Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (4th nomination)

 __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. It is argued that there is no consensus because a number of contributors disagree, but that is not the way these discussions are decided. From Deletion guidelines for administrators: "Administrators must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached." From Closing discussions: "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy". JohnCD (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't-give-a-fuckism
Usage of profane words in the essay that clearly are unacceptable and unsuccessful in the attempts to promote (perhaps) neutral points of view. Request delete.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  13:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. Content of the essay is about as valid as any other essay; does not violate any policies. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, the fact that the page contains profanities is not a good reason to delete; we have m:Don't be a dick, after all... And, by the way, in my opinion, the essay contains useful bits of advice. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Why do people want this deleted so badly? It's not harming anything, now is it? How many newbies come here looking just for this essay? I bet that very few, if any do. Pilif12p :  Yo 14:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing admin, please set this !vote aside per WP:NOHARM. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 03:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments like yours above are mostly just annoying to the closing admin. In any case, did you click the link you listed? Maybe read the bottom where it talks about MfD? Killiondude (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment We just MfD'd this a few weeks ago and it was unanimous keep, so I doubt this MfD will go any differently. Can I ask if you would prefer to have a "clean language" version or just object to the substance of the essay irrespective of how it's worded?   —  Soap  —  14:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Soap. Perhaps the acceptance (or non-) level of the word 'fuck' prompted me to go for the MfD. I'm all right with a speedy keep here (in other words, I'm comfortable with a withdraw out here), as I understand the viewpoint and should attempt to change the language within. Thanks.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  14:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment It was a "unanimous keep" because it was closed so quickly. While I don't know that this essay should be deleted (prefer altering it to make it more effective), I do know that 1) it is invoked for uncivil purposes; 2) the fact that it has been nommed 3 times and that the content is argued about on the talk page means that there is clearly NOT a consensus to keep it in its current form; and 3) while wikipedia is not censored (and I support that) the purpose of this essay is to persuade people to be less attached in order to resolve conflict. It is difficult to persuade someone who is offended by the choice of words. Therefore, I think this essay mostly preaches to the converted, where more moderate language may mean it actually converts more editors to be less attached. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is actually the 4th nomination, the real nom second wasn't named correctly. Its been speedy-kept every time, for 3 years now. That sounds like a consensus to keep with a small minority unwilling to accept it. Chances are, the kind of person who is so offended by the word "fuck" that they refuse to even consider the content of the essay isn't the kind of person who can easily detach themselves from a dispute. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's a small minority unwilling to accept it, it is not a consensus, per the definition of the term. I think it is unfortunate that the majority won't attempt to compromise. Maybe there's something short of deletion that will ameliorate many of the concerns, but none of the keepers have ever even asked about possible alternatives. On Wikipedia, the status quo never has to compromise, even if there is not consensus to maintain said status quo. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 03:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, other than censorship, what are the alternatives? Mr.Z-man 04:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think selecting more effective language to get one's point across to more users is necessarily censorship, but to answer your question, I wonder if a less offensive word would mollify some of the users who are so highly offended, and make it more palatable to people who need to really take it in? If I'm in a dispute with someone and I say "You really need to read WP:FUCK," I think chances of the person reading the essay and getting the message are lower than if a less incendiary word was used. While this may sound funny, even "shit" would be less offensive. Like the commenter below says, it is certainly more common, and is considered a less intense word. I don't think it would change the point of the essay, nor do I think changing the noun will take any power or intensity from that point. This is the first alternative that has come to mind. There maybe more. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this. And thanks for asking! ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 04:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're not really changing it because its "more effective" – it can, and has been, argued that it is more effective as-is; you might get more people to read it, but you risk diluting the message – you're changing it because some people find it offensive. That is censorship. It may not change the actual point of the essay, but it can change the effectiveness. You're coming very close to contradicting yourself. You say "shit" is a less intense word, but it won't reduce the intensity? Mr.Z-man 17:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Effective at what? If you want to be effective at swaying people to its viewpoint, I think having it be more palatable to more people is better. I don't think that switching from "fuck" to "shit" changes the meaning nor dilutes the message, which is one should not be so attached. But again, this was just the first idea off the top of my head. Clearly there is a group of people who find fault with this essay. The Deputy Director of the WikiMedia Foundation himself has issues with it. I just think it would be good of the majority to attempt compromise. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 23:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I disagree with Erik on more than one issue. He's certainly not infallible. Personally I haven't really seen anything I would call a compromise. A compromise is where both sides give something up. If we change the wording, the people wanting to keep it as-is give something up, but the people who want it changed don't give anything, they get exactly what they wanted. Though it assumes that they would actually be happier with "shit," so far you're the only person who has indicated that they would be. Mr.Z-man 02:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If we change the wording, the people who want to keep it as-is give something up, and the people who want it deleted altogether give something up (as it is not deleted). The people who want no profanity altogether also give something up (as there is still profanity). Yes, I'm the only person who has indicated that those who want the essay deleted or all profanity censored might settle for "shit" over "fuck" if those were the only two options, because I see no benefit to inflexibility or unwillingness to compromise. