CentralNotice/Request/Wiki Loves Pride 2019

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Loves Pride 2019[edit]

What is the purpose of the campaign? How will you measure the success of the campaign?[edit]

Description - Wiki Loves Pride 2019, supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ user group, is an expansion on previous years' Wiki Loves Pride campaigns. The campaign has a contest with three focus areas for Commons photography, and Wikipedia articles on art and health related to LGBT+ topics.

Metrics - At least 1,000 photographs to Commons, at least 100 articles to Wikipedia(s).

What banner(s) will you use? What will be your landing page?[edit]

Banners - variation on Special:CentralNoticeBanners/edit/wikiloveslove2019banner

Landing Page - Logged In Users: Wiki Loves Pride/2019, Anonymous Users: variation on c:Commons:Wiki Loves Love 2019

Is this project grant funded? Please provide a link[edit]

Type of grant -

Link to grant -

Discussion[edit]

I am with the LGBT+ group. I am only expecting support for this. This is a popular campaign which has happened in less organized form for years. I am seeing extra-interest in trying something more this year. Discussions are not indicative of the support of individuals or groups but having a Central Notice proposal on the public agenda of community meetings is a more formal sort of outreach and discussion than is typical, and I expect that everyone who manages the CentralNotice tools will appreciate the community process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  • The CentralNotice is heavily overused, and using it for yet another photo contest is not a good use, especially when we're talking about a global campaign across multiple languages. Oppose Oppose. --Yair rand (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Pharos: This proposal clearly did not get consensus supporting it, and you did not even post anything here before turning it on. Please revert. This is really not acceptable behaviour from a central notice administrator. --Yair rand (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose Oppose. Currently no consensus to implement this banner. The current coverage options are too broad (worldwide, in Wikipedia or Commons, in any language, for any reader of Wikipedia, including unregistered people, in any article, a lot of times). Please, remove the banner: there are no "Support" comments in the page (at the time when i typed this). ParticipantOfTheEncyclopedia (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose Oppose Please remove this immediately. Enigmaman (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Enigmaman, ParticipantOfTheEncyclopedia, and Yair rand: I do not want to press anyone too hard, and no one should feel obligated to do more, but if any of you or anyone you recruited would draft a policy on acceptable use for the CentralNotice then that would make these decisions easier. So far as I know, this is a resource that is available freely. I wish that if there were a decision making process then it could be objective. So far as I know, we do not have rules which make these things objective. I can speak for the two groups as listed above - they were generally supportive of this to the extent that the request is orthodox, photo contests are routine, and nothing is against the rules. I do not oppose removing it, but if it were removed, then I wish it could be because of a published standard. No published standard exists, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me there should be consensus established before putting up a site-wide notice. Enigmaman (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) Beyond CentralNotice/Usage guidelines and the outcome of the prior RfCs, no, there isn't. We have the requirement that (non-fundraising) CNs be backed by consensus, and there's pretty broad agreement that the CentralNotice should be used less frequently than it is now, but we don't have a clear set of individual types that should be cut down on. This is rather unfortunate. (In absence of any good way to tell what to keep, I've been arguing in opposition to every clearly non-essential (photo contests, editathons, contest winners, "editor bio", etc) banner with a very large audience for the past 1.5 years.) I agree we should have a more objective system for "budgeting" CN space (and I'd participate if anyone wanted to try and put one together). --Yair rand (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose I object to this socially divisive issue to be campaigned for so broadly on Wikimedia projects. Particularly the targeting of anonymous users (casual readers) who know nothing about Wikipedia the encylopedia and Wikimedia the movement is disturbing. I have reports about people who have seen the banner and come to a conclusion that Wikipedia takes a stand on this issue if it features it on its website and campaigns for it. Such readers can't be presumed to know that this is Wikimedia and not Wikipedia and that the banner does not reflect an official opinion of either Wikipedia or its authors. At the minimum, this should have been clearly communicated in it. In many countries including mine, the campaigned issues are subject of an ongoing debate in the society and I find it highly disturbing that this central notice is going to have the side effect of influencing that debate in favor of one of the opposing views, taking into account the impact of Wikipedia and the fact that without a clear disclaimer, it is necessarily going to be deemed taking a supportive stand towards the issue by the majority of the people who see it. Please stop the banner now or modify it accordingly. --Blahma (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose there are much more important things to use site wide banners for. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is being neutral and avoiding advocacy. Support for this divisive issue is clearly advocacy. You cannot have it both ways. Sometimeswrong (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose Please stop the banner now or modify it accordingly. Not neutral... advocating should have other place than Wikipedia banner... please remove ASAP. This issue is part of an ongoing socially divisive topic in many parts of the world (do not need to advocate for something happening only in the US or in California even).Giraldezjota (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support It's as political as "black history month". If you like to stay in wrong side of 20th century, have fun. Wikimedia belongs to 21st century. Amir (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This has absolutely nothing to do with what century you want to live in. Open your eyes. Enigmaman (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Your comment about "wrong side of 20th century" demonstrates perfectly how emotionally charged this topic is, and why the banner should not be at the top, or at the very least modified to be neutral. Epachamo (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose Prominent POV advertising on a NPOV site is clearly a conflict of interest, regardless of cause. In the interest of the integrity of Wikipedia's Five Pillars, I recommend that the present banner be deactivated until a neutral articulation is created. Concerned parties please tell me about about how I can contribute to get this issue elevated. Spirarel (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Support I fail to understand the basis of the flood of oppose votes, so unusual it's worth asking two questions:

