into the same category. -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  16:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think there are flaws with that comparison. The focus of the article is on the acceptance of non-binary pronouns in articles as a matter of writing style. The author would, therefore, most likely compare it to an article mocking the prominent inclusion of religious honorifics in articles rather than mocking any specific religion in general. Mocking the inclusion of religious honorifics might also be uncivil, but it is certainly not as uncivil as mocking a religion in general. Leugen9001 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point- I shouldn 't have made that comparison. My original !vote still stands, though. -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  19:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep The apparent intent of the article is to comment on the extent to which Wikipedia should use personally-chosen pronouns, rather than to comment on the debate over transgender issues as a whole. The viewpoint of the article is far within Wikipedia standards, as set by precedents such as the debate over how transgender individuals should be referred prior to their transition, in which neither side of the debate inherently breaks Wikipedia standards. The manner in which the viewpoint is presented, however, is more questionable. Being presented in a sarcastic way, it is liable to offend, which is a legitimate concern. At the same time, removing the article could also bring the project into disrepute, as a significant portion of society opposes transgenderism and this could make Wikipedia seem biased. This article is objectionable according to centre-left political viewpoints, but according to even a centre-right viewpoint, it may be acceptable. Being that no specific person is attacked and the tone presents the argument as a humorous exaggeration, I am on the side of a very weak keep. &#91;&#91;User:Leugen9001&#124;Leugen9001&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;User_talk:Leugen9001&#124;Chat&#93;&#93; ) (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be really, really, really clear: This page has nothing at all to do with supporting anti-transgender stuff, at all, ever. It not a right or center-right political piece, of any kind. It's about encyclopedic use of English in Wikipedia's own voice, period, the end. PS: Being transgender isn't an "-ism".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll just say that I, personally, felt a bit attacked when I read the piece. It felt like your typical "Haha these kids today, always whining about their pronouns. Back in my day men were men and women were women" type of thing. Perhaps that wasn't your intention. But sometimes what we intend to communicate and what we actually communicate are two different things. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 08:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not generational humor, no. I agree with your closing sentence of course.  But we shouldn't just stop trying because some efforts fail.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How exactly is this page being viewed? As an essay or as a template? Because, as a personal essay, I don't believe it has to be deleted. However, as a template, intended for people to place on their own userpage, I strongly believe it should be deleted. How do others here feel about this distinction? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 18:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FFS. The template thing is a joke. Literally no one is using it or expected to. The whole tone of the piece is absurdist (starting with the "I am a space-god" stuff, in my own name à la Stephen Colbert-style self-fictionalization).  Besides, something coded as a template in userspace is still treated as a userpage at MfD; it's not subject to TfD, or TfD's considerations of template utility.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: This no longer functions as a template, so three above delete !votes are now moot (including especially one in support of keeping the Signpost copy but deleting this one only because it was a template). The entire point of the "template" thing was for its documentation, which helps get the point across to humorless people who were missing it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:CENSOR. As Ben Shapiro said - "Facts don't care about feelings". GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I will abstain from voting, at least for now, but a guideline that hasn't been brought up yet: WP:FIGHTINGWORDS says user spaces should not contain "offensive material" such as "Statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". Wandering Wanda  (they/them) (t/c) 06:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That has already been brought up, just not with that shortcut. The essay doesn't attack or vilify anyone, it criticizes an editorial practice of using non-standard English in our articles in furtherance of socio-political, religious, or marketing agendas. No amount of hand-waving is going to change that fact. The entire section in which FIGHTINGWORDS appears is only applicable to material "unrelated to Wikipedia". An essay about how to write WP articles, and why, is "related to Wikipedia" by definition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Whether this violates any guidelines feels ambiguous to me and the guidelines repeatedly say that user pages should be given "leeway". With that said, I don't think the essay is constructive and, regardless of intention, many people have told you that they found it hurtful and exclusionary. I recommend blanking it rather than digging in your heels. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 08:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UPNOT as mentioned above. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself according to that policy. Mocking gender minorities is an especially crummy soapbox to stand on and goes against WP:UPNOT's warning not to be disruptive towards the wikipedia community. Rab V (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly satire. Not trans specific - non-standard pronoun choice has become a social liberty that tracends well past the trans community (including cisgender straight people). NOTCENSORED.Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The standards for userspace are deliberately very permissive.  DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thought police can go to Meta. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UPNOT: "you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute" which is a real possibility if we continue to host it. This is not part of the "unrelated to Wikipedia" paragraph; it is "in addition" to it. –dlthewave ☎ 23:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, if disrepute is the primary concern, deleting this well-crafted work of irony would bring far more disrepute in its train. – Athaenara  ✉  09:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also Delete all copies including User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth (collapsed under a "Material that is offensive to Drama Kweens" banner) –dlthewave ☎ 23:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Are you bucking for the job of finding all of the growing number of copies both on WP and elsewhere on the Internet? Good luck with that. I even have a written hard copy. This piece may be destined to become an iconism of pronounisms!  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  18:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't someone say something about the Streisand effect already?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I expect to will my backdated hardcopy to my heirs, so they will benefit from the several million your essay will be worth in the future! ("several million" wha?!>)  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  02:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I expect to will my backdated hardcopy to my heirs, so they will benefit from the several million your essay will be worth in the future! ("several million" wha?!>)  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  02:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Ffs, indeed. There’s no good reason to retain an obviously failed joke causing this much consternation and genuine pain. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't be hyperbolic, please. Socio-political ire is not "pain", much less "genuine pain". What next, are you going to call it "literally pain"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Userspace standards are more flexible, and besides, the recent edits have toned down the problematic content. On a first read, I would have thought this to be a reference to SCP-426, not something to do with transgender pronouns. The MOS:IDENTITY and WP:ABOUTSELF links at the end do tie the essay to the topic, but I think it would be a real stretch to read this as WP:POLEMIC. Also, never let it be said that LGBTQ people don't have a sense of humour. -- Ununseti (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are some good absurdist memes about gender out there. There's nothing inherently wrong with joking about gender (or race, etc.) Like anything it can be done well or poorly. The Signpost piece does it (in my view) very poorly. For one thing it belabors its joke so much I think SMc should seriously consider applying for a job at SNL. :) But more to the point, read the piece and tell me if you're supposed to like or dislike the post-biological explicate manifestation of the Multiverse's implicate reality. Obviously you're supposed to dislike "It", right? They're a comedic antagonist, meant to be seen as egocentric, ill-humored, bossy, bullying, and absurd. Now what is It's primary concern in the piece? Making sure people address them using proper pronouns. In real life, what group of people comes to mind when you think concerned with proper pronouns? Trans people, right? When you break the piece down it's hard not to see it as anything but a hateful caricature of trans folks. Now, SMc has said that wasn't the intention, and I will assume good faith and believe him. But that doesn't exempt the piece from criticism. Wandering Wanda  (they/them) (t/c) 05:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you. The essay did seem somewhat mean-spirited towards trans people. I know SMc did not intend this at all, but it just turned out that way. And I do believe that this wasn't his intention; blindspots cause things to slip through all the time. I wouldn't blame him for having a slip like this, but yeah, we still get to criticize the work. And his response to the backlash. And also (I'm not really seeing enough of this) the editorial oversight at the Signpost for ignoring the voiced concerns about this essay before it was published. Lots of things are okay for Userspace but not a good choice for Signpost. -- Ununseti (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Signpost editorial oversight stuff was covered in a mile of depth at the other MfD; this one is about something else. An interesting thing to me about that entire list you linked to at TVTropes (if you can actually get to it – it's below all the paragraphs of blather at the top, in collapse-boxed topical sections) is that it's all about a) corporate advertising, or b) mass-media entertainment product (to the extent there's much difference any longer). Both of those are profit-driven public relations; they're about winning a popularity contest to make more money. They don't relate strongly to something like this at all. Yes, it's the same sort of "what percentage of the audience will interpret this in a way that causes a negative reaction?" miscalculation, but the purposes and environment are completely different, as are results (e.g., retractions, public apologies, etc., are made by corporate entities to curry public favor again, to make more money).  