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 04:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there really any people who really want it deleted for reasons other than the profanity? From this and the last MFD, there seem to be a total of 2 users advocating deletion, and one (Wifione) seems to be objecting almost entirely to the use of "fuck." The MFD before that was started with no reason; no one other than the nom supported deletion. In the one before that, most of the deletion advocates seem to be sockpuppets and the remainder's arguments don't really apply anymore as they were based on a now 3-year old version of the page; its been totally rewritten in the meantime. FWIW, excluding the 2007 MFD, there are 38 users who support keeping it as-is and 3 who support deletion. Mr.Z-man 05:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there were socks... ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 06:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But in all seriousness, the argument for this article and the article itself do not stand in argument. The former, because though Wikipedia does not have rules against swearing if you do swear you already get a -1 in the minds of individuals during any discussion for swearing, and the latter because if this article aimed at neutrality and a viewpoint it wanted to teach other editors, it would not use swears to begin with. -PatPeter 05:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but y'know, DGAS is much more common that DGAF. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it? Lara  21:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Completely worthless piece of Wikipedia that detracts from its efforts to make it out to be a serious encyclopedic endeavor. Alex (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, It's a word. Get over it. Page offers a sage bit of advice and if you don't like, don't go here. If it OK in the body of an article, which I argued against, the it should be OK here.  It is likely if you hate this page, you need it. DocOfSoc (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of the term in this manner is highly unprofessional and unnecessary. It makes me wonder why I contribute to this website if it is not even going to attempt to take itself seriously.Alex (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Closing admin, please set aside all the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT based !votes and make your decision on the more objective assertions made. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 20:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Not trying to sound like a WP:DICK, but wouldn't adding a template stop search engines from seeing this? If that template is added its not like anyone can find it without looking for it... Pilif12p :  Yo 20:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was just nominated and kept less than a month ago. There is no policy prohibiting profanity, especially in essays. If you disagree with it, write a counter-essay. An essay like this is pretty far down on the list of things that might cost the project some credibility. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: My default preference about an essay of this nature would usually be to userfy it. But in this instance, I'm not sure whose space we'd userfy it to: based on his contributions, the creator, The prophet wizard of the crayon cake, seems himself to have stopped giving a ... a darn some time ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't give a fuck, but Keep!  ANowlin talk  05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fucking Keep obviously. A well-considered viewpoint, and IMHO one of the best pieces of advice, with respect to staying sane in the madness of Wikipedia. This is a perfectly valid use of the word, to encompass a genuine philosophical stance. As Stephen Fry wrote, "The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any way a sign of a lack of education or of a lack of verbal interest is just fucking lunatic".  Chzz  ►  05:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: This was just nominated a few weeks ago.... --MZMcBride (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't fucking care → ROUX   ₪  05:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I used to want to get this page deleted as well, but all in all, it gives good advice, and I don't give a hoot whether it gets deleted or not. I think people who strongly oppose the page should re-read it neutrally. In the end, I'm pretty sure they won't give a hoot either. --Kjoonlee 07:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have never read a more accurate page on Wikipedia. If one is to be a content editor, it's essential "not to give a fuck." Those that shy away from what they feel are profane or rude words are the same people that spend their entire Wiki-lives censoring and pontificating on others instead of writing.  Giacomo   10:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as it's truth-full. The best way to sail the waters of Wikipedia? is with a Jeff Spicoli attitude. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm clearly from another world :) I've never experienced the f-word being used so liberally on Wikipedia and still not being called WP:Uncivil. I personally have not had a background or education that allowed, promulgated or even encouraged such a usage of the f-word as is evident within the essay. Perhaps that is what led me to nominate this essay for deletion. I was commenting to one of the editors on my talk page how I'd never be comfortable with this essay being quoted as reference points for future/current Wikipedia's editors - simply because of the f-word. If I can't use it with Mr. Wales, my parents, my friends, I possibly cannot use it with any other editor. However, like I mentioned, I clearly am from another world; and as I mentioned in my earlier comment to Soap, I'm quite comfortable adhering to consensus here. Sincerely...  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  16:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Salvio. Tom my! 16:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Fuck yeah we keep this wikipedia is not censored. Mo ainm  ~Talk  17:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Its not hurting anyone and Wikipedia isn't censored. But we should put the "This Page Is Humor" template in, just to make everyone happy. Fli ght x  52 21:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightx52 (talk • contribs)
 * Give it the fuck up already. A grand total of no one gives a shit about delicate sensibilities when it comes to these pages. Lara  21:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! Just because this essay has FUCK in the title doesn't give you a license to violate WP:CIV. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm a rebel, then; operating without a license. Someone detain me! XD Lara  22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:DGAF. In short, I don't give a fuck. harej  21:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fucking keep. Not doing anyone any harm, a perfectly humorous and effective article. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED. What are we targeting next, pray, WP:DBAD? &mdash;La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 21:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh per WP:DGAF :P but seriously, Keep. There's no rule against senseless profanity on project pages. ☻☻☻Sithman  VIII !!☻☻☻ 02:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: By transitive law anyone voting to keep this article must already not give a fuck, and therefore their votes are null.