Was anyone brought here through canvassing or a direct approach for their vote?
The objections appear to be that a global notice for an LGBT+ campaign is by its nature "not neutral", or that there is a "conflict of interest". Could those objecting making these claims provide some verifiable evidence please? If accepted at face value, without evidence, then the WMF cannot implement the agreed values in the future to ensure that the projects are "embracing human diversity".
Thanks! -- (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Re canvassing: I mentioned the discussion here after someone brought up the banner. However, this was after the process was already closed without any support, and I had already requested that the improper implementation without consensus be reverted. Guidelines required that the English Wikipedia receive a general notification of this CentralNotice request in advance, but this requirement was not followed by the proposer. --Yair rand (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Well that seems to explain the rush and timing of oppose votes that has biased discussion here. On the 20th June, you and @Enigmaman: criticised the LGBT+ central notice and linked to this !vote in the middle of the largest and most contentious discussion that anyone can recall in the last couple of years on the English Wikipedia. You then failed to mention here that you had done that. If you have done anything else that might be seen by others as canvassing, please add it to the section below.
This is very disappointing behaviour from established users. -- (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This is an outrageous accusation. I didn't canvass anyone. I didn't link to this on en.wiki. I merely mentioned a sitenotice that I noticed. That's not canvassing by any definition. What's disappointing is that A)This was put up without any support and that B)The person who put up the notice then ignored all messages regarding it. Enigmaman (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@: In my defense, the discussion period was technically over. I did not expect people to come comment. Had policy been followed, there would have been broad discussion after having notified enwiki via the VP, but it was not, so the discussion was closed with no support and one oppose, requiring that the banner not be enabled. --Yair rand (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I found this page after consulting the removed edits on the banner's talk page. I wasn't privy to any canvasing campaign. I suspect that the "flood" of oppose votes came from individual editors who also recognized that the banner's POV compromises the value of non-advocacy upon which Wikipedia is founded. @: You say you don't understand the basis of the number of votes. Do you see the arguments they are making? If you recognize the legitimacy of the observations, then the fact that the banner attracted so many comments quickly after going live could be explained simply as Wikipedia working as intended –upholding non-advocacy. Spirarel (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Those of us Wikimedians active around improving LGBT+ content on our projects understand perfectly well the opposing comments, and they have been rebutted as invalid perfectly well by others. We also see other things, like the non-coincidence of timing of almost all opposes happening after being flagged during the FRAMBAN discussion, the hostile off-wiki canvassing to vandalise the Commons project pages, which then happened as a torrent of homophobic abuse a matter of hours afterwards, and the fact that your account has made a total of 23 edits across all Wikipedia projects over 8 years, of which opposing WLP 2019 now represents 17%. Hopefully this case will be learned from by those with the tools and status to ensure that future projects can avoid being such soft targets. The tactic of "protect each other" is one that the WM-LGBT+ user group probably needs to become less shy of deploying. -- (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response, Fæ. I am in complete support of improving LGBT+ content on the site. I have read through the supporting comments here and they are largely based the historicity of "WikiLoves{subject}" being interpreted as call for further knowledge. This is not at all transparent in the articulation and largely depends on in-group knowledge of Wikimedia culture. This is hopefully more clear when used with other topics like, "WikiLovesGunOwners", "WikiLovesHeteronormativity", or "WikiLovesRemainers", which if perceived as "WikiLovesContentOnRemainers" is, from my vantage point, totally in keeping with the basic rules. This would, of course, transfer to WikiLovesPride. Unfortunately, that's not the common understanding of "Loves" which implies a sense of positive favor, not specified to knowledge. This is why in my first comment of opposition I moved that we deactivate until a neutral articulation can be found, which now seems to have been done addressing that question of POV. On your second point, edit history, however interpreted should not have any bearing on the legitimacy of your, my, or other's arguments; to deny such is to commit a rather egregious genetic fallacy. When I joined the platform, I was invited to uphold five simple rules and be bold; that's all I've done. Hopefully, together we can continue to discuss and refine our language to work towards a Wikipedia that holds fast to its principles. Spirarel (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