A "CBS stopped showing that ad after complaints, so WP should censor a userpage because some editors don't like it" analogy is a false one, on several levels, but few people in this discussion have been intuiting that. Then there's the element that some after-hours media product is explicitly offensive on purpose and aimed at an audience who appreciates it, e.g. Family Guy and South Park; doing that on WP wouldn't actually be tolerated – again, due to lack of anything like a profit motive driving how this community works. (However, the list is worth perusing to see just how broad-spectrum it is – someone somewhere is going to take offense at just about anything, and people at a site like TVTropes will actually take the time to catalogue it all, and it was quite a lot of work.)  Anyway, I've said nowhere in here that you don't get to criticize the material, and I appreciate that your own criticism hasn't been assumptive of nefarious motives.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is in userspace, where it should have stayed. If you know who SMcCandlish is (MOS enforcer), it is quite clear that he is talking about writing style on WP, not trying to insult trans people. Publishing it in Signpost, which wasn't his idea, brought it to wide attention and without background knowledge of what his interest is on WP, it does look like it is mocking trans people, which it actually isn't.Smeat75 (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete . When you read through all of the author's comments about the controversy this essay has caused, one thing becomes astonishingly clear, it is woven through every one to a lesser or greater degree. Nobody's opinion but his own is correct. He has never seen, and will never see, any argument or opinion that contradicts his central thesis, that trans identity is on a par with corporate marketing or stage names or any of the other downright trivial shit he is desperate to conflate with it, and thus it deserves no "honoring" by the mighty Wikipedia, which until I saw this guy in full flow, I had assumed was meant to be all about consensus and the wisdom of the collective. Anyone offended by his views, are either mistaken, or insincere. Or are part of a leftist plot. Anyone who applauds him for it, is of course saluting a comic genius inspired by Lewis Black. I would be interested to see him try to obtain such an endorsement, rather than imagining it would be forthcoming. I'm ashamed to say we have the same taste in comics, but not comedy. He rails against activists, and the irony is palpable. I've deconstructed his argument at length, and when the irrelevance is removed, it is nothing more than a statement of the obvious - Wikipedia voice shall reflect common usage. It falls down at the first hurdle when you consider the confusion that exists around even ubiquitous terms like football and bugger. What he wants is to park his tanks on a trans person's biography, and act like we're all supposed to see him as the voice of reason, the Guardian Angel of all that is right and proper. He doesn't seem to understand, or doesn't want to accept, that there are compromises to be had, in recognition of the fact it is no longer a secret that some trans people want to use pronouns that might on first instance look odd to someone who never spends any time in or around the trans community, or as it is otherwise known, the real world. This isn't the stuff of unicorns, this is how decent people are working with a minority with the ultimate aim of trying to get the suicide rate down. He's so wrapped up in his own ideas of what this is about for him and the Peoples of Earth he represents, he is blind to the rather obvious reasons why smart, intelligent, cultured people, people exactly like the person he sees himself as, clearly, find his speech so offensive. They want to use pronouns other than the ones this guy has said Wikipedia will graciously confer on them because he has consulted the mystic texts and found them to be commonly used now, even though I'd wager "they" causes just as much confusion as xie et al, given that in language and cultural terms this is still a very novel usage, and a brain melting kludge at that. There are only two choices according to this guy, which is ironic. You can have your pronoun used in Wikipedia voice and so destroy the Matrix for everyone, or you can be called by whatever society put on your dog leash, with your own preference recorded some place of course, caveated as the freaky dogs are not people shit it is. Sensible people understand there is a myriad of space to work with inbetween these two extremes, for skilled writers. He presents himself as one. Solutions exist that would respect human dignity and be of no use to Kesha or Sony, so he can keep Watching The Wall for those White Walkers, and he might even find a few more taking the black with him. Essays are for stimulating a debate, advancing a conversation, exchanging views. This guy reality isn't interested in that, and so if polemics are forbidden in Wikipedia, it has to go. He can post it on a blog somewhere, and it will be ignored, because he really is no Lewis Black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryKontana (talk • contribs) 02:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is apparently an argument that  we should delete because it represents SMC's personal opinion. If so, that's what userspace essays are for.      DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that not everyone's personal opinion would be considered appropriate for a Wikipedia essay seems too obvious to have to say, but say it I must, I guess? Specifically, to write something so offensive it gets retracted from the community newsletter, that demonstrates it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, surely. MaryKontana (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * appears to be a WP:Meat puppet account created after this MfD was opened, specifically to "vote". It has zero encyclopedia-related edits, and has done nothing but post unsigned text-walls of invective on this page and on my talk page. It may actually be someone's WP:Sock puppet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I registered to comment directly to you on your attempted defences of this essay. The style and substance of your replies convinced me this essay is not and never was just a misplaced attempt at humor in defence of a stylistic position for Wikipedia, it comes from a much darker place than that. It came to my attention because it's sheer offensiveness made it the talk of the town in my social circle, which is not, as he may be surprised to learn, a cell of leftist extremist language activists. I was not recruited, induced or incetivised to comment here, I represent nobody but myself, and I do not have digital schizophrenia. As he is fond of saying, I can't control his paranoia, that is his issue. I can only rest assured from our interactions, that he is alone in believing it. But if persecution is the price to pay for dissent, it would explain a lot. MaryKontana (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you "registered to comment" then at this point your account would be a Single-purpose account. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Retraction of "transphobic" claims: It's worth reporting here that the nominator, Fæ, has rescinded the claim that this piece was "transphobic" .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Fæ but I think you are missing a subtle but important distinction. In the link above they say that they're not claiming that you are transphobic. That is different from saying that the piece is not transphobic. Here's a quote from Fæ from the recent ANI: I have never stated that SMcCandlish is a transphobe or has transphobia. I have stated that the Signpost "humour" essay on pronouns appeared transphobic, and I am happy to explicitly list and quote the very many very well established Wikipedians that have stated the article is "transphobic", "bigotry", "transphobic rants" etc. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 08:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not "missing" anything. This statement was essentially negotiated (not in fine detail) out of ANI and private e-mail with Fæ, to which you were not a party. This is a newer statement than what you're quoting. And it doesn't say what you think it does (a too-familiar theme here). It retracts "any possible implication ... that authors of the problematic Signpost 'Pronouns beware' essay, might in any way be thought to be transphobic." Given that the labeling of the piece as "transphobic" was necessarily going to have exactly that implication, it's precisely the retraction I say it is.  It's not an agreement with the piece, on any level, and much of the post after the retraction is an analysis of why Fæ disagrees with it, and Fæ raises valid points.  But, in short, it's not possible for a piece of writing to have a phobia, because it doesn't have a mind; the term only applies to a person, and this is what necessitated this retraction in the first place. Let's quote it further: "my words might appear to be intended as an attack on the person". If you read its entire opening, it's much more self-critical about the matter than I am being critical about it here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Okay, this is now past the point of ridiculousness, especially after the above meatpuppetry. We can't go around censoring everything that could be considered remotely offensive simply to protect peoples' feelings. Nor can we forcefully dictate our personal preferences to other people. The real world doesn't work that way. The longer this charade goes on, the less good faith I have in this community, especially when a lot of the comments are a) clearly canvassed, and b) shining examples of our vitriolic 'outrage' culture. In fact, reading some of these justifications for deletion, one might think they've accidentally wandered into the Twilight Zone. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - we've kept far worse (User:JzG/Politics), and at least this is humorous. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, we kept actual BLP violations. The closer did not even address them. I only have one dilemma, and that is whether that should go to DRV or another AfD. w umbolo   ^^^  09:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because they're not actual BLP violations. [sigh] Anyway, I wish I'd seen that MfD sooner, since it's obviously precedent for keeping.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:NOTCENSORED. Plus, note what Collect said: "what Wikipedia Signpost essays are not "official opinions" of anyone at all, but deleting them sure as heck makes an "official statement". XavierItzm (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I get offended by a lot of things, and that's a wonderful feeling. It tells me that I am not succumbing to a personal information and social bubble. Offended people are the ones that end slavery, rebel against dictators, write books, research diseases, and question the universe. Editors who avoid offense are exactly the type to stop reading a source which contradicts their world view, they are the ones that will edit to excise such sources from our articles, and sink any knowledge that can be gained from those sources into the dark pit of ignorance.  Editors like that are the most dangerous element to the necessary mindset it takes to write this encyclopedia of knowledge, and should quickly find their ways to the nearest exit, because it only gets bumpier from here. SMcCandlish, thank you for offending me today. -- Netoholic @  09:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I question the purpose of this on the encyclopedia. How does this help us build the project? What does it actually help us achieve? It contradicts the culture we want set here if you ask me. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It helps to achieve lots of things, not the least of which it, in retrospect, can show a truly sentient being almost precisely what his/her/their/Its/whatever's tolerance level is. And little is more important when one is sharing knowledge and wisdom by editing an encyclopedia than his/her/their/Its/whatever's tolerance level. Does one's tolerance level include ? or preclude objective editing? hmm? And good solid objective/neutral editing does anything but "contradict the culture we want set here", n'est-ce pas?  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  12:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.