 * It really doesn't belong here and I've never seen it invoked productively. However, the depressing fact is that we have far too many editors who reflexively oppose deleting anything with naughty words in it because they think they're defending freedom of speech or something. With any luck something will eventually happen to it, though what that might be I don't know. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do essays need to be "invoked" at all? Did you actually consider the fact that people are agreeing with it because they agree with the message? Or did you just assume that they were lying when they said they were? Mr.Z-man 13:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not essays need to be invoked, they are. That's part of the culture of Wikipedia. And when invoked, this one is sometimes invoked with statements like "Go FUCK yourself." ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then those users should be blocked for being uncivil. The essay itself is not inherently uncivil. Just because a crowbar can be used as a weapon doesn't mean a license should be required for crowbar purchases. Mr.Z-man 22:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Every time I've seen a reference to this essay (your mileage may vary of course) it's been as part of a message along the lines of "I'm proud to be a sociopath", which is not conducive to positive collaboration in the way that OWB#60 is. I am not for a moment suggesting that Wikipedia is short of proud sociopaths, but it is arguably not helpful for them to have a codified belief system in projectspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Perhaps request a move to a less profane variation (WP:Detachment?), but Observation 60 and most of the essay's substance are accurate and within the permissible bounds of essay opinions. --Cyber cobra (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to different title, move to user space, move to meta, or delete. Per my extended comment, the net detriment of an official-sounding WP:FUCK in project space outweighs any benefits of this essay in its current form. This is not a matter of censorship, but a matter of making a rational and inclusive choice how we communicate. Note: Don't be a dick was moved to Meta for similar reasons (see Wikipedia talk:Don't be a dick).--Eloquence* 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. This is absolutely a disruptive nomination, considering that the last nomination closed as Speedy Keep less than a month ago, and all 3 previous MfD's (yes, this is the fourth MfD despite the "3rd nomination" title) also closed as Speedy Keep.  It's clearly not going anywhere, and I'd expect an admin to be able to see that prior to nominating it.   <font color="#25900D">Snotty <font color="#33CC33">Wong  communicate 00:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The last MfD for this article was non-admin closed after being open less than 2 hours. That was unfair, in my opinion, and nobody should be citing that MfD as why this one shouldn't be happening. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the last MfD closed so quickly only gives more weight to the argument that this MfD is frivolous and a waste of everyone's time.  <font color="#648113">Snotty <font color="#994400">Wong  babble 23:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A non-admin closure after less than two hours, by a supporter of the majority opinion doesn't give weight to anything. I would have reverted the closure, but I noticed a little too late. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 15:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to different title, move to user space, or move to meta After looking at both sides, I agree with Eloquence]. This is not a matter of censorship, but a matter of making a rational and inclusive choice how we communicate. We're not telling people what they can and can't say. We're arriving at consensus, through a collaborative decision making process, on how we want to present ourselves. And some of us think that FUCK is not the best word. [[User:Noraft| ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to different title, move to user space, or move to meta As the nominating editor, I agree with Eloquence's brilliant solution, where she shows how Don't be a dick was moved to Meta for similar reasons (see Wikipedia talk:Don't be a dick). This move will allow editors to refer to this essay irrespective of it not being in the Wikipedia space. It's so clear that if a simple nomination of this essay can motivate so many editors, many of them established, to become so comfortable using the 'Fuck' word in their belligerent keep comments - as is evidenced above - there is much logic to the fact that while this essay might contain details relevant to some editors, it does motivate and encourage the liberal usage of the 'Fuck' word. Move and speedy close this discussion.  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  05:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If its speedy closed at this point, it would be as "Keep", which there is a supermajority in favor of. There is clearly no consensus for a move. Mr.Z-man 20:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also not consensus for a "Keep," as a half dozen editors have expressed concern with keeping the essay in its current form and location. According to WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles." Referencing Consensus_decision-making, we don't even have U-3 here. A significant minority of editors have expressed concerns. These concerns are not being considered by the majority. Further, editors tend to watchlist articles they support, and those who oppose an article tend not to watchlist them. So that means there are 50 editors who like this article at the ready to defend it when an editor comes along and opposes it. The opposition doesn't get notified when it goes to MfD. So the statistics on "consensus" are skewed in my opinion. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going by the practical definition of consensus; how its applied on Wikipedia in almost all cases. Historically, we've always used "rough consensus." Letting 3 people block any decision on a project the size of Wikipedia is patently ridiculous. Regardless, when there's no consensus, the default action is to do nothing. When I see a compromise proposal that consists of something other than doing exactly what the minority wants, I'll consider it. Mr.Z-man 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave you a compromise proposal that consisted of something other than doing exactly what the minority wants, and you said "so far you're the only person" who has suggested this. So it seems there's no possible scenario that satisfies you. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 04:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Where one defines words as sufficiently offensive for essay deletion is unclear. At this point, drawing the line here seems quite unwise indeed. Collect (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Your hang-ups on "bad" language are your own concern; don't try to make it ours. The essay is just as valid as most of the more traditional and accepted ones, therefore there is no legitimate reason to delete this one. A little less prig and a little more good humour wouldn't go amiss here. Delta Trine  Συζήτηση 20:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't very nice. Try leading by example. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm? It wasn't very nice? Well, I wasn't intending to cause offence, I was just pointing out the nominator's reasons for putting the thing up for deletion, which aren't valid ones by Wikipedia's own guidelines. Neither do I intend to "lead" anyone; I was merely offering my opinion. I don't expect anyone to suddenly hang on every word I say. I'm not sure what your issue is here, since you didn't really say what I said was so lacking in niceness... Delta Trine  Συζήτηση 15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you type "define prig" into Google, you get back "snob: a person regarded as arrogant and annoying." I don't think telling someone they should be a little less prig is very nice. Regarding my suggestion for you to try leading by example, I was saying that maybe you should employ "a little more good humour" yourself. Then maybe you wouldn't say such things. However, your statement that you didn't mean to cause offense leads me to believe that either you don't think calling someone a snob/annoying is offensive, or you didn't know that the word is defined that way. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 02:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Check the second definition given; it was the one I intended insomuch as the approach to form and propriety. So no, I'm not ignorant of the meaning of the words I use. It's a little difficult to show good humour to the "censorists" on Wikipedia given that often, as in this case, their objections are primarily driven by an overly-delicate and prudish mentality, not by any (as I and quite a few others here see it) legitimate reason. I see this far too much on Wikipedia, like on the talk pages of articles sporting images which have nudity in them. "Agh, not this again!" springs to mind. Anyway, this time it's fewer aspersions and more assuming of good faith that wouldn't go amiss. Delta Trine  Συζήτηση 02:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Like Eloquence said, "This is not a matter of censorship, but a matter of making a rational and inclusive choice how we communicate." Personally, I don't think the essay in its current form is as effective at persuading new readers to its viewpoint as it could be if it used different language. I love the word fuck. I say it about 12 times a day and do it as often as practical. But I think it is offputting to some who REALLY need to get the message behind this essay. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 04:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Delta Trine, perhaps my words might assuage you; I have no issues with being advised to be a little less prig. It's all right and no issues with me. (Noraft, it's all right; don't worry). Thanks.  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  04:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Snottywong's rationale, which I was shocked to see. If it moves to meta, I really don't have a strong opinion.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  18:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It's a staple. It's a policy. And Wikipedia is not censored. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What?! This essay has become a policy?  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  04:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm eagerly looking forward to the first WP:AN/I report of someone committing a DGAF violation &mdash; followed by the reporter being blocked for the DGAF violation involved in reporting someone for a DGAF violation. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you insane? Essays are no grounds for blocking! If any administrator blocks for "DGAF violation", it may and, likely, will lead to desysop for the improper use of tools. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 14:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Whilst I'm not a fan of the essay, I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS, as it has a very specific definition in Wikimedian contexts - there is absolutely no connection to unanimity in our usage. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have read it: "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised." ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 02:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for fucks sake Having participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vulgarity, I can tell you there's not going to be any consensus to delete this essay because someone's delicate sensibilities can't handle an essay that has the word fuck in the title. If it offends you, don't fucking read it. AniMate 06:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi AniMate, If the mere MfD motivates you - a sysop - to use the fuck word so peacefully on me/others, I'm sure you're only adding to the presumptions that one holds about this essay. By the way, post the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vulgarity in which you participated, Vulgarity was redirected to Civility.  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  08:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Motherfucking keep To quote the sage, "If people would stop getting offended by words that are just words, all this retarded shit wouldn't be so gay." &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid reason given for deletion.  