[Without commenting on the appropriateness of linking and/or mentioning from the Fram discussion in particular] I'd rather see this linked from more places. This is an obscure page. Most users would never think to go support a banner that's already appearing, much less find this subpage on Meta. The only people who are going to seek this out are the people who have a strong negative reaction to it. Ideally this just wouldn't be controversial, but once this turns into a support/oppose sort of thing, it deserves wider notice. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The guidelines required that the community be notified of the discussion (via Village Pump) at least seven days before the start of the campaign. This was not followed. --Yair rand (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems like there's canvassing going on as all of a sudden a number of users appeared out of nowhere to support it. Enigma (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Support I wasn't planning to !vote on this since the banner was already posted before I was aware of the existence of this page. But I am concerned that there are some claiming there is "unanimous" or "universal" opposition to this banner, which is simply not true. Promoting this campaign is neither PoV-pushing or political, it is simply inviting folks to contribute photos of the LGBTQ community. There are LGBTQ people in every country on the globe, whether the government of each country supports our existence or not. Funcrunch (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Support Whatever the procedure for the banner should be, I support the intention for exactly this reason. This drive seems the kind of effort we should be encouraging to support the significant knowledge gaps in Wikimedia content (on Commons and elsewhere) of people, places, events, issues... that are currently significantly under-represented. This doesn't feel like pushing POV at all, simply an invitation (as with many other kinds of content drives) to improve our projects. Anasuyas (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Support I don't see anything divisive and against Wikimedia principles. --★ → Airon 90 20:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Support Looks like I left this message in the wrong place (at enwiki VPP): In an effort to improve the encyclopedia, the community often organizes drives/initiatives regarding particular topics. Right now it's LGBT topics. We have lots of encyclopedia articles on LGBT topics which need improvement and/or illustration. We also like to illustrate our encyclopedia articles on monuments, holidays, etc. There are events dedicated to creating articles of women, of Asian artists, of suffragists, etc. Today's article for improvement [when I wrote this was] w:Bookworm (insect). Sometimes we have contests on particular subjects, like military history, or general contests to improve article quality like the WikiCup. There's Wiki Loves Africa, Wiki Loves Science, Wiki Loves Love... On the sillier side, there was even an initiative (not one organized by the community) to upload pictures of pigeons. Over on Commons, this month's contests are on "geology" and "keys and keyholes." Can't say I've seen any opposition to these other kinds of drives, but perhaps I wasn't looking in the right place. Surely LGBT topics are not unworthy of focused improvement? Because that's all that's being "advocated" here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The opposition isn't to the drive, but to the sitenotice, which was put up without respect for the process (and then the individual putting it up ignored repeated requests to explain it). I don't recall there ever being a sitewide notice about pigeons. Enigmaman (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • -Concur with Blahma's comments above. Epachamo (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • ... Wow, so, I don't know how to reply to this other to say that I hope this gives pause to others opposing this notice. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • My comment has been edited. My intent was not to associate LGBTQ+ with negative connotations, but to show how the phrase "Wiki loves X" can show unintended endorsements. I truly and sincerely apologize if this caused any hurt. Epachamo (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support It's important to add content about LGBTQ+ people and topics, because they exist. Just like monuments and earth and science exists - all WikiLoves topics which no one ever would bother to suggest is POV, because that would be absurd. The banners let people know about this drive so that they can contribute. Seems pretty simple. I find it hard to believe that those opposing are just looking for "respect for the process," but at any rate there is no nefarious POV plot afoot here to disrespect a process, just a bunch of people trying to communicate about a really useful collaboration drive. Siko (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Its not the drive, it s the sitenotice.
  • I oppose this for the same reason I oppose the WMF's actions regarding individual wikis and I resent your casting of aspersions. I have no point of view I am trying to push, and anyone can confirm that by viewing my extensive contributions. Enigma (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support strongly. Wikimedia is an inclusive movement and PRIDE is about including a huge number of people. There is no improper agenda in highlighting content about, just guessing here, 10% of humanity! If you're seriously objecting to content about literally seeking recognition and equality for other humans, please seriously consider what you are doing on a project designed to share the sum of all human knowledge! Ocaasi (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • John Adams represented the British Soldiers after the Boston Massacre, even though what they did was reprehensible. He did it out of the principle of a fair trial. Wikipedia must be principled if it is to retain credibility, and choose nPOV, no matter how good the cause. nPOV is sacred, above all else. Epachamo (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Talk about bad faith. Incredible. Enigma (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Enigmaman I don't want to speak for others here, but I don't think the thrust of these comments are directed at you or e.g. Yair rand. it does looks like there was a procedural oversight here, and, as far as I've seen, neither of you have voiced objections beyond that (and to be fair, a sitenotice is a big deal, so procedure matters). That said, there are many comments from other users that have joined you in opposition for reasons that have strong homophobic undercurrents to them. That's what has people upset, and that those opinions may have contributed to the banner being removed. Surely you can understand that. But let's focus on procedure. Could you or someone more familiar with this process than me (and/or with more rights than me, if necessary) take the ball and go through the proper process that we can perhaps advertise more widely over the next few days? There's still plenty of time left in the event, after all. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites: The requirements include the community being given seven days advance notice. This would presumably be via announcement at w:WP:VPR, and possibly the German, French, and Spanish equivalents. (The proposal at the top of this page says "multiple languages", and the banner was initially set for en/de/fr/es, but it was changed to just en at the time of launch. I'm unsure of which was the actual intended audience.) The announcement should probably include a link to what the proposed banner would look like ([1]), as well as stating the simple text. It might make sense to split off into a new request page, so that we can easily distinguish arguments about the initial problems with the process, from the actual merits of the campaign itself. --Yair rand (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes there is plenty of time left and I would welcome Pharos to respond and do this properly. If Pharos is going to continue to ignore everyone, we'll need someone else from the Wiki Loves Pride group to start the process. Enigma (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The support rationale from Ocaasi was not made in bad faith. It is a factual response to the prior claims of conflicts of interest and non-neutrality for a notice for the LGBT+ content campaign existing. Those claims have been made without evidence or sufficient explanation, yet even where the accounts making those oppose !votes have a dubious contribution background, or no background at all, their !votes have been taken at face value by a CN administrator, rather than assessed by the weight or veracity of the reasons given. This provides a handy route for anyone who does not like LGBT+ or other minority group content drives, to hijack discussion by flagging it as inappropriate during a discussion like FRAMBAN, then sitting back with a bucket of popcorn to enjoy the disruption and fireworks. Sorry, but what has happened here disgusts me, and the post-hoc "we were only following process" and hanging Pharos out to dry as a convenient punch bag, is glossing over the deeply unpleasant truth of how Wikimedia !votes can be used to show minority groups how they can still be made to feel unvalued and they are not welcome here. I hope that our LGBT+ user group allies within the WMF are following this example case closely, including @Varnent: and @Seddon (WMF):.
You [Enigmaman], along with the rest of us, should be working hard to correct this ugly carbuncle, not make up feeble excuses to let it happen again. -- (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I am awaiting your apology for accusing me of canvassing. I did no such thing, as you well know. If I wanted to canvass, I could easily find 25 extended confirmed accounts that agree that this was out of process and should be taken down. Enigma (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything wrong with this banner, and support its restoration. I don't see how this is any different from any of the other "Wiki Loves" events that get CN banners. Legoktm (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support I'm with Legoktm on this one. Praxidicae (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Very divisive. Erodes trust in Wikipedia's nPOV principles. Wikipedia should not be a platform to advocate social change. There are other platforms for that. Continuing this will turn off a significant portion of the readership (ironically the very readership who would probably benefit from reading the articles.). Epachamo (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support - I don't see anything wrong, minimally. This stuff has attracted some OTRS tickets with complaints; maybe someone can explain to me about how this is linked with pushing political views? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Seddon (WMF) said, "I've reduced the timing to July 1. After that I'll review in conjunction with the team about whether to extend to the original, whether improvements need to be made or to wrap up the banner component." I fully support this astute decision and the continuous improvement plans.
IMHO Wiki Loves Pride does not violate NPOV as explained by other editors earlier in this discussion. On the other hand, I bet the Wiki Loves Pride landing page baffled thousands of visitors who clicked the banner only to be flummoxed by the page's nearly incoherent content. I raised this concern on 19 Jun 2019 on the WikiProject LGBT Studies talk page: - Wiki Loves Pride 2019 currently lacks coherence & clarity. We've improved that landing page a bit since then, and there's still a lot of room for improvement. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion moved to discussion section in Special:Diff/19177688ToBeFree (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Central Notice admin comments[edit]

Comment Comment I've disabled the campaign, per [2] and a lot of opposes above. CentralNotice shouldn't be used if it isn't supported (or at least is not unopposed) by the community. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment Comment I've taken the decision to re-enable the campaign. The initial action by User:Martin Urbanec was fair given the usual relative calm these requests receive and that should be recognised. I fully recognise the concerns raised about over use of CentralNotice and I will make it a priority in the coming months to ensure that a conversation around CN usage is had. It's an important tool and we need to be sensible about it's usage, but I don't think that this particular campaign should face the cut by itself. I also want to note that some of the accounts in this thread seem to have questionable motives given their sporadic or limited activity.

To reflect the concerns raised, I've reduced the scope of the campaign geographically, specifically to target countries with planned pride parades over the next couple of weeks. I've reduced the timing to July 1. After that I'll review in conjunction with the team about whether to extend to the original, whether improvements need to be made or to wrap up the banner component. Traffic limiting and impression limiting had already been put in place along with a new more muted banner design. I've also replaced the messaging.

I've also updated the process which requests need to follow going forward where they will be required to notify both target projects and also geographic affiliates. This latter part is due to the key role that affiliates play in public relations work within their sphere of activities.

I will also be working over the next year to improve both the experience and hopefully effectiveness of CN campaigns to ensure their are fulfilling their role and purpose. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Seddon (WMF): User:Pharos has reverted your reduction of the geographic scope, and doubled the banner's traffic. This banner never received consensus, and the community was not notified of the proposal seven days in advance. --Yair rand (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This is not accurate. It is still geographic-limited, though I added a few more countries with active pride activities, and also bifurcated for a separate banner for logged-ins geared toward the writing contest (as originally planned), and sent a notice to Seddon. I certainly did not intend to change the traffic rate yesterday, and if that was my fault I apologize, and have reverted it now. The community has been notified on meta of this banner since early May, there was no intent to obscure it, but definitely for next time we will also get more notice beforehand on English Wikipedia, etc.--Pharos (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussions elsewhere about this notice[edit]

Creating this subsection to log places where this notice has been discussed, and may be a potential source of bias in the !vote. Please add to the list if you were attracted to this notice request because of a discussion elsewhere, including off-wiki. -- (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  • English Wikipedia: en:Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars#LGBT_adverts
  • English Wikipedia: Mention during "Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram"
  • English Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Encyclopedic Mission
  • English Wikipedia: en:User_talk:Giano#Commons_problems (archive link), includes openly homophobic and misogynist comments/"jokes" made 3 days ago by @Giano:, related to the Pride banner, with a number of "worthy" established Wikipedians, several administrators, failing to respond to correct this, including @RexxS, Johnbod, Bishonen, and Iridescent:. I am pinging you personally, to give you the opportunity to speak up and correct the impression that you are egging on or deliberately ignoring bigoted comments, designed to malign and demean LGBT+ Wikipedians, or indeed to rise to the challenge of considering a block for using Wikipedia for homophobic abuse. Thanks! -- (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    @: added "oldid" parameter to the archive link per signature timestamp (Special:Diff/19175864). Feel free to undo if that wasn't the intention. ToBeFree (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, how on earth do I come in to this? You're absolutely correct that indeed I "failed to respond" to a discussion between two people who have nothing to do with me on a page on which I last commented in March, but I have no idea why you feel I should have.Iridescent (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    Your response to blatant homophobic abuse directed at this LGBT+ project, and therefore us Wikipedians interested in improving LGBT+ content, is "nothing to do with me". You are one of six English Wikipedia sysops that actively took part in that same single thread on Giano's talk page that concluded with the abusive comments, obviously all six of you must have Giano's user talk page on your watchlists, naturally you may not have noticed the homophobic comments until I pinged you about them, you are still involved as you choose to help out with questions on Giano's personal talk page. It will be interesting to see if all six are prepared to refuse to take any action because it's "nothing to do" with you, considering you all wear the sysop hats and were voted to be trusted to comply with en:Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability. Thanks so much for your prompt reply here, at least we know the pings are working and that you personally are committed to ignoring this use of the English Wikipedia for homophobic abuse directed at other Wikipedians.
    Inviting @Ritchie333 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: as the remaining two administrators to comment or take positive action for that same problematic thread with blatant homophobic "jokes" that so many Wikipedians seem able to ignore, presumably because they find these jokes at the expense of others so very funny, particularly a parody of Giano's wife being a trans woman. -- (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    Administrators are never required to use their tools; administrator accountability applies to actions, not the lack thereof. You may like to point out the above points on the discussed user's talk page, and/or perhaps ask for administrative assistance at ANI, but complaining on metawiki without taking any enwiki action yourself seems to be an ineffective discussion approach to me. ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    As a past administrator on the English Wikipedia, I am aware of how this works and I have good reason to exhaust discussion here first, the home wiki of the LGBT+ project being abused. Per the policy this is a basic question of ethical use of the English Wikipedia and falls under "concerns of the community [...] other serious comments are sought". These named six administrators all appear to be friendly enough with Giano to chip in on discussions on their user talk page, and here are seen to chip in on the same thread where Giano has made a transphobic "joke" directed at this Wiki Loves Pride project. Now all six have been pinged asked for their personal view and whether they are going to now choose to tacitly support their pal Giano, or actually do something about blatant homophobic/transphobic jokes which are actually bigoted attacks against this project and LGBT+ Wikipedians. If the answer from all six is to do nothing, because it's "nothing to do with" them, then the LGBT+ User Group has an excellent case study to answer the question of genuine public interest, of whether the English Wikipedia community of administrators welcome LGBT+ projects and editors, or don't care if we are subject to harassment, because, you know, it's just fine to make transphobic jokes, and we should grow a thicker skin when it comes to anti-LGBT+ abuse being targeted at us.
    Thanks for your feedback, much appreciated. -- (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    Raised at Wikipedia's administrator's noticeboard. -- (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    As I said at the other page, I was puzzled by being pinged on this - firstly I've never been an admin, and secondly my only contribution to the section, 4 days before the joke or the section mentioning Pride at all, was: "There isn't really a procedure on Commons to rename a file - though I think an admin can do it. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)". Btw I didn't get the ping from this page for some reason. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    comment moved, indentation syntax fixed, indentation added, in Special:Diff/19177700ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Meta: User_talk:Yair_rand#CentralNotice_admin (discussion and multiple pings)
  • commons:Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2019#Central_notice_discussion
    • Commons: History of WLP2019 project talk page, linking as this was significantly abused, mostly from 20th June onwards, apparently by several sock accounts. Some participants in this !vote have commented on that Commons talk page and have had comments removed including Giraldezjota's only ever edit there
  • Commons: IP 174.22.222.220 has made just one other edit apart from their oppose vote here, criticising someone on their user talk page who supported the project diff
  • Meta: User_talk:Martin_Urbanec#WLP_2019_CN
  • Wikimedia LGBT+ monthly meeting