This should be closed per WP:POINT. meshach (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for keeping. WP:POINT is with respect to policies and guidelines. This essay is neither. Good evening :)  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  06:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you had to invoke such a condescending message. You must be frustrated fighting such a losing battle. meshach (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep If you can't stand string language, this project is not for you. It's a valid -ism and a valid essay. It's an essay! Oh noes, cussing in an essay. Get real, people. Someone please tell me one valid reason why this should be deleted. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for sure. But maybe some changes. When I first started editing Wikipedia 4 or 5 years ago, if I had seen something titled that I would have gotten the complete wrong impression on how we work here. I propose that we move it to WP:Don't give a shit or something similar. This way it may not be quite as obscene. A policy should be something that everyone feels comfortable reading. Saying "Don't give a fuck" may not be as good of a way to communicate a message as "Don't get to carried away with something as you may get argumentative" or "If someone is making you mad, ignore them". My two cents.  Mr. R00t    Talk  23:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm not a fan of the word itself, but the idea behind the page should be kept. I'm not enthused by either extreme of the people voting here, but meh. Killiondude (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

MEDCAB Proposal

For the record, there are now six editors who do not favor the status quo. While we may end up going with a majority decision, this MfD shows that there was not consensus for the status quo. I propose we take this to WP:MEDCAB so that the concerns of all parties can be addressed on this collaborative project. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa, what? There may be six editors who don't favor the status quo (I only counted four in a brief count of bold !votes, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), but you neglected to mention that there are over 25 editors who do favor the status quo.  I would argue that this MfD (and the previous 4) show that there is an especially strong consensus for the status quo.  Taking the discussion to WP:MEDCAB would be forum shopping.   <font color="#225DC8">Snotty <font color="#994400">Wong  talk 23:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I neglected to mention that there are over 25 editors who favor the status quo. They are clearly visible here. I'm pointing out that there is now a cohesive minority position. And you seem to be mistaking the word "consensus" for "majority." There is no consensus, as defined by WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles. Forum shopping is when editors raise an issue at numerous Wikipedia locations, or with numerous twists on the same basic theme, in the hopes that one of those venues or one of those wordings will produce the result that they desire. Making a proposal to start mediation is not forum shopping. Its asking the participants if they want mediation. If I filed at MEDCAB unilaterally, that would be forum shopping. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 02:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This of course presupposes that your concerns are legitimate. They aren't, so no real problem there. See WP:NOTCENSORED for just one of the multitude of reasons why. → ROUX   ₪  06:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I second the WP:MEDCAB proposal. More so as I see a huge systemic continental bias prevalent massively out here, not just in the way the work Fuck has been brandished liberally, but also in the way editors who have opposing (delete/move) viewpoints have been advised to be stop being prudish . I'm not that much into censoring; but editors have to understand that not everybody is from nations/continents where the language of English spoken/written accepts the usage of such terminologies rationally. If we are supposed to take care of such bias rationally, and yet not focus on censoring, moving this page is a rational decision, one which can provide consensus. To that extent, I second the Medcab proposal.  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  04:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps try a much more lightweight Move Request first? --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Medcab - The "systemic continental bias", as Wifione pointed out, cannot be discounted, and the attitudes displayed even in this MFD are part and parcel of that. This decision should be brought to a greater audience since we have this option.--WaltCip (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this sounds like sour grapes; it is quite apparent from the discourse above that the consensus approves this page, and that a small but vocal majority dislike it. In these cases, I ask those who are taking offence to please respect the consensus. Medcab for this is really really unnecessary. Can't we just move along, and go edit something?  Chzz  ►
 * Agree MEDCAB is not the way to go, will we list everyone who commented in this and the previous 3 noms as involved? Good luck to whoever tries to mediate with that many different editors who are all entitled to have their say. 18:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you have consensus confused with "majority." There is NO consensus to keep this page the way it is. There is also no consensus to change it. We're a "hung jury" as it were. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unanimity is not required for consensus on Wikipedia: it simply requires that the decision takes into account any legitimately raised viewpoints. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look. If 30 users have one opinion, and 6 users have another opinion, then repackaging the discussion as mediation or as a move request is just WP:DEADHORSE.  The page has been MfD'd 5 times now, just let it go.  It's not going anywhere.   <font color="#225DC8">Snotty <font color="#25900D">Wong  express 21:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would be textbook forum fucking shopping, not the poor abused equine. Needless to say I oppose any attempts to end-run the obvious consensus here. → ROUX   ₪  21:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Attempting to get consensus for mediation is not forum shopping. Unilaterally going to mediation is, though. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 21:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, Xeno. I do not think that all legitimate viewpoints have been taken into account if it is declared that the consensus is Keep. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 21:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And the status quo is a legitimate viewpoint, and it is the one that has garnered consensus in the past and currently. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The opposing viewpoint represented here is also legitimate, and means that the current page does not have consensus if this legitimate viewpoint is not taken into account. As you know, consensus can change, and it has. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 00:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly saying that as long as there are a couple of voices objecting to something, there is no consensus and therefore nothing can be done? You are joking, right? There is nothing on Wikipedia that passes unanimously. By your logic, nobody with a single oppose vote should ever be promoted to admin. Or, to use the numbers here specifically, someone with 30+ supports and 6 opposes should not be granted +sysop. Do you not see how that is simply an untenable position? → ROUX   ₪  00:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that. But good job with the straw man argument. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 08:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you're technically wrong. It has happened before that an editor, at the point of the RfA closing, has not passed despite his/her having majority by a huge margin. See here. In other words, what one might believe to be apparent count consensus on a forum, if it were to go against policy, would not be legitimate. WP:CIVILITY is a policy and irrespective of the extent of acceptance that people might have for words like fuck in one community, you cannot disregard that people from other communities - and other continents - do not accept such a usage. I can point out to you examples of how editors, after voting on this forum using the F-word liberally, have gone on to use it immediately thereon in their other talk discussions. Get the usage of the F-word accepted in WP:CIVILITY and at least I should believe we'll adhere to policy thereon and would be able to use the F-word quite without inhibition, me with you, and you with me; and everybody with Mr. Jimbo Wales :):)  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  06:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is... interesting that you failed to mention the RFA you linked to was withdrawn, and would quite clearly have passed at those numbers had it not been. I find it interesting, also, that you're going on about continental bias; liberal use of the word 'fuck' is a very British thing... but "I don't give a fuck" is a very American saying. That is, however, neither here nor there; what you are advocating--something that many people have tried, and failed, to do on Wikipedia--is that a small (extremely small) minority in opposition to a given proposal may stall the process indefinitely. That is not, in fact, how Wikipedia works. And I would be willing to bet cash money that if you were on the opposite side in this debate you would not be saying anything of the sort. I have been on the wrong/losing/minority side of consensus before. It sucks, it's annoying, but you have to suck it up because that is how Wikipedia works. Use of the word 'fuck' is not in and of itself incivil; as with every other word in the English language, it is entirely a matter of context, how it is used. "I am going to fuck your brains out" is not incivil; "go fuck yourself" is. The usage here is clearly not to be incivil, it is quite appropriately using the word as a rhetorical device to make a point clear. So there's your civility argument. As for mentioning Jimbo, that's a red herring. The sooner his mighty god king status is seen as a bygone relic of a decade ago, the better. Taking this to another forum is the very definition of WP:FORUMSHOP; a discussion was held, there is clear and stark consensus, and an uninvolved person will come along in due course and close this discussion as 'keep.' That you disagree with the consensus is entirely irrelevant. → ROUX   ₪  06:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything that goes to MEDCAB starts out in another forum (a talk page, usually). A bunch of people agreeing to mediation is not forum shopping. If I went to MEDCAB unilaterally, that would be forum shopping. I wrote this before, but maybe you didn't see it. Personally, I'd like to either see the definition of consensus followed here, or the definition changed if it is not followed. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 08:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But you don't get to have it both ways. Do you agree that at RFA someone with 75%+ support has consensus to pass? Yes or no? If the answer is yes, why do you think it's okay to ignore consensus here? If the answer is no, why aren't you making the same arguments you are making here on the RFA tpage? → ROUX   ₪  09:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what they call it, they clearly vote at RfA, to the point that they even tally it and have a cutoff. So I would say that someone at RfA with a 75%+ majority passes. It is not decided by consensus there, according to the WP:CONSENSUS definition of consensus. I've got a "yes or no" for you: does the description of what constitutes a consensus at WP:CONSENSUS exist on this page? Have all legitimate viewpoints been taken into account in making the decision to keep this page? ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 11:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The legitimate viewpoints, yes. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a legitimate viewpoint. → ROUX   ₪  19:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither is WP:ILIKEIT, nor WP:NOTCENSORED. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I cited NOTCENSORED as a general principle. The simple fact is that this essay violates no policies--don't give me the tiresome civility argument; I demolished that above, as did FT2, and the only objection being raised by the very tiny minority here is that they don't like it. → ROUX   ₪  20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What I would look for to counterbalance a numerical weight would be if the minority viewpoint is better-founded in Wikipedia principles, policy or guidelines than the majority, just like an AfD with 30 keep-because-I-like-it and 6 delete-because-it-blatantly-fails-the-GNG. That is, consensus includes the standing consensus of the project as a whole.  I'm not seeing that here; it seems to me that the Keeps are in line with key items like WP:NOTCENSORED and so on, and the non-keeps don't seem to be standing on much. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I assert that invoking WP:NOTCENSORED here is not a legitimate viewpoint, for two reasons: 1) We're not talking about censorship. We're talking about choice of words. Censorship is telling people "You can't say fuck." We are a (small) group of editors who would like to choose different words. We're not telling you what to do. We're expressing support for how we'd like to see the essay, and how we'd like to see Wikipedia represented. 2) As stated by FT2 (Talk, WP:NOTCENSORED applies to article content, not essays. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 18:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see much scope or need for a mediation case here. While consensus does mean considering all views, as a practical measure if every last discussion needed mediation to conclude it and address small-minority concerns we would grind to a halt. Especially in this case, where it either does or doesn't change so positions are likely to be relatively fixed. The word "fuck" here is not being used to attack a person but to describe a generic state of mind, so it's not an "attack" or being "uncivil" to a person (WP:CIVIL is about how users address each other, especially in disputes; this isn't such a case), and WP:NOTCENSORED applies only to content.  What seems more sensible if "something" is demanded, is an RFC on the principle behind this, ie is it valid for policies and guidelines contain strong terms for the purpose of better making their point. I'm not sure it's worth it but if "process" is demanded that would probably be a more sensible choice. FT2 (Talk 11:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I would preemptively oppose such an RfC on the general principle of "Good lord, this is an MfD not a place to endlessly throw up new proposals so stop trying to evade consensus and getting your way by any means necessary." → ROUX   ₪  19:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

meta Proposal

I have another proposal: Why not keep the essay in its current form, and move it to meta? That's what was done with WP:DICK. Then it can apply to all WM projects, not just Wikipedia. People who like to see the word "fuck" in it get what they want, and people who think it represents Wikipedia poorly also get their way, as it is moved off Wikipedia, but will still be accessible/invokable through WP:FUCK. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 18:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as an end run around the clear consensus here. → ROUX   ₪  19:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Roux; this is clear consensus dodging and another attempt to get one's way no matter what. KaySL  talk 19:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, considering the page is being considered for deletion, I don't think a move is "getting one's way." I think the opposition to the status quo has gone out of their way to suggest a wide range of other options. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 19:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The goal of the minority is to do away with this page from the Wikipedia namespace, whether by deletion or moving it off to meta. You yourself seem to have a vested interest in seeing any outcome other than a keep... Proposing an endless wave of alternatives to the clear consensus is quite frankly just petty. KaySL  talk 20:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE AS OUT OF ORDER: This is a deletion discussion and can't just be a free for all of successive proposals.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 19:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's commonly done in deletion discussions. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 19:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to this extent.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 20:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Goes against a clear consensus to keep. meshach (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the above opposers seem to understand the definition of consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. Ask that their !votes be set aside unless they can come up with a better rationale. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 19:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been explained to you repeatedly, yes we do understand consensus. The actions of a tiny but vocal minority cannot be allowed to derail processes. This new attempt to invalidate the consensus smacks of desperation, and I really suggest you take a step back. → ROUX   ₪  20:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you do. We must agree to disagree on that. 20% of commenters is not a tiny minority. There's no "desperation" here. Wikipedia isn't something to get desperate about. I'm trying to find a compromise that commenter can live with. You've clearly demonstrated support for your point, and communicated that you are not willing to compromise. Message received. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 20:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No offence to you, Noraft, but it is indeed beginning to look like badgering, and on the issue of your interpretation of consensus, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. KaySL  talk 20:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. I don't understand the logic of being told something that I think is incorrect, then accused of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT because a half dozen people tell me, over and over. We can agree to disagree. If I tell you that the sky is green 10 times, and you still think it is blue, are you guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? The definition of consensus is in black and white. Very clear. Some people have said "Well that's not the way it works in practice." Others have said "Your viewpoint is not legitimate." I think the fact that the viewpoint is shared by 20% of commenters here, including a WMF employee pretty much makes it legitimate. If you don't agree, that's fine! This is all more information for the closing admin, when xe makes a consensus decision. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 20:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can disagree as much as you like. It doesn't change the fact that you are demonstrably wrong about how consensus works. You have handwaved aside the example of RFA, so let us consider another: topic or community bans raised at AN or AN/I. Consider this one. 15 people in support, one opposing. Not that far off the numbers here, as a matter of fact. Would you say there was no consensus for a topicban? Someone was opposing, after all. → ROUX   ₪  20:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I can only reiterate what was said before, Noraft: Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. Pretty much most if not all of the objections to the essay raised so far have been anything but legitimate, and generally based on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT-like mentality. Also, the fact that one of your fellows-in-viewpoint is a WMF employee doesn't really mean anything at all. Likewise, we could have Jimbo Wales backing us up here, but even he isn't right all the time; we have to follow the policies the community have agreed upon. KaySL  talk 20:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the WMF employee is entirely irrelevant. Unless they are acting as a representative of the Foundation, they are merely another editor on the site, no extra weight given to anything. → ROUX   ₪  20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ask that their !votes be set aside ..." - And they're the ones who don't understand consensus? Whatever happened to taking all viewpoints into account? Or does that only apply when the viewpoint is aligned with yours? Regardless, I would suggest you read more than that one sentence of the policy you keep quoting, specifically the one directly below it. "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken." Mr.Z-man 22:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I wonder if NOINDEX'ing the page would alleviate some concerns here? If you search 'don't give a fuck' on Google, this essay features prominently. As such, it could be mistaken for encyclopedic content - but it isn't. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you search "Don't give a fuck" on Google what would be the problem with this page appearing? meshach (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, it could be mistaken for encyclopedic content. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that the tag at the top would tip visitors off that it is an essay and not an article. meshach (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you give our readers too much credit =) – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be better than nothing. Right now, approximately 20% of commenters here oppose the status quo or would be fine with a move to meta. I think that is a very sizable minority and their views need to be addressed when consensus is decided. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, actually, they don't. Again, legitimate viewpoints need to be taken into account. IDONTLIKEIT is not a legitimate viewpoint. Could you, please, just get over it? I know how you feel; see the MfD for WP:NONCE, which I started. Consensus is very clearly against me... and do you see me throwing out endless proposals to try and get around the clear consensus there? Nope. That is because I understand how consensus works, and that sometimes we end up on the minority side. The bottom line is that no policies whatsoever are violated by this essay. So your views boil down to "waah, my delicate sensibilities." Which is not a legitimate argument and does not need to be taken into account. → ROUX   ₪  20:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But Don Quixote cannot be ignored!--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 20:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP:REICHSTAG applies here I think. → ROUX   ₪  20:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't guess at my motivations; you don't have any idea why I'm involved in this discussion. I actually don't care what happens to the essay. If you look back in its edit history, I've actually contributed to it. I think its great. HOWEVER, I don't like the Tyranny of the majority that has been going on with it. I don't think that those who have had something to say in opposition have been given a fair shake. Previous Mfd's on this article are misleading, as if one crank wants to delete it and the entire community loves it the way it is. I did this to set the record straight. This Mfd, whether it passes or fails, whether the page is moved or not moved, will stand to show that a significant number of editors do not like the status quo. It also shows that those who do are intractible. And we'll also get a real interesting lesson on the true meaning of consensus by whomever closes this Mfd. So I'm not here to stop WP:FUCK. I'm here to make sure the minority doesn't get stepped on. And it isn't POINTY, as I didn't start this Mfd. I've just argued my opinion. Now, I think I've said everything there is to say. I asked Jclemens a couple days ago to go ahead and close this when he was ready, and maybe he'll come in and do it now. Either way, I don't think I have anything new to add, nor have any other proposals (and really, folks, 2 proposals is not "endless proposals," let's cut back in the melodrama), so I think the closing admin has all the information they need to make a decision. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Um no. We will see a perfect example of how consensus works when this is closed as keep. Again, your misunderstanding of how consensus works--and I find it fascinating that you handwaved away one example and have refused to answer my other example--is not our problem. Frankly, it would be very interesting to watch how differently you think about things when you are on the majority side of consensus, but I have to wash my hair that night. → ROUX   ₪  20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just looked in here, to see why this should be "speedy keep" keeps appearing on my watch list. I see people going in circles - it's a "keep" by all of Wikipedia's rules. End of story - cut the crap and go write a page.   Giacomo   20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, taking minority viewpoints into account in consensus means we read what you had to say, considered it, and found no acceptable way to integrate your concerns into the topic of discussion (for example, with a move to "Don't-give-a-darnism" being actually a worse violation of the principles underlying NOTCENSORED than a delete), so no action is to be taken on the basis of your viewpoints. It happens. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually the best response I've seen yet! Hat's off to you. You're right! ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 06